learning in an academic contextdagda.shef.ac.uk/dispub/dissertations/2007-08/... · learning in an...
TRANSCRIPT
LLeeaarrnniinngg iinn aann AAccaaddeemmiicc CCoonntteexxtt
A study submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Librarianship
at
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
by
KATH WILLIAMS
September 2008
ii
AAbbssttrraacctt
BBaacckkggrroouunndd:: This study builds on previous research into the effects of academic
context on students’ approach to studying, by considering the various ways in which
students engage with and use information (i.e. their information behaviour).
Understanding the underlying factors behind information behaviour is essential if
students are to develop essential skills in information literacy.
AAiimmss:: The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between academic context,
study approaches and information behaviour.
MMeetthhooddss:: This study uses a mixed methods approach. Firstly, a quantitative inventory
was used to assess the extent to which participants’ study approach may be classified as
deep, surface or strategic. Secondly, a small number of qualitative interviews were
conducted in order to explore the ways in which students learn and use information in an
academic context. The qualitative interviews formed the main focus of the study.
RReessuullttss:: The academic context in which students learn is one of many factors affecting
their overall study approach, conception of learning and motivation. In addition,
students’ approach to studying may affect their attitude towards information-seeking, as
well as the success with which they retrieve relevant information.
CCoonncclluussiioonn:: It is concluded that the academic context in which students learn is one of
many factors which affects their overall approach to studying, and ultimately, their
information behaviour. Context alone cannot account for the complex and multifaceted
ways in which students approach the task of learning and using information.
iii
AAcckknnoowwlleeddggmmeennttss
I would especially like to thank Professor Nigel Ford for all his guidance and support
throughout the study, and for allowing me the freedom to pursue my own interests.
Thanks also to Peter Holdridge for lending his technical expertise, and to Andrew
Madden for meeting with me and helping me through the final stages of my dissertation.
Finally I would like to say thank you to all the participants who took part in this study,
and to my mum, who produced the illustration of deep and surface learning provided in
Appendix A.
iv
TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………....iii
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………...iv
1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………....1
1.1 Background to the study……………………………………………………...1
1.2 Rationale...…………………………………………………………………....3
1.3 Research questions……………………………………………………….......3
1.4 Outline of the dissertation……………………………………………………4
2: Literature Review.....................................................................................................5
2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..5
2.2 Approaches to studying………………………………………………………6
2.2.1 The context of learning……………………………………………..6
2.2.1.1 Preferences for different styles of teaching……………..10
2.2.1.2 Conceptions of learning………………………………...10
2.2.2 Consistency versus variability…………………………………….11
2.2.2.1 Motivation…………………………………………….…11
2.2.2.2 Personality………………………………………………12
2.3 Information Behaviour……………………………………………………...14
2.3.1 The context of information behaviour: users vs. systems…………14
2.3.2 The information behaviour of students……………………………15
2.4 Approaches to studying and information behaviour………………………..16
2.4.1 Ford et al. ………………………………………………………...16
2.4.2 Heinström…………………………………………………………18
2.5 Metacognition: an emerging research agenda………………………………21
v
3: Methodology............................................................................................................22
3.1 Theoretical approach………………………………………………………..22
3.2 Sample………………………………………………………………………23
3.3 Methods of investigation……………………………………………………25
3.3.1 Quantitative inventory…………………………………………….25
3.3.2 Qualitative interviews……………………………………………..26
3.4 Limitations…………………………………………………………………..27
3.5 Ethical considerations……………………………………………………….28
3.6 Data analysis………………………………………………………………...29
3.6.1 Quantitative inventory…………………………………………….29
3.6.2 Qualitative interviews……………………………………………..29
4: Results………………………………………………………………………………31
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………31
4.2 Quantitative inventory…………………………………………………….32
4.3 Qualitative interviews……………………………………………………..34
4.3.1 Approaches to studying…..……………………………………….34
4.3.1.1 Perceptions of the learning environment……………….34
4.3.1.2 Conceptions of learning………………………………...40
4.3.1.3 Previous experiences……………………………………42
4.3.1.4 Motivation………………………………………………43
4.3.2 Information behaviour………….…………………………………46
4.3.2.1 Attitudes towards information-seeking………………….46
4.3.2.2 Patterns of information-seeking………………………...51
4.3.2.3 Serendipitous information-seeking……………………...54
4.3.3 Metacognition..................................................................................54
vi
5: Discussion…………………………………………………………………………57
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………57
5.2 In what ways do students approach studying?...............................................58
5.3 To what extent does learning in an academic context affect students’
approach to studying?...........................................................................................58
5.4 To what extent does students’ approach to studying affect their information
behaviour?............................................................................................................62
5.5 Metacognition……………………………………………………………….65
6: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………66
6.1 Pedagogical implications……………………………………………………67
6.2 Recommendations for further study………………………………………...68
References…………………………………………………………………………….69
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………78
1
11.. IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn
1.1 Background to the study Research into student learning is vast and has been conducted over many decades.
Despite this, it still attracts a great deal of attention in the literature. One particular
strand of research dating back to the 1970s has examined the various ways in which
students approach the task of studying. This research grew out of the realisation that
students often approach the same task in different ways, thus leading to different
learning outcomes (Marton and Säljö, 2005). This led to the notion of study approaches
(also referred to in the literature as approaches to studying or approaches to learning),
which is defined by Ford (2004 : 194) as “…characteristic ways in which different
individuals approach the task of learning”. The three main study approaches are deep,
surface, and strategic, and they represent well established concepts in the literature on
student learning. Students who adopt a deep approach to studying attempt to understand
the information they encounter, and perceive themselves as:
“…creators of knowledge who have to use their capabilities to make critical
judgements, logical conclusions and come up with their own ideas” (Marton
and Säljö, 2005: 43)
Students who adopt a surface approach to studying characteristically perceive learning
as a process of memorisation. Metaphorically speaking, they are “empty vessels” to be
filled with knowledge (Marton and Säljö, 2005: 43). Finally, strategic learners employ
either a deep or surface approach to studying, “…as deemed appropriate to achieving
academic success” (Ford, 2004: 194). A deep approach, with its emphasis on the
facilitation of full understanding, is therefore aligned with the goals of Higher
Education, and is thought to lead to improved learning outcomes (Entwistle, 2001;
Wilson and Fowler, 2005).
2
Some researchers in the field of student learning have explored how the environment or
context in which students learn might affect their approach to studying. Indeed, as
Tickle (2001 : 955) states:
“The development of student learning as a distinct research area owes much
to the realization that the general laws of learning could not explain the
specific learning behaviour exhibited within an academic environment”
However, rather than describing the various features of “departmental context”, it is
essential to focus on how students actually perceive their environment (Ramsden and
Entwistle, 1981: 369). The relationship between academic context and approaches to
studying is therefore indirect (Ramsden, 1988). As will be seen in section 2.2.1 below,
research in this area has produced varied results. However, it is generally agreed that an
excessive workload, inappropriate assessment methods and a lack of freedom in learning
may encourage students towards a surface approach (Marton and Säljö, 2005).
More recent years have seen the notion of study approaches being introduced into
the literature on information behaviour. However, research in this area tends to focus on
the notion of individual differences (Ford et al. 2003; 2005a; 2005b). Study approaches,
therefore, are mostly considered as representing fairly consistent differences in how
students learn (Ford et al., 2003). Furthermore, Heinström focuses on the motivational
aspect of study approaches, which are thought to represent relatively consistent
differences in students’ overall study orientation (Heinström, 2006b). The present study
therefore aims to contribute towards the current literature on student learning and
information behaviour by considering the potential impact of academic context.
