Graduate Student Use of Google as a Research Tool: A Study of Students’ Information Seeking Needs

Team 3:Crystal Hutchinson, Kelli Doubledee, and Yumi Ohira

July 9, 2011Emporia State University

LI 810A

Graduate students seek Internet information via??

Research Overview and Background

Research Problem Review of Literature

Why graduate students prefer Google over library databases when performing scholarly research on the Internet?

Why graduates students are turning to Google for their Internet seeking needs?

Research Problem

Google

1. Provides immediate access to Internet information.

2. Used to navigate the Internet and find relevant information.

3. Known for its simple search box and ease of use.

Library Databases and Course Reserves

1. Viewed as difficult to use.

2. Often have to search a database and worry if source will be available in full text or available through Interlibrary Loan.

3. Often requires a user to read a manual or help section to know how to search.

Google First Stop for Students Searching the

Internet

Students prefer to locate information or resources via a search engine above all other options, and Google is the search engine of choice” (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2002).

Results of 2002 study, “How Students Search: Information Seeking and Electronic Resource Use”: 64% used a search engine, 45% used Google, and only 10% used the University OPAC.

Google is search engine of choice and students may be unaware of other choices.

Cavus and Alpan (2010) revealed in their research that students can be unaware of other search engines, “In Near East University, Google is the most used search engine and Yahoo is the rarely used one but students generally have never heard of the rest of the search engines including Yahoo” (Results, Search Engine Usage of Students).

Connaway (2009) confirms that students will tend to use Google because they are part of the Net Gen who has grown up with technology and using the Google search engine as their information seeking tool (p. 2).

Google Wins Over Library Databases

Haglund and Olsson (2008) found that researchers tended to rely on Google because it was easy and the library was viewed as difficult to use. (p. 52)

Students use Google because it provides information that is immediately available. Google provides information that is a click away. Students have been raised in a digital environment and are used to immediate access to information.

Haglund and Olsson (2008) went on to expose disadvantages of library databases. They revealed a reliance on Google because of time and money.

Cavus and Alpan (2010) sought to explain students’ preference for Google over other search engines: “Most important criterion for users is number of retrieved correct results and also number of results because user interface is another important criterion, homepage style and result page style is important as well” (Conclusion and Discussion).

Blanton-Kent, B., Pappert, R., Smith, T. & Weimer, K. (2010, Oct.). Understanding the graduate research process: From concept to product. Paper presented at Library Assessment Conference on Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment, Baltimore, MD.

Graduate Student Characteristics in the Research Process - They want to find relevant results easily & efficiently. - They do not want to take advantage of the extensive potential of library databases. -They do not use the library web site extensively or explore new resources.

Rempel, H. G., (2010, Nov.). A longitudinal assessment of graduate student research behavior and the impact of attending a library literature review workshop. College & Research Libraries

“RESEARCH SKILLS” How to use the library’s web site & databases?

“Scholarly Use of Information: Graduate Students’ Information Seeking Behavior”

2006 study of graduate students

Similar to our research five years later

73% of Internet users use Google for information seeking purposes

(George, 2006)

Libraries React to Students’ Reliance on Google

Libraries are searching to come up with discovery tools that will satisfy users’ Google expectations.

Saffro (1994) predicted this change in information access, “The future belongs to neither the conduit or content players, but those who control the filtering, searching, and sense-making tools we will rely on to navigate through the expanses of cyberspace” (para. 5).

A single interface noted above is a silent reference to the power of the Google search box.

The ACRL Research, Planning and Review Committee noted the following trend for academic libraries in 2010:

Technology will continue to change services and required skills. Cloud computing, augmented and virtual reality, discovery tools, open content, open source software, and new social networking tools are some of the most important technological changes affecting academic libraries. As with mobile applications, these developments will affect nearly all library operations. Two exciting developments are OCLC’s new cooperative Web-scale library management services and discovery tools, which provide a single interface to multiple resources using a centralized consolidated index that promises faster and better search results than federated searching. (p. 289)

Research Aim and Questions

The goal of this research is to confirm graduate students’ preference for using Google over a library database when performing scholarly research on the Internet, and also explore why graduate students are turning to Google for their Internet information seeking needs.

