The Web, Students, Research, and Libraries

How students use the web Impact of student web use on research Implications for libraries Critical thinking for librarians

How Students Use the Web: What the Studies Show

First stop for research Strategies, behaviors, ominous signs Evaluation Misconceptions

First Stop for Research

Lubans (1997 - )– Library’s gatekeeper role shared with search

engines, class web pages, favorite sites– .Increasing proportion of student research from non-

traditional library sources– Students go to Web first, although 75% use

traditional library sources as supplement Reference desk and librarians more isolated from research

process – last to ask about Web

Some stats

– 1997: 50% got 20% research from Web, 80% from traditional library sources (OPAC, databases)

– 1999: 33% pre-college students verified above ratio– 1999: 2nd semester freshmen - 57% get 50% from

Web, 50% traditional– 2000 – Shippensburg – 76% of students go to

Yahoo first when starting research, then library– Kibirige - search engines preferred tool for 84% of

students (4 NYC colleges, 2000)

Strategies: two student assumptions

Web contains “everything”

– Why research starts in directories or search engines

– Why topics are changed rather than search strategies if no information found

– Why Web has priority over the library

Strategies: two student assumptions: looking for answers

Research involves looking for “answers” – Adapt question to the information available on Web– Accept information uncritically if it answers

questions; do not sift judgmentally or consciously look for verification

– “Answer mindset” encourages surfing, skimming vs. analysis, simplicity vs. ambiguity, superficiality over depth

– Students find things, content, reinforcing Web’s value in their eyes

Behaviors

Scan sites quickly, rarely scroll to bottom of page Judge relevance by what’s on top of screen Let retrieved items determine relevance Non-linear searching – promote serendipity and distraction,

wasted time, fruitless site hopping, poor concentration, thought

Unable to limit results, increase relevance Too much material means students fail to continue

investigations to logical end – use what comes first, regardless of how it shapes study.

Ominous signs

Links used less often than thought: move no more than 4/5 links from landmark site

If they scroll to bottom of page (rare), more rarely do they scroll to bottom of site

Spend little time on content (31%/content, 69%/search results, Solowey, middle school)

Rarely read content online even when relevant Not as intellectually engaged or thoughtful as

expected, task-oriented rather than seek understanding

Evaluation

Top criteria– Validation from other/print source– Graphics, appearance (professional looking)– How much content– Referred to by teachers, peers– Authorship, dates– URL gov/edu domains– Links to other sites

General attitude– 43% rate web 4/5 for trust, 43% rate 3 (healthy balance)– Authoritativeness: 50% say 3, 25% 4/5, and 25% ½– 1998 study: 50% trust web, 35% trust TV, newspapers

Evaluation

Lubans and Shippensburg study affirm:– Undergrads think critically about site trustworthiness– Ranked order of criteria

Based on print source – 67% URL has edu, gov, org Referred by peers, teacher Ownership is clear

Other findings contest this based on examination of student research papers

Frequent Misconceptions

Web is easy to use– Lubans: 60% rated self good, better, or best in using

the Web– Shippensburg: 79% rate Web ability as good to

excellent Web is up-to-date, reliable

– Lib sci students: 87% found answers but 47% incorrect; 77% confident no errors since expected Web to be current.

Frequent misconceptions

Search engines, directories, databases same– Little knowledge of engine, directory sizes, coverage– Confuse copyright and non-copyright databases

Web has it all, if it’s not there, it’s nowhere

Impact of Student Web Use on Research

Decline in research paper quality?– Blumberg, Grimes– Herring, Knowlton– Leibovich, Rothenberg, Schaffner

More full-text but less diversity?– Jackson– Valentine

Decline in Research Paper Quality?

Law of least effort: Web wins, Library loses– Too many sources from Web search engines – Students unwilling to make effort at evaluation

Unevaluated, out of date, disappearing, untraceable

Fewer books, quality journal articles

Decline in Research Paper Quality?