3
1.2 Rationale The aim of this study is to examine the potential impact of academic context on
students’ approach to studying, with particular emphasis on information behaviour. This
is arguably of particular relevance within the field of information studies, in which
students are taught to engage with information in specific ways. Furthermore, the
wealth of information now available to students when researching coursework
assignments, as well as the need to develop skills in information literacy, are key themes
often cited in the literature. As Heinström (2006b) states, “Information literacy
education is central for students as a building block for functioning citizenship in an
information rich world”. It is therefore of key importance that we understand as fully as
possible the various ways in which students engage with and use information
(Heinström, 2006b). Furthermore, given the current focus on the people involved in
information behaviour (i.e. as opposed to information systems), “…a holistic exploration
of users’ information habits is called for” (Heinström, 2005: 229). In summary, this
study aims to develop existing research in the field of educational informatics, and is
therefore highly relevant to key trends in both education and information studies.
1.3 Research questions The principle research question is as follows:
To what extent does learning in an academic context affect students’
approach to studying and information behaviour?
The above research question will be answered through consideration of the following
sub-questions:
In what ways do students approach studying?
To what extent does learning in an academic context affect students’ approach to
studying?
To what extent does students’ approach to studying affect their information
behaviour?
4
1.4 Outline of the dissertation Having introduced details of the research topic and set out the principle research
questions, the remainder of the dissertation will be organised as follows:
Chapter 2 (Literature Review): A review of the key literature relating to study
approaches and information behaviour. The literature review continued until the
latter stages of the research, and so includes key themes identified through
preliminary analysis of the data. This section also includes a brief description of the
literature review itself, including the processes involved in searching for and
retrieving relevant information.
Chapter 3 (Methodology): A description of the methodology employed
throughout the research. This includes the theoretical approach, sample, methods of
investigation, limitations, ethical considerations and data analysis.
Chapter 4 (Results): An outline of the key findings from the research.
Chapter 5 (Discussion): The key findings of the present study are discussed in
relation to the previous literature on student learning and information behaviour.
Chapter 6 (Conclusion): An overall conclusion to the research is provided, in
addition to a series of pedagogical implications and recommendations for further
study.
5
22.. LLiitteerraattuurree RReevviieeww
2.1 Introduction This section contains a review of key literature relating to study approaches and
information behaviour. The review also considers theoretically related concepts such as
metacognition. It is important to note that the literature review continued until
approximately four weeks before the final submission deadline. The ideas and concepts
it represents therefore evolved as the research progressed. The evolving relationship
between the initial research questions and the corresponding information needs of the
researcher are represented in the form of mind maps (see Appendix B). These mind
maps were created at various stages throughout the dissertation as part of the
researcher’s overall participation in a study of metacognition and information behaviour
at the Department of Information Studies.
Due to the wealth of available literature relating to the research topic, it was
important to devise a thorough search-strategy and keep a detailed record of any
searches performed. The search-strategy or plan included a list of all the topics to be
covered and any potential keywords. Search results from different journal websites and
subject databases were cross-referenced so as to avoid duplication and the perils of
information overload. This also helped to determine when the literature search had
reached saturation point. Depth of coverage was also an important consideration. For
instance, the research questions outlined in Chapter 1 do not explicitly state which
aspects of information behaviour are to be considered. This is principally due to the
inductive nature of the research, and the desire to pursue those topics which become
evident during the qualitative interviews. Therefore, towards the beginning of the
research, the topic of information behaviour was not considered in any depth. Instead,
the researcher focused on achieving a broad overview of some of the key concepts. As
the process of data collection progressed, other key concepts emerged which were not
anticipated by the researcher, and which formed the basis of later searches.
6
2.2 Approaches to studying A basic introduction to the notion of study approaches was provided in Chapter 1. This
section of the literature review will therefore discuss in greater detail the various features
of study approaches which have been examined over the years, and how they relate to
the current research. It is important to reiterate that the literature relating to study
approaches is extremely voluminous and has been carried out over several decades.
Therefore, the studies mentioned in this literature review represent those which are
considered to be of key importance, but are by no means comprehensive. The wealth of
information regarding study approaches is no doubt a testament to its perceived
importance, and the problems associated with devising an exhaustive model of student
learning. As will become apparent, the various ways in which students approach the
task of learning are complex and multifaceted, and will perhaps never be fully
understood.
2.2.1 The context of learning
One particular strand of research into student learning has looked at the potential impact
of academic context. This area of research grew out of the realisation that differences
between learning tasks could not fully account for the apparent variation in students’
approach to studying (Ramsden and Entwistle, 1981). Rather, the approaches students
adopt are also dependent on the context in which learning takes place (Fransson, 1977;
Laurillard, 1979; Ramsden, 1979).
The phrase academic context refers to the environment in which students learn,
and includes such things as “…institutional practices, assessment methods, the skills and
attitudes of faculty, and the kinds of learning tasks encountered” (Ramsden, 1988: 159).
As Entwistle (1992) observes, the very nature of studying in a formal academic context
means that students are not afforded total freedom in learning, and are instead subject to
various constraints. This is further emphasised in the following quote by Entwistle
(2001 : 599):
7
“In everyday studying, time constraints and competing pressures often
prevent students from completing the processes which lead to full
understanding, even when the intention is deep”
However, the relationship between academic context and approaches to studying is
indirect, insofar as it depends on how each individual student perceives their learning
environment (Ramsden, 1988). Some students, for example, may study in such away as
to meet the demands of a hidden curriculum, which most likely does not represent the
actual expectations or desires of teaching staff (Ramsden, 2005). The academic context
in which students learn may also exert a positive influence via, for example, effective
teaching and sufficient freedom in learning (Ramsden, 1988; Ramsden, 2005). It has
been found, for example, that students who adopt a deep approach have a predominantly
positive course perception (Ramsden, 1992, cited in Diseth et al., 2006). Furthermore,
Dart et al. (1999 : 137) found a significant relationship between a deep study approach
and a perception of the learning environment as “highly personalized” and
“encouraging”.
Ramsden and Entwistle (1981 : 370) sought to further explore this relationship
by determining “…the extent to which approaches to studying can be explained in terms
of students’ perceptions of their courses”. Results of a large-scale student survey
indicated variation in study approach both between and within different academic
disciplines. Ramsden and Entwistle (1981 : 381) were able to conclude that a deep
approach to learning may be facilitated through “good teaching”, “greater freedom in
learning” and “avoidance of overloading”. Conversely, those students who feel
constrained by their environment or are subject to a heavy workload may tend towards a
surface approach.
Research investigating the effect of academic context on students’ approach to
studying continues to flourish, perhaps because the exact nature of the relationship is as
yet unclear. Both Lizzio et al. (2002) and Diseth et al. (2006), for example, sought to
explore the relationship between students’ course experiences, study approaches and
8
academic achievement. The principle aim of Lizzio et al.’s (2002 : 32) study was to
determine whether “…good teaching and effective course design can positively
influence, or ‘deepen’, students’ approaches to the curriculum and academic outcomes”.
Results indicated that positive perceptions of the learning environment (i.e. in the form
of effective teaching methods and appropriate forms of assessment) do in fact facilitate a
deep approach to studying, thereby leading to improved academic outcomes. However,
this finding is contradicted by the results of Diseth et al.’s (2006 : 156) study, which
showed no “mediator effect” between course experience, approaches to studying and
academic achievement.
Wilson and Fowler (2005 : 87) investigated the study approaches of students
enrolled on both a conventional and an “action learning” course. The latter is
characterised by project work, student collaboration and “critical reflection”, as opposed
to more traditional teaching methods involving lectures and tutorials (Wilson and
Fowler, 2005: 91). This study was based on the premise that greater student
involvement can play an important role in facilitating a deep approach. The authors
found that “variations in design components” may have less of an impact on meaning-
orientated students, in that they remain consistent across contexts (Wilson and Fowler,
2005: 95). Conversely, students who tend to adopt a surface approach may be
influenced towards the use of deep study strategies, although this does not appear to be
accompanied by a shift in their underlying motive (see section 2.2.2 for a more in-depth
discussion of student’s study motivations). A post-study focus group revealed that the
increased use of deep study strategies in the action learning course represented a
strategic shift on the part of students (i.e. academic achievement in the action-learning
course was perceived as involving a larger degree of engagement with the course
material and fellow students).