Research Aim

Do graduate students use Google as an information seeking tool when performing scholarly searches?

Is Google a primary search tool or a complementary search option to using library databases and course reserves?

Why do graduate students choose Google over library databases and course reserves?

In what semester are the graduate students who claim to use Google for research?

Research Questions

At what point do graduate students use Google to find articles for their graduate school projects?

(First? Last? After trying library databases?)- What is the cause of this behavior?- Which results are they satisfied with?- Do they see a difference between Google results and Library Database results?

Do the graduate students see a difference between Google results and Library Database results?

Methodological Concerns

Research Paradigm Sampling Data Collection

Methods & Analysis Procedure

Ethical Considerations Limitations of the

Research

Research ParadigmQUANTITATIVE

Bryman (2008) describes quantitative research as, “entailing the collection of numerical data, as exhibiting a view of the relationship between theory and research as deductive and predilection for a natural science approach (and of positivism in particular), and as having an objectivist conception of social reality” (p. 140).

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH IS DEDUCTIVE

“Theory and the hypothesis deduced from it come first and drive the process of gathering data” (Bryman, 2008, p. 9).

In our study, we are setting forth to quantify how many and why graduate students at ESU prefer Google over library databases.

Quantitative researchers are rarely concerned merely to describe how things are, but are keen to say why things are the way they are” (Bryman, 2008, p. 156).

Our concept defined is preference of Google over library databases as a means of searching for scholarly information.

Our indicators are time, ease of use, interface design, availability of full text documents, and generation age.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH IS CONCERNED WITH CAUSALITY

Positivism asserts that methods of research which apply to the natural world are considered applicable to the social world.

“A particularly central issue in this context is the question of whether the social world can and should be studied according to the same principles, procedures, and ethos as the natural sciences” (Bryman, 2008, p. 13).

POSITIVIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITION

Bryman (2008) defines objectivism as an, “ontological position that implies that social phenomena confront us as external facts that are beyond our reach or influence” (p. 18).

We construct our quantitative research free of bias or control.

Our survey will be administered by email and without interaction between the researchers and graduate students.

SOCIAL ONTOLOGY=OBJECTIVISM

Quantitative Data Collection:

◦ Unit of Analysis- Emporia State University Graduate Students All Graduate School Departments

◦ Field Test- Twenty-five students

◦ Random SampleMore specifically, Probability Sample

Research Design

Our Study

◦Quantitative Framework Questionnaire state:

“Graduate students use Google when researching for scholarly research”

◦“Reliable & Valid Sample” from ESU graduate students

Email all 1600 Graduate Students at Emporia State University.

◦ Goal of 300 responses-will send reminder notices to graduates every week for 3 weeks for largest response goal. If there is less than 300 responses, will consider extending the data

collection period.

◦ Email will include link to a survey through http://app.fluidsurveys.com/

◦ Actual survey can be viewed at URL: http://app.fluidsurveys.com/surveys/crystal-R/team-3-research-survey/

◦ This website will also perform data analysis, which will help in the data collection and analysis.

Survey:

SURVEY RESULTS EXAMPLE

Human Participants Participant ----- ESU Graduate StudentsApproval from the MLS Program Director and the graduate department

The Institutional Review Board for Treatment of Human Subjects

http://www.emporia.edu/research/irb.htm

Major Principals ◦ Harm◦ Informed Consent◦ Privacy◦ Deception

Ethical Considerations

The participants will be fully knowledgeable about the purpose of our research; its process involving these participants; and the values of our research.

The participants will be informed that participation is

voluntary; they can refuse to answer any of the questions; they can discontinue the survey at any time without penalty or risks; and they can withdraw their data from the survey within a certain period of time.

The expected duration of the survey participation will be described to the participants.