– More data (some suspect, frequently unverified in other sources), but less thought, originality

– More cutting, pasting, plagiarizing, less writing quality

– More pictures and graphs, unattributed quotes– Reading, understanding replaced by quips, blips,

pictures, summaries

More full-text but less diversity

1999 Mercer University study– Convenience more important variable than quality

influencing which journals used– Full-text availability led to decline in use of scientific

studies, from 27% to 15% Valentine

– Resources for papers inferior– Reliance on full-text avoids ILL, restricts access– Often too many references from same journal

Implications for Libraries

Marginalization of library and librarians What students want What students need What librarians need

Marginalization

Most searching in dorms or labs, less access to librarians, ref desk less active, less reliance on library selected resources

Reference desk transactions 1991-1999 (Duke) Decline from 71,403 annually to 32,102 Cost per question rises from $2.68 to $4.65

Lubans; students learn about Web from search engines, surfing, other students, last – librarians (9%).

Marginalization

Whitmire (Wash State) 3 yr study of 1,000 students:– Increase in use of Web, databases, reading in ref, browsing– Declines in OPAC use– Biggest decline in asking librarians for help

Desposito– library evokes old, books, journals, difficult, reliable, historical,

scholarly (note even librarians remove “libri” – cybrarian)– Web – new, technology, cutting-edge, easy, quick, efficient,

high rate of success

What students want from librarians

77% - digital finding aids 65% - rate search engines 93% - live links from OPAC, rate Web sites Most want library Web page as portal to

research– Payette, Zemon (MyLibrary, personal web space)

42% - one on one instruction not important 36% - classes not worthwhile

What students need

Learn how to evaluate Web sources Learn limitations of Web search engines

– Difference between contents of commercial databases and Web databases with non-copyright protected information

Learn how to search, how to limit and increase relevancy

Guidance and pressure to incorporate valuable non-digitized sources into research

What librarians need

Closer collaboration with faculty to improve student research, prevent deterioration

Instruction for faculty and students about Web Membership on learning ship: presence where

users are (near and distant): promote integrated info seeking environment (research, services, computing)

What librarians need

Develop library portals where students will go before search engines

Provide guidance to quality Web resources via OPAC, finding aids, specialized user services

Critical Thinking for Librarians

Countering negative trends Thinking outside the technology box: don’t be

‘terminally correct” (TC) Face realities Restore balances, reaffirm goals

Countering negative trends

Become more judgmental– Reject consumer model of giving customer what he

wants– Assert standards, shape practices, change user

behavior

Countering negative trends

– Reject cyberspace tendency to level authoritativeness of sources, depreciate book, promote facts over ideas (sources, ideas, knowledge not equal, require discrimination)

– Uphold value of concentration, lingering, thinking, paging (codex vs. scroll), understanding, appreciating that comes from experience of profound texts available in the library – get more book-centered

Think outside the technology box: don’t be “terminally correct” (TC)

– All formats equally important:; low regard for books as more important in hierarchy of awareness (data, info, knowledge, understand, wisdom)

– Tacit message real libraries unnecessary – distance ed without visit or understanding of real library is acceptable

Think outside the technology box: don’t be “terminally correct” (TC)

– Illusion - electronic formats will replace print – even where flourish they are turned into print if over 500 words

– Utopian idea - copyright restrictions will vanish, all information will be freely accessible on web to all at anytime

– Library unnecessary as on-ramp to Web – downgrades classified book collections, upholds search software over librarians

Face realities

Copyright an economic necessity, here to stay, problem is piracy

All info will not be available to all, anywhere, anytime – and that’s why we have libraries

Web boxed by restrictions on what it can mount that will not go away

Library is niche for info and knowledge that cannot be filled by the Web and that is superior to Web

Embracing technology as new center of information solar system will leave libraries and librarians in dust, damage our cultural values

Restoring balances, reaffirming goals

Broaden presence in network without sacrificing library’s mission

Affirm technology as an addition, a supplement to traditional concerns (books, knowledge, wisdom, liberal arts)

Reject technology as a transformation of those values with narrow focus on access to information, data

Restoring balances, reaffirming goals

Restore balance for online and print; emphasis on online is restrictive, negates wealth of knowledge in print, likely to remain so and available now in libraries

Affirm: facility to surf is no substitute for struggle to understand; research difficult, involves going back again and again, testing, sifting, drawing own conclusions

Consider: Web may be better for simple questions, specific answers, statistics, raw data than open-ended research which requires quality, in-depth sources

Restoring balances, reaffirming goals

Refocus on the value of the book in accordance with its importance in the learning process, the liberal tradition, and in society (note rising book production and sales)

Keep administrators aware of need for traditional print sources so they provide print budgets

Ponder: the paradox that the more librarians embrace technology (as center of information universe), less relevant libraries become in the eyes of students