However, the conclusions Wilson and Fowler (2005) draw from their study are
contradicted by Diseth et al.’s (2006 : 165) finding that:
9
“…the adoption of a surface approach is particularly influenced by the
learning environment as perceived by the students, whereas deep and
strategic approaches to learning may be more accounted for by student
characteristics”
Furthermore, Dochy et al. (2006 : 279) examined “the effects of the teaching/learning
environment” on students’ approaches to studying by comparing “lecture based” and
“student-activating” settings. Contrary to expectation, the student-activating setting
influenced participants towards a surface approach. Similarly, Nijhuis et al. (2005 : 63)
found that “problem-based learning” was more predominantly associated with a surface
approach than “assignment-based learning”. A possible explanation is that participants
perceived problem-based learning as being deficient in the clarity of its goals. A lack of
requisite skills may also have had a negative impact on participants’ approaches to
studying.
Despite having been conducted over several decades, research in this area is thus
inconclusive, and requires further investigation. This is especially true given the
constant changes to modes of teaching and learning in Higher Education. More recent
years have, for example, seen the introduction of Virtual Learning Environments
(VLEs), which are intended to enhance the overall learning experience of students, as
well as encouraging them to take a more autonomous and independent approach to their
studies (Mimirinis and Bhattacharya, 2007). A recent study by Mimirinis and
Bhattacharya (2007) therefore sought to explore the relationship between study
approaches and the various ways in which students perceive and engage with VLEs in
the context of a Higher Education taught module. It was found that a strategic approach
is associated with a higher level of active engagement. A deep approach was linked
with both a readiness to explore other modules on the VLE and a preference for face-to-
face interaction. Finally, students classified as taking a surface approach tended to
perceive VLEs in a positive light, insofar as they replace face-to-face interaction with
their tutors. Based primarily on the results of previous research, it is concluded that for
VLEs to facilitate deep learning, they must promote constructivist principles and avoid
10
overloading students in terms of content and links. Furthermore, the authors emphasise
the importance of providing students with appropriate assessments. Specifically,
multiple-choice questions are thought to promote a surface approach, whereas open
questions and activities which encourage reflection are thought to promote a deep
approach.
2.2.1.1 Preferences for different styles of teaching
Research suggests that students’ perception of the learning environment depends to
some extent on their preferences for different styles of teaching (Entwistle and Peterson,
2004). Deep learners, for example, are said to prefer teaching methods which actively
encourage and challenge their understanding (Entwistle and Tait, 1990, cited in
University of Edinburgh, 1997), as well as assessment methods which allow the
expression of one’s own ideas and interests (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004). Conversely,
surface learners prefer didactic methods of teaching, together with “fact-based
assessment procedures” (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004: 423). The extent to which the
learning environment is perceived as positive or negative may therefore depend to some
extent on students’ preconceptions about what constitutes effective teaching.
2.2.1.2 Conceptions of learning
Students’ conceptions of learning are thought to reflect their overall study orientation.
Students characterised by a reproducing-orientation, for example, emphasise the
acquisition and memorisation of facts, and to a lesser degree, the application of
knowledge beyond the learning environment. Conversely, students characterised by a
meaning-orientation emphasise the development of personal understanding and new
perspectives (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004). Furthermore, students’ conceptions of
learning may hold the key to understanding their previous experiences of studying in a
formal academic context (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004; Marton and Säljö, 2005), which
are thought to mediate the impact of one’s current learning environment (Ramsden,
1988). The relationship between past and present learning experiences is illustrated in
the following observation by Marton and Säljö (2005 : 55), in relation to a particular set
of experimental findings:
11
“[Participants’] perceptions of the task reflect their past experiences of
similar situations, and so mirror differences in their preconceived ideas of
what it takes to learn”
The relationship between students’ conceptions of learning and the learning environment
is in fact rather complex. Trigwell and Ashwin (2006 : 243), for example, found that
academic environments perceived as supportive may influence students towards both a
deep approach to studying and a “situated conception of learning”. Furthermore,
students’ conceptions of learning may reflect their underlying study motivations, such
that a vocationally-orientated student may emphasise the importance of applying the
skills and knowledge they have gained (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004).
2.2.2 Consistency versus variability
Whereas a major goal of research into learning styles is “the enhancement of
individuality” (Rayner and Riding, 1997: 24), the present study is more concerned with
the notion of optimal approaches to learning, and the impact academic context can have
in terms of encouraging a less optimal (i.e. surface) approach. However, previous
research has revealed a certain degree of consistency in students’ study approaches, due
to more enduring characteristics such as motivation and personality (Entwistle, 1992).
Each of these issues will now be considered in more detail below.
2.2.2.1 Motivation
Early research conducted by Marton and Säljö (2005) indicated that the study approach
adopted by students is not a simple product of their environment and the perceived
demands of their course. In particular, attempts to induce a deep approach to learning
often failed. This finding led key researchers in the field to suggest that the nature and
level of students’ motivation may exert a considerable influence on how they approach
the task of learning overall (Marton and Säljö, 2005). Entwistle (1988 : 22), for
example, refers to student motivation as the “fundamental thread” which runs through
the research on student learning, whilst also leading researchers in the field towards the
12
notion of a more consistent study orientation. The relationship between motivation and
study approach is summarised in the following quote by Entwistle (1988 : 48):
“…a complete model of student learning would have to include both
relatively consistent study habits and motivational patterns, as well as the
interactions of departmental teaching methods and assessment procedures
with students’ approaches to studying”
The three main forms of motivation are intrinsic, extrinsic and achievement. Intrinsic
motivation is exhibited by students who take a genuine interest in their studies, and is
therefore associated with a deep study approach and a meaning-orientation (Entwistle,
1988). Extrinsically motivated students place greater emphasis on “…fulfilling the
demands raised by others” (Marton and Säljö, 2005: 54), and are therefore more likely to
adopt a surface study approach and a reproducing-orientation (Entwistle, 1988).
Finally, achievement motivation is exhibited by students who have an “intention to
excel”, and is therefore associated with a strategic study approach and an achieving-
orientation (Entwistle, 1988; Ford, 2004: 194).
Although student motivation is said to be relatively consistent across contexts,
Entwistle (1988) also notes that departments may to some extent influence students’
overall level of interest and feelings of apprehension. Furthermore, Ramsden (2005)
highlights the impact that lecturers can have in terms of encouraging a positive and
enthusiastic attitude towards the subject matter.
2.2.2.2 Personality
The subject of personality will be considered in more depth below, in the discussion of
Jannica Heinström’s research. However, there is some consideration of the interaction
between personality and study approaches in the early literature on student learning.
Entwistle et al. (1979 : 366), for example, note that fear of failure, as displayed by
students who adopt a surface approach, is associated with “a marked lack of confidence
and a high level of neuroticism”. In a later publication, Entwistle (1992 : 99) highlights
13
the impact that anxiety (i.e. in the form of a perceived threat) can have on students’
approach to studying, and states that “…students of different personality types may
pursue the same academic goals in very different ways”. The common academic goal of
achieving, for example, may result from either a student’s “hope for success” or their
“fear of failure” (Entwistle, 1992: 100).
A small number of more recent studies have investigated the relationship
between study approaches and personality in more depth. Both Diseth (2003) and
Zhang (2003), for example, found links between a deep approach and an open
personality; a surface approach and a neurotic personality; and finally, a strategic
approach and a conscientious personality. Furthermore, the study by Diseth (2003 :
143) indicated that an individual’s study approach can be predicted by “multiple
personality traits”, and may also result in different levels of academic achievement.
Finally, there is evidence to suggest that “Personality and approaches to learning predict
preference for different teaching methods” (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2007: 241).
In summary, it is important to acknowledge that “…there can be both
consistency and variability in students’ approaches to learning” (Entwistle, 1992: 105),
and that academic context alone cannot account for the ways in which students approach
their studies.