The participants will be able to implement the survey at anytime and anywhere via an email. The survey should not disturb their daily lives.

The questionnaires should not include questions that offend the participants. Any possibility of injury should not be allowed on the survey questionnaires.

The participants’ data will be collected with confidentiality.

The participants will remain anonymous. Because the participants’ data will be collected through an online survey tool, FluidSurveys, the participants do not need to provide any personal information. The survey will be designed so as to acquire only personal information essential to our research.

Researchers’ contact information will be provided to the participants. The participants may ask the researchers about any issues related to the research.

As quantitative researchers, we also…

◦consider various types of data implementing the survey.

◦protect all data against misuse by the participants.

◦do not overstate the accuracy of the data.

◦ inform potential users of our results of the limits of reliability, validity, and objectivity of the data collection.

Anticipate 300 returned surveys Not obtrusive data No follow up

Factors include◦ Reliability-Are the results of this research

repeatable?◦ Validity-Does the survey represent the concept we

are trying to research?◦ Objectivity- Is there as little personal bias as

possible during this research? External permission from program director

Assumptions/Limitations

Research Significance Research Benefits

Benefit of Our Research

◦Libraries

◦Information Technology Specialists

◦Database Vendors

Contribution

Conclusion

“Why do graduate students who approach the research process prefer to use Google rather than to employ library databases?”

Our Quantitative Research (Field Test, Large Sample, Likert Scale Questions, Allowance for Human Error)

- Reliability- Validity- Objectivity- Replicability

Support the development of library information services.

Conclusion

References

ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2010). 2010 top ten trends in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries News, 71(6), 286-292.

Blanton-Kent, B., Pappert, R., Smith, T. & Weimer, K. (2010, Oct.). Understanding the graduate research process: From concept to product. Paper presented at Library Assessment Conference on Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment, Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/blanton-kent_beth.pdf

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. (3rd ed.). New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Cavus, N., & Alpan, K. (2010, Oct.). Which search engine is the most used one among university students? Paper presented at the International Science and Technology Conference, Famaqusta, Cyprus. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED517972.pdf

Connaway, L. S., Radford, M. L., & Williams, J. D. (2009). Engaging Net Gen students in virtual reference: Reinventing services to meet their information behaviors and communication preferences. In D. M. Mueller (Ed.), Pushing the edge: Explore, extend, engage: Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, March 12-15, 2009, Seattle, Washington, 10-27. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2009/connaway-acrl-2009.pdf]

ESU Research and Grants Center. (n.d.). Guidelines for research, demonstration and related activities involving human subjects and university policy statement. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.emporia.edu/research/irb.htm

FluidSurveys [Online survey tool]. Retrieved from http://fluidsurveys.com/

George, C. A., Bright, A., Hurlbert, T, Linke, E. C., St. Clair, G., &Stein, J. (2006). Scholarly use of information: Graduate students' information seeking behavior. Library Research and Publications. Paper 21. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/lib_science/21

Haglund, L., & Olsson, P. (2008). The impact on university libraries of changes in information behavior among academic researchers: A multiple case study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 52-59. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.11.010

Jones, K. (2000). A regrettable oversight or a significant omission? Ethical considerations in quantitative research in education. In: H. Simons and R. Usher (Eds.), Situated Ethics in Educational Research. London: Routledge. (pp. 147-61). Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/26792/1/Jones_ethics_in_quant_methods_2000.pdf

Jones, S. (2002). The internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology. Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project Website: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2002/PIP_College_Report.pdf

Manchester Metropolitan University. (2002). How students search: Information seeking and electronic resource use (Research Report No. EDNER-8). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED470057.pdf

Rempel, H. G., (2010, Nov.). A longitudinal assessment of graduate student research behavior and the impact of attending a library literature review workshop. College & Research Libraries, 71(6), 532-547. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/71/6/532.full.pdf+html

Saffro, P. (1994, March). It's the context, stupid. Wired, (2.03). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/context.html