14
2.3 Information Behaviour
2.3.1 The context of information behaviour: users vs. systems
The term information behaviour takes into consideration the broader context in which
information-seeking takes place (Ford, 2004), and is therefore of key significance to this
study. A definition of information behaviour is provided below:
“… those activities a person may engage in when identifying his or her own
needs for information, searching for such information in any way, and using
or transferring that information” (Wilson, 1999)
As Case (2007 : 6) observes, research in the field of information behaviour has in fact
shifted in focus “…away from the “information system” and toward the person as a
finder, creator, and user of information”. Such a shift necessitates consideration of the
various contextual factors involved in information behaviour: “To neglect context is to
ignore the basic motivation and impetus that drives the user in the information seeking
process” (Kuhlthau, 1999: 10).
Wilson’s (1996) model of information behaviour provides a useful illustration of
how contextual factors interact with the information needs and information-seeking
behaviour of the individual concerned (Wilson and Walsh, 1996). From this model it
can be seen that the “person in context” is also subject to numerous “intervening
variables” (Wilson, 1999). For the purposes of this study, these variables may include
perceptions (i.e. of the context in which the individual is operating at the time the
information need develops), study approaches, motivation and previous experiences.
Another potentially important factor affecting how individuals go about the task of
information-seeking is personality, as will become apparent in the discussion of Jannica
Heinström’s research, presented in section 2.4 of the literature review. The rationale
behind research examining these various intervening variables is summarised in the
following quote by Heinström, (2006a : 1440):
15
“If we find patterns in information behaviour and gain insight in explaining
underlying variables, we are further on our journey toward an increased
understanding of the user”
2.3.2 The information behaviour of students
One of the contexts in which individuals operate when they search for information is
that of Higher Education, as forms the particular focus of this study. Indeed, the
information behaviour of students has been the subject of numerous studies and the
literature in this area of information science is extensive. A great deal of the more recent
literature seeks to examine how students’ information behaviour has changed in light of
the dramatic shift away from paper-based and toward electronic sources of information
(Rowley and Urquhart, 2007a; 2007b). This shift is characterised by an explosion in the
amount of information now available to students in relation to their coursework
assignments, including Internet websites and other more scholarly sources of
information such as electronic journals and databases (George et al., 2006).
Access to information via the Internet is potentially infinite, and the assertion
that “…there is always more that one could know” is true now more than ever before
(Case, 2007: 5). Students must therefore possess appropriate skills in information
literacy in order to deal with the high volume of information made available to them
(Heinström, 2000; 2005; 2006b). Without the requisite skills, students may experience
information overload, defined by Case (2007 : 333) as:
“A state in which too much information leads to a generalized state of
anxiety and/or confusion, or an inability to make a decision regarding a
specific problem”
It is therefore essential that we are able to understand as fully as possible the “underlying
factors behind information seeking habits” (Heinström, 2006b).
16
2.4 Approaches to studying and information behaviour This section of the literature review presents a summary of the research which has so far
examined the relationship between study approaches and information behaviour. There
have been relatively few attempts in the literature to investigate this relationship.
Furthermore, the majority of research has been carried out using a predominantly
quantitative methodology.
2.4.1 Ford et al.
Most of the research into study approaches and information behaviour has been
conducted approximately within the past ten years. However, there are two studies
dating back to the mid-1990s which found a significant link between Gordon Pask’s
comprehension and operation learning styles, which are thought to parallel to some
extent the deep/surface distinction, and the search strategies used by students in relation
to their coursework topics (Ford et al., 1994; Wood et al., 1996). In particular, Ford et
al. (1994) found that comprehension learners performed relatively general searches,
whereas operation learners were much more specific in their search strategies. Versatile
learners performed best with regards “search precision” and the “number of relevant
references retrieved” (Ford et al., 2003: 475). Wood et al. (1996) found that
comprehension learners performed a higher volume of searches and were more flexible
with regards their use of search strategies. Interestingly, despite being less successful,
operation learners were more satisfied with the results of their information-seeking.
Ford et al. (2001) sought to examine the relationship between individual
differences and Internet searching. The authors found that a deep study approach
(characterised here as involving “active interest”, “intention to understand” and “use of
evidence”), did not necessarily predict the success with which information was retrieved
(Ford et al., 2001: 1060). Conversely, fear of failure and low self-efficacy (i.e. the
perception that one does not possess the appropriate skills to execute a particular task)
was associated with “poor retrieval performance” (Ford et al., 2001: 1060; Savolainen,
2002, cited in Ford, 2004: 195).
17
A key study is that by Ford et al. (2003; 2005a; 2005b), the results of which are
published in three separate articles. The aim of the study was to explore the relationship
between Web search strategies and human individual differences (including but not
limited to study approaches). In this study, approaches to studying are considered in
relation to the intervening variables present in Wilson’s (1996) model of information
behaviour. Furthermore, the inclusion of study approaches was intended to account for
the person in context element also present in the model, to the extent that they reflect:
“…individuals’ perceptions of what type of information processing
(“reproductive” or “meaning orientated”) is required within the specific
academic context in which they find themselves” (Ford et al., 2005a: 744)
The results of the study allowed the authors to suggest a possible link between:
a) A “reproductive study orientation” and the desire to meet certain perceived
demands (Ford et al., 2003: 486);
b) A tendency to adopt Boolean search strategies
It is concluded that “…study approaches might affect choice of search strategy in Web-
based information seeking” (Ford et al., 2003: 486-7). However, given the exploratory
nature of the research, the authors acknowledge that further qualitative investigation of
searchers’ intentions, perceptions and motivations is required. This is especially
important given that variation in the way different individuals engage in the process of
information-seeking may lead to different levels of success. An important goal of
research into students’ information behaviour is therefore to inform the development of
metacognitive and “learning to learn” skills (Ford, 2004: 763).
18
2.4.2 Heinström
Heinström’s (2005) study sought to explore the relationship between the five core
personality dimensions (neuroticism; extraversion; openness to experience;
agreeableness; and conscientiousness), approaches to studying and information
behaviour. Heinström (2005 : 229) expresses the proposed relationship between
personality and study approaches as follows: “Personality is a deeper structure which
may be expressed in approaches to studying in a study context”. It is important to note
that the extent to which students’ approaches to studying are affected by the context in
which they learn may depend to some extent on their overall personality, since
individuals classified as displaying high levels of neuroticism are more receptive to
stimuli in their environment. The results of the study allowed Heinström (2005 : 235) to
propose the existence of three main “information behaviour patterns”, classified as “fast
surfing”, “broad scanning” and “deep diving”. Fast surfing was linked with the
personality traits of neuroticism, cautiousness and carelessness, as well as a surface,
non-strategic study approach. Conversely, deep diving was linked with the personality
trait openness to experience, as well a deep-strategic study approach. In summary,
Heinström’s results suggest that personality and study approaches do in fact interact
with one another to form distinct patterns of information-seeking, although personality
may also exert a more direct influence, as was the case with broad scanning.
Building on these research findings, a second study by Heinström (2006a : 1440)
sought to further explore the impact of contextual factors on students’ information
behaviour by including “discipline differences” as a variable. As Heinström (2006a :
1440) states, “The academic field university students are working in forms an important
context for their information seeking”. Results confirmed the existence of three general
patterns of information-seeking among students (i.e. fast surfing, broad scanning, and
deep diving), which furthermore could be described according to a dimension of “broad
exploration” versus “precise specificity” (Heinström, 2006a: 1448). However, results
did not support the existence of any contextual influences on students’ information
behaviour.
19
Heinström’s (2006b) publication sought to explore in greater depth the relationship
between approaches to studying and information behaviour, with particular emphasis on
students’ overall “study attitude and intention”. Heinström (2006b) therefore
emphasises the motivational aspect of study approaches, which is thought to fuel
students’ “initial receptivity” to information, as well as guiding the overall task of
information-seeking and analysis. In particular, those students who perceive their search
for information in relation to certain “task requirements” may select information sources
based on “superficial criteria” and the ease with which they can be retrieved (Heinström,
2006b). Conversely, those students whose intention is to understand the search topic
might adopt a broader range of search strategies and engage with “multiple information
sources” (Heinström, 2006b). Results confirm the powerful impact that students’ overall
study approach and attitude can exert on their overall level of engagement with the
information they seek.
Finally, Heinström (2006c) has investigated the relationship between
psychological factors such as personality, study approaches and emotions on the
incidental acquisition of information (otherwise known as serendipitous information-
seeking or information encountering). Case (2007 : 337) defines serendipity in
information-seeking as “The action of, or an aptitude for, encountering relevant
information by accident”. It is the notion that certain individuals may be more or less
predisposed to serendipitous information-seeking which forms the focus of Heinström’s
(2006c : 580) study: “The conscious or unconscious decision to pursue information is
guided by a complex process of cognition, motivation, and emotion”. Furthermore,
previous research indicates that the particular environment in which information is
encountered may affect whether or not it is pursued. Specifically, individuals may feel
greater inclined to pursue information encountered serendipitously when in a more
relaxed setting (Heinström, 2006c). Results confirmed the hypothesis that the incidental
acquisition of information would be positively correlated with a deep approach and an
intrinsic motivation in the topic of enquiry. Furthermore, incidental information
acquisition was enhanced by “positive emotionality”, an “open curious personality” and
“the ability to enjoy information seeking” (Heinström, 2006c: 590).
20
The relationship between study approach, personality and information-seeking is
obviously a complex one requiring further investigation. As Case (2007) observes, even
the tendency for individuals to experience different moods or states of mind may have
an important impact on, for example, the persistence with which they search for
information. Although it was beyond the scope of the present study to measure
participants’ personality, the possible existence of certain enduring personality traits was
borne in mind when analysing data from the qualitative interviews.
In summary, this study draws on research from two major academic disciplines,
and by doing so hopes to bring a new perspective to the literature on student learning
and information behaviour.
21
2.5 Metacognition: an emerging research agenda The concept of metacognition was originally introduced by Flavell during the mid-1970s
(Pins et al., 2006), and in its most simple terms refers to “the ability to think about
thinking” (Boström and Lassen, 2006: 179). As Entwistle and McCune (2004) observe,
aspects of metacognition were implicit in some of the early study strategy inventories.
However, the more recent literature on study approaches has begun to incorporate
aspects of metacognition more explicitly (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004). In particular,
the strategic approach to studying is now thought to include an element of self-
regulation, to the extent that students are able to monitor the effectiveness with which
they learn (University of Edinburgh, 1997). Furthermore, Case and Gunstone (2002 :
459) found that “metacognitive development” is associated with the adoption of a deep
approach, and Leung and Kember (2003) argue that a deep study approach incorporates
aspects of reflective practice, which is thought to aid the development of metacognitive
strategies (Saito and Miwa, 2007).
The concept of metacognition has also been considered in the recent literature on
information behaviour. In particular, metacognitive strategies such as monitoring and
evaluation are thought to aid students during the process of information-seeking,
especially within the context of Web-based learning environments (Lee and Baylor,
2006; Narciss et al., 2007; Saito and Miwa, 2007; Stadtler and Bromme, 2007). Skills in
critical evaluation are of particular importance given the increasing volume of
information available via the Internet (Stadtler and Bromme, 2007).
In summary, metacognition represents an important concept in the current
literature on both study approaches and the information-seeking behaviour of students.
22
33.. MMeetthhooddoollooggyy
3.1 Theoretical Approach
The present study was carried out using a mixed methods design, including a
quantitative inventory and qualitative interviews. The qualitative interviews formed the
main focus of the study, and were chosen as the principle means of data collection in
order to “…construct a rich and meaningful picture of a complex, multifaceted situation”
(Leedy and Ormrod, 2005: 133). Although the study sought to answer a set of clearly
defined research questions, the qualitative interviews were conducted using a
predominantly inductive approach. That is, the researcher sought to explore in depth the
themes which emerged from the data, and use them to form an overall picture of how
students learn and use information (Case, 2007). In this way, the more general research
questions set out in Chapter 1 evolved into a set of more specific relationships and
hypotheses (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). Despite this, it must be acknowledged that the
data gathered via the qualitative interviews were highly specific to the individuals who
took part, and the context in which they were operating at that time (Case, 2007).
Indeed, Participant 4 stated that their recent learning experiences had affected the way in
which they responded to the interview questions. This is undoubtedly evidence of the
ever-changing and highly subjective nature of human perceptions. It is important to
acknowledge rather than avoid complications such as this when conducting qualitative
research (Mason, 2002).
The quantitative inventory was originally employed with the sole purpose of
determining the extent to which participants may be classified as deep, surface or
strategic. Furthermore, a mixed-methods design was not used in order to allow for
triangulation, which a number of authors warn against (Mason, 2002; Silverman, 2005).
However, as the inventory covers theoretically similar concepts to those which arose
during the qualitative interviews, the researcher was able to make direct comparisons
between results, and therefore determine the overall validity and reliability of both forms
of data collection. As Case (2007 : 182) states:
23
“One way to conduct research that is both valid and reliable is to be found in
the use of multiple methods and multiple sources of data”
In particular, the quantitative inventory helped to counteract the inherently subjective
nature of the qualitative interviews, and the qualitative interviews helped to counteract
the artificial nature of the quantitative inventory (Case, 2007).
A major limitation of both methods of investigation is that they rely to a large
extent on human memory (i.e. students’ self-reports), which is often acknowledged by
researchers as being highly unreliable (Case, 2007).
3.2 Sample The target population included all students on Masters level programmes at the
Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. This target population was
chosen principally for convenience. It was also felt that interviewing Masters students
would allow the researcher greater insight into participants’ experiences and perceptions.
Indeed, it became apparent from the pilot interview that participants felt able to confide
in the researcher (i.e. as an ‘insider’) far more than might have been the case with
undergraduate students. This enabled the researcher to better understand the cultural and
social norms of the interviewees, as is sought in ethnographic research (Leedy and
Ormrod, 2005). It may also have eliminated to some extent the tendency for participants
to respond in such a way as to meet certain perceived expectations, as was the case with
Ford et al.’s (2003) study.
It is likely that the participants who took part in the qualitative interviews had
some prior knowledge of the concepts and theories on which the present study is based,
as well as demonstrating rather more sophisticated skills in information-seeking than
might otherwise have been the case. Therefore, the results of this study are not
generalisable beyond the target population. It is also important to state that some of the
participants who took part in the qualitative interviews appeared to have certain
24
preconceptions about what the study sought to investigate, which may have had a
negative impact on the overall reliability of the results.
For the qualitative interviews, a sampling method known as “analytic induction”
was used (also known as “strategic” or “theoretical sampling”) (Mason, 1994: 103).
This entails identifying specific areas for investigation, and conducting interviews until
all gaps in knowledge have been filled. However, only eight interviews were conducted
in total due to a shortage of participants. This is no doubt a result of the busy time of
year in which the study was conducted and the potential inconvenience of taking part.
Each interview lasted between thirty and forty-five minutes. Though there were only a
small number of participants for the qualitative interviews, each interview transcript
proved to be an extremely rich source of data. Indeed, as much of the research in this
area is conducted using large-scale surveys, it is arguably of great value to perform a
much more focused and in-depth study. Detailed qualitative analysis will hopefully lead
to a better understanding of “the idiosyncratic details of students’ learning and the
complex effects of different learning environments” (University of Edinburgh, 1997).
Furthermore, rather than forming a homogenous group, the participants who took part in
the qualitative interviews were relatively diverse in terms of age, gender, programme of
study and overall background. This allowed the researcher to consider some of the
broader issues involved in student learning.
The quantitative inventory was circulated via email to all Masters students at the
Department of Information Studies.
25
3.3 Methods of investigation
3.3.1 Quantitative inventory
The quantitative inventory is called the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for
Students (ASSIST) (University of Edinburgh, 1997), and has already been designed by
researchers in the field. Indeed, versions of ASSIST (formerly the Approaches to
Studying Inventory (ASI)) have been used extensively by researchers over a number of
years, therefore helping to further our understanding of student learning more generally
(University of Edinburgh, 1997).
The inventory is divided into a series of different sections or sub-scales. Each
section contains four items, which participants rate according to a 5-point scale (5
represents maximum agreement). The combined score for each section is used to
indicate participants’ overall study approach. The inventory also measures participants’
conception of learning, as well as their preferences for different styles of teaching and
course design. The inventory is designed in such a way as to allow detailed factor
analysis. However, the main focus of the present study is to conduct a small number of
qualitative interviews. Therefore, the inventory was used solely as a means of
classifying participants as deep, surface, or strategic. It was also intended to provide an
overall picture of how members of the target population approach their studies. It was
therefore necessary to distribute a copy of the inventory to all Masters students in the
department. In order to ease the process of distribution and analyses, the inventory was
converted from a PDF file into a Web-document using the Dreamweaver application.
However, due to an extremely low response rate, it was not possible to provide an
overview of the target population, and only those results corresponding to the
interviewees were included in the study.
26
3.3.2 Qualitative interviews
Participants were asked to take part in a one-to-one interview with the researcher, in
which they were asked a series of open-ended questions about their experiences of
learning and using information. The purpose of the qualitative interviews was to collect
a large amount of data from a relatively small number of participants, and to analyse
these data in great detail in order to make a number of qualitative inferences (Mason,
2002). Interviews were recorded and transcribed for later analysis. A copy of the
interview plan can be found in Appendix C. Furthermore, a sample interview transcript
is provided in Appendix D.
The interviews were semi-structured in design. The interview plan therefore
consists of a series of open-ended questions and concepts from which the researcher
could select in any manner deemed appropriate (Bryman, 2004). The principle aim of
the interviews was to pursue only those topics which were of personal relevance to each
participant. The units of analysis investigated via the interviews varied from basic
descriptions of how participants typically learn and use information, to their perceptions
of the academic context. The different sections of the interview were ordered in such a
way as would hopefully make sense to the participants (i.e. theoretically related topics
were placed next to one another in order to create a sense of logic and flow). However,
the order in which the questions were asked depended entirely on the flow of dialogue
between the researcher and the participant (Mason, 2002).
Theoretically related concepts and topics such as metacognition were not
explicitly mentioned during the qualitative interviews, as it was felt that interesting data
would emerge as a matter of course. Had this not been the case, the interview plan could
have been adapted at any time, especially as qualitative research is by its very nature
extremely flexible (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). Furthermore, due to the inductive nature
of the research, it seemed more appropriate to make any necessary changes to the design
of the interviews in response to the actual data being gathered. The interview plan did in
fact change as a result of the pilot interview. Specifically, a question was added relating
to how students perceive the wealth of information that is available to them when
27
researching coursework topics. It was felt that this question would help to explore in
more detail the extent to which students experience information overload. Changes were
also made to the manner in which the later interviews were conducted. In particular, it
was felt that the pilot interview was too structured and did not allow enough scope for
the participant to explore themes and topics which were of personal relevance. In short,
the interviews were characterised by an “emerging design”, as is often the case with
qualitative research (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005: 143).
Data was also collected in the form of memos (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005).
Specifically, the researcher noted how the participants responded during the interviews
(i.e. whether they appeared nervous or relaxed), as this might affect the way in which the
data was later analysed. Any initial impressions or interpretations were also noted. This
allowed the researcher to express in writing any interesting points which emerged during
the interviews, but would not necessarily be conveyed via the audio-recording.
3.4 Limitations The focus of this study is on conducting a small number of qualitative interviews among
Masters students at the Department of Information Studies. Therefore, the research
findings are not generalisable beyond the target population. They nonetheless contribute
to the field by furthering our understanding of the different factors or variables
underlying students’ information behaviour.
All participants were students of the same academic discipline. Therefore, it is
beyond the scope of this study to consider differences in study approaches across
disciplines.
There is potential for bias within this study, as the research topic was partially
borne out of the researcher’s own learning experiences and preconceptions. As Case
(2007 : 175) states, there is a tendency in research “…to notice things that support our
beliefs and ignore evidence that does not”. This tendency is known as “selective
perception” (Case, 2007: 175). However, the purpose of this study is to examine the
28
relationship between academic context, study approaches and information behaviour
more generally, using an inductive approach. Furthermore, using two complementary
methods of data collection helped to ensure the validity and reliability of the results, as
did working in close partnership with the dissertation supervisor, who is an expert in the
field.
3.5 Ethical considerations This study involved human participants. It was classified as low-risk and required
ethical approval from the University Ethics Committee. All interviews were recorded
using a dictaphone. An information sheet and consent form were issued to each
interviewee. By gaining informed consent, it is hoped that interviewees felt comfortable
with their involvement in the study.
This study involved gathering data regarding participants’ gender and
approximate age. These details were intended to provide an overall snapshot of the
sample, and were not used in order to identify individual participants. No other personal
details were recorded, and the participants remained anonymous at every stage of the
research.
The researcher was aware that participants may have felt inconvenienced, as the
study was carried out at a time when all Masters students were busy with their own
dissertations. However, as all elements of the study were entirely voluntary, it is hoped
that participants felt comfortable with donating their time.
There was potential for participants taking part in the interviews to recall feeling
stressed and/or anxious (i.e. when discussing their learning experiences). Therefore,
topics which appeared to cause distress were not pursued.
29
3.6 Data analysis
3.6.1 Quantitative inventory
The results of the quantitative inventory were analysed using Microsoft Excel.
Specifically, the total scores for each sub-scale were calculated and used to determine
participants’ overall study approach. The extent to which participants may be classified
as deep, surface or strategic was expressed in the form of percentages.
3.6.2 Qualitative interviews
An inductive approach was used when analysing the interviews (Bryman, 2004). In
particular, the interview transcripts were analysed in detail in order to identify recurring
themes or categories (Mason, 2002). Each interview transcript was then indexed
accordingly (Mason, 2002). This was not an unproblematic process. In particular,
rather than forming discrete units of meaning, the themes and categories intertwined
with one another in interesting ways. The relationships between categories were as
important if not more so than the categories themselves. Furthermore, due to the
inductive nature of the research, the qualitative interviews revealed interesting themes
and relationships which had not been anticipated by the researcher. Deciding which
themes to pursue was an intellectual task in itself, and there was a certain amount of
conflict between the desire to ‘pursue all angles’ and the need to focus specifically on
the research questions stated in Chapter 1, especially given the limited amount of time in
which the research was carried out.
Analysing the data involved a great deal of interpretation on the part of the
researcher. In particular, it was important to decide what a particular statement meant in
the context of the interview. As Marton and Säljö (2005 : 42) state in relation to their
data analysis procedure:
“…each quote had two contexts in relation to which it had to be interpreted.
First it depended on the interview from which it was taken and then on the
“pool of meanings” to which it belonged”
30
It was therefore essential to work in close collaboration with the dissertation supervisor,
who was able to cast a second pair of expert eyes over the results.
31
44.. RReessuullttss
4.1 Introduction The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between academic context, study
approaches and information behaviour. Academic context refers in this instance to
participants’ experiences of learning and using information on a one year Masters course
at the Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield. Qualitative
interviewing formed the principle method of investigation. A quantitative inventory was
also distributed to all members of the target population, in order to determine the overall
pattern of study approaches in the department. The quantitative inventory included
variables such as age, gender and programme of study. However, given the extremely
low response rate, it was not possible to produce an overview of students in the
department. Consequently, this element of the study was abandoned. The results
presented in 4.2 below therefore relate solely to those participants who took part in the
qualitative interviews.
Although only eight qualitative interviews were conducted in total (again due to
a low response rate), they proved to be an extremely rich source of data. Furthermore,
rather than forming a homogenous group, the interviewees were relatively diverse in
terms of age (participants were aged between 24 and 46), gender, programme of study
and background. Despite this, there were some overall similarities. In particular, rates
of attendance for both taught sessions and optional course elements were extremely
high. This most likely relates to the vocational nature of the Masters programmes in the
department, and the need to acquire professional skills. Furthermore, all participants
produced high scores for the deep approach to studying, and in addition to being
vocationally-orientated, demonstrated an intrinsic interest in the course material.
32
4.2 Quantitative inventory The results of the quantitative inventory are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Results of the quantitative inventory expressed in percentages
Participant
number Approaches to studying Conceptions of
learning Teaching and course design
Deep Surface Strategic Deep Surface Deep Surface 1 84% 31% 67% 100% 87% 90% 35% 2 81% 59% 59% 100% 73% 80% 75% 3 91% 30% 75% 87% 73% 90% 55% 4 79% 54% 64% 93% 87% 80% 85% 5 89% 29% 75% 80% 87% 100% 30% 6 86% 48% 92% 100% 87% 90% 85% 7 75% 41% 80% 80% 100% 90% 75% 8 91% 46% 84% 100% 100% 100% 80%
As can be seen from Table 1, all participants produced high scores for the deep approach
to studying, and relatively low scores for the surface approach to studying.
Six out of eight participants have a predominantly deep approach to studying.
There are two instances of a predominantly strategic approach to studying, and none of a
predominantly surface approach to studying.
Each study approach is comprised of various sub-scales. Each sub-scale contains
four items, which participants rate on a 5-point scale (5 represents maximum
agreement). The maximum score for each sub-scale is therefore 20. The results for each
of the sub-scales are presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4.
Table 2: Sub-scale results for the deep approach to studying Participant
number Seeking meaning
Relating ideas
Use of evidence Interest in ideas
1 17 18 17 15 2 14 17 18 16 3 19 20 20 14 4 16 16 17 14 5 16 18 18 19 6 16 16 17 20 7 16 15 15 14 8 18 20 17 18
33
Table 3: Sub-scale results for the surface approach to studying
Participant number
Lack of purpose
Unrelated Memorising
Syllabus Boundness
Fear of failure
1 5 5 8 7 2 9 12 8 18 3 7 5 5 7 4 7 9 12 15 5 5 9 4 5 6 4 4 15 15 7 5 6 10 12 8 6 9 8 14
Table 4: Sub-scale results for the strategic approach to studying
Participant number
Organised studying
Time management
Alertness to assessment
demands Achieving Monitoring
effectiveness
1 13 14 10 16 14 2 14 13 5 14 13 3 18 7 17 15 18 4 13 5 15 14 17 5 14 13 15 18 15 6 17 17 20 19 19 7 17 17 15 15 16 8 16 16 16 17 19
It is important to acknowledge that participants may not have been entirely objective in
their responses to the quantitative inventory. In particular, participants’ overall feelings
of confidence may have affected the way in which they responded to certain items.
Participants who displayed signs of extreme anxiety and low self-efficacy during the
qualitative interviews may, for example, perceive their study approach in a
predominantly negative light. Furthermore, responses may in some instances represent
what participants believe to be an ideal form of learning. Complications such as this
ought not to be seen as obscuring any real insight into how students learn. Rather, they
provide further evidence of the complexities involved in student learning, and are in
themselves of great interest.
The results of the quantitative inventory will be discussed in more detail in
section 4.3 below.
34
4.3 Qualitative interviews
4.3.1 Approaches to studying
4.3.1.1 Perceptions of the learning environment
Participants’ perceptions of the learning environment fell into the following categories:
overall environment and teaching methods; assessments and feedback for assessments;
workload; departmental ethos and staff attitudes; learning support; and hidden
curriculum. With regards overall trends in the data, it is interesting to note that the
quality of learning support was perceived in a predominantly positive light. In addition,
the workload was perceived by most participants as heavy, though not unmanageable.
The extent to which participants’ perceptions of the learning environment
affected their overall study approach is unclear. There is some evidence to suggest that
a negative course perception may influence students towards a surface approach.
Participants 2 and 4, for example, produced the highest overall scores for the surface
study approach (see Table 1), as well as demonstrating negative perceptions of the
learning environment. See, for example, the following excerpts:
“Some of the tutors, they just read off the PowerPoint slides. And, I find myself
just staring at the PowerPoint slides, and maybe not really taking in what the
PowerPoint slides are really saying… I reckon it would be better if they didn’t
have the slides… Powerpoint slides are in this academic, tutor… It’s a tutor style,
whereas my own style is very different”.
“I prefer seminars in that you get things going, get conversations going. That has
hardly happened. Which is a shame… Most of the lectures we’ve had have been
classroom environments, you know, rather than seminar tables. And they’ve been
very directed, leading questions where the answer has been required, rather than an
opinion or a question”.
In this instance, negative perceptions of the learning environment are centred around
styles of teaching.
35
Conversely, Participants 5, 7 and 8 scored highly for the deep and strategic approaches
to studying (see Table 1), and demonstrated positive perceptions of the learning
environment:
“I find it’s a very high standard learning environment, because there’s quite a lot
of support for what you’re doing, there’s good resources available, the lecturers
really know what they’re doing, so you learn a lot from them… In general I’m
really happy with the environment that I’m learning in here”.
“What I’ve really enjoyed about university, for instance is, you’re given the
foundation, and then you have to go away and build on that foundation. That’s
what I’ve found. And I’ve gone away and researched and enjoyed it, you know?”
“It’s an environment that promotes learning and everything. And I think the
department’s opened me up to new ways of doing things. I’ve learnt a lot from
doing this course”.
There is a sense in the above excerpts that the learning environment is perceived as
positively encouraging and supporting learning.
The situation is less clear with Participants 1, 3 and 6, all of whom produced
mixed responses with regards their perceptions of the learning environment. Participant
3, for example, recognises the value of learning in a student-led environment:
“It’s interactive, they use technology in a completely different way. It’s about
reflective practice. It’s about talking about your experiences, so I think the
environment is good”.
However, there was a sense throughout the interview that although the environment is
positive and encouraging, it does not necessarily promote learning:
36
“I’ve sort of been quite lyrical about the, you know, this idea about being able to
contribute to lectures. But actually, I know what experiences I’ve had, and it is
interesting to hear about other people’s experiences, but, you know… For
example, when we we’ve been in lectures and someone on the course gives an
example of what happened in their practice, as soon as I get out of the room I can’t
remember any of that… I’m not really sure if I should be concentrating more on
the material than on reflecting on what I already know”.
Participant 3 also appeared constrained by the competing demands of the course:
“But you’ve got the competing demands all the time, because you can’t just look
at that in isolation. I guess you’re considering as well maybe the fact that you’ve
got a part time job. The fact that you’ve got four assignments due in on the same
day. You’ve got group work that needs to be finished. Your emailing. And
you’re trying to sort out a job for next year. So when you think of the whole wider
context I suppose I look at the assignments and say that’s great, you know, but I
wish I’d been able to look at some of the other questions…”.
Despite this apparent conflict and tension, Participant 3 produced high scores for the
deep and strategic approaches to studying, and a low score for the surface approach to
studying. Furthermore, despite being highly aware of the limited time in which
assessments must be carried out, the participant seems to lack skills in time management
(see also the time management sub-scale in Table 4):
“I work quite intensely, but over a very short period of time I guess. And I tend to
leave things quite late. I don’t really get nervous or anxious about work, essays,
assignments. However late in the day, I never really worry about that… But then
it’s all well and good me saying that now. Often I don’t have a lot of choice. By
the time I’ve left it so late, there’s no time to panic”.
37
Overall, participants demonstrated extremely different perceptions of the same
environment. Furthermore, several participants gave mixed responses with regards
different course elements. There are several possible explanations for this finding.
Firstly, there is obviously some variation in the academic context according to the
different programmes of study. Secondly, each participant is likely to have made
different decisions with regards their choice of modules and coursework topics. Indeed,
a number of participants acknowledged significant differences with regards the style of
teaching on different modules:
“You sometimes leave [lectures] extremely frustrated. But mostly you leave and
you think, that was excellent”.
“The majority of the lectures I’ve found very interesting, especially because I’m
able to engage with the lecturer quite a lot. What I didn’t like was sitting in a
massive lecture theatre with loads of people, just looking round and seeing
everyone nod off because, you know, that happens, and it’s not really stimulating”.
“But I think if you want to get the most out of the course, in theory, you’d want to
go to every lecture. Unfortunately I haven’t personally found every lecture to be
valuable. But if you don’t go, you never know”.
However, a common theme running through all the interviews was the preferences that
students have for different styles of teaching and course design. This in turn affected
whether the learning environment was perceived in a positive or negative light.
Participant 1, for example, demonstrated an overall preference for an open and flexible
learning environment, and perceived certain elements of the course as overly restrictive:
38
“I get the impression from most of our lecturers that it’s kind of, you need to know
this to get… So that you can do this. That’s the impression I get. And, if you
think of the essays that we’re assigned, they’re sort of like very structured and a
bit… They say oh, focus on this sector, when your answering this question. And
the way it’s phrased is a bit narrow… Basically I feel they will talk about what
they want you to talk about when they set you an essay question”.
Furthermore, Participant 6 demonstrated a strong preference for didactic teaching
methods, and felt that the current learning environment was focused too much on open
discussion and debate:
“But then I don’t like these lectures where it’s all based on what we think. It’s like
I’ve come to learn something from you. I don’t want you to learn something from
me, you know? I quite like the straightforward, old-fashioned way of doing
things”.
There is some evidence to support the notion that students’ preferences for different
styles of teaching and course design correspond with their overall study approach. As
can be seen in Table 1, Participants 1, 3 and 5 are predominantly deep in their approach
to studying, produced the lowest overall scores for the surface study approach, and were
predominantly deep in their preferences for different styles of teaching and course
design.
However, in some instances the results of the qualitative interviews do not
support those of the quantitative inventory. Participant 3, for example, demonstrated a
preference for specific and focused essay questions, as opposed to those which allow the
expression of one’s own ideas:
“I think the sort of more broader questions are often more difficult to get a handle
on how you’re going to direct your reading, you know, how you’re going to
narrow down your search from this huge topic. And having confidence in yourself
to say this question is about this”.
39
Furthermore, despite having a predominantly deep approach to studying, Participants 2
and 4 produced relatively high scores in their preferences for both deep and surface
styles of teaching and course design (see Table 1). A possible explanation emerges from
the results of the qualitative interviews, in which both participants demonstrated a strong
preference for active and engaging teaching methods which support their understanding,
as is characteristic of a deep study approach:
“I quite liked it when those two Cilip representatives came. They were engaging
with us and we had to draw diagrams of what we thought a librarian looked like,
and that was more… They weren’t standing at the front of the class. They were
walking around us as well, and sort of telling us about what Cilip does, and how
we can benefit from Cilip... They weren’t just like rigid at the front of the class.
They actually properly interacted with us, got us to do the drawing, you know?”
“I prefer seminars in that you get things going, get conversations going. That has
hardly happened. Which is a shame”.
However, the Participants 2 and 4 also demonstrated a strong preference for a structured
learning environment (i.e. as opposed to an open and flexible environment in which
students are able to pursue their own ideas and interests). See, for example, the
following excerpt from Participant 4:
“I think somehow we are acutely aware that this is more research than teaching, at
university... What that means in terms of learning, I’m not too sure really… It
feels as though in some parts there’s some explicit teaching… Otherwise it’s more
about, you know… You know, discovery I suppose... I thought that I did quite
like research. But actually, I don’t think I do”.
Furthermore, Participant 2 indicated towards the end of the interview that they prefer to
be “spoon-fed” by the department, and that their essays tend not to contain original
ideas. This was very much a result of the participant’s overall feelings of anxiety, and
40
the need to feel reassured by the environment in which they learn. Indeed, Participant 2
produced the highest score for the fear of failure sub-scale in the quantitative inventory
(see Table 3).
In short, a possible explanation for this confusing set of findings is that there is a
certain degree of conflict between the participants’ desire to feel engaged during
lectures, and their need to feel reassured by the environment in which they learn.
Finally, Participant 4 had a predominantly negative attitude towards their
learning environment, but felt that this was partly a result of their most recent course
experiences (i.e. the process of carrying out a Masters dissertation). Specifically, the
participant demonstrated a strong preference for a structured learning environment, and
therefore did not enjoy those aspects of the course which required independent research.
This suggests that student perception of the learning environment is extremely variable
and subject to constant change. Perceptions, it would seem, depend to some extent on
one’s current learning experiences, which no doubt influenced what was recalled by
participants during the qualitative interviews.
4.3.1.2 Conceptions of learning
As might be expected of students studying a vocationally-orientated degree, the majority
of participants emphasised the need to reuse or apply the knowledge they acquire. See,
for example, the following excerpt from Participant 6:
“It’s not stuff that I learn for short periods of time and then forget. It’s something
that I remember and it actually informs what I’m doing in work. So it’s a change
in behaviour or understanding that’s long term”.
Furthermore, as can be seen in Table 1, participants scored highly for both deep and
surface conceptions of learning. That is, learning is thought to involve both the
reproduction of knowledge and the development of personal understanding (University
of Edinburgh, 1997). Data from the qualitative interviews provide a number of possible
41
explanations. Firstly, a small number of interviewees had very broad conceptions of
learning. The following definition was provided by Participant 3:
“Learning to me means… Lots of different things… It means… The broader
sense of educating yourself. It means memorising, and it means structuring
knowledge I suppose. So learning is an organised way of improving what you
know. And then, a process of sort of educating yourself that you can then put into
action at a later date. And I suppose when I think of learning I think of things that
I deliberately go out and find. And I also think about things that I hear, or read in
a newspaper, or glance, or something that someone mentions to me, sort of more
by chance”.
Secondly, some participants acknowledged that acquiring and remembering information,
though part of the overall process, does not in itself constitute learning. Participant 7,
for example, made the following observation:
“So it’s not just gaining information. And it’s not necessarily turning that
information into knowledge, it’s doing something with that knowledge that makes
it learning”
Finally, some participants were influenced by their current and previous learning
experiences. For these participants, there was clearly a degree of conflict between an
ideal form of learning and that associated with a formal academic context. Participant 2,
for example, made the following statement:
“Maybe you can learn sometimes and not necessarily understand something.
Learning often is something you have to do. You have to develop your knowledge
of a subject area… At school… For exams, for example, sometimes I learnt
something for exams, but whether I understood it was very different.
Regurgitation of stuff for an exam is different from… Yeah I learnt stuff, but
whether I understood what I learnt…”
42
4.3.1.3 Previous experiences
The question regarding participants’ previous experiences of learning and studying at
undergraduate level proved to be of great value, insofar as it encouraged them to think
about their preferences for different styles of teaching and course design. Furthermore,
it highlighted the move towards electronic resources and student-centred learning which
has taken place in recent years. Although the move towards student-centred learning
was perceived in a predominantly positive light, it is interesting to note that participants’
attitude towards electronic resources varied considerably. Participant 2, for example
made the following comment:
“They encourage you quite heavily here to use articles, to use electronic, you
know… It was all using books to find your research for your essays. But here it’s
all about using electronic resources. So that was a big change for me. And I
actually found it quite difficult at first because I quite like going to a library and
finding a book. I actually think it’s more of an effort now. And they do
everything through the internet”.
There is clearly a degree of conflict here between the participant’s preferred method of
studying and using information, and that espoused by the department. Participant 4,
though not displaying such an extreme attitude towards the use of electronic resources,
did describe them self as “techno-cautious”, and admitted having no patience for
practical skills sessions. It is interesting to note that Participants 2 and 4 also produced
the highest overall score for the surface study approach (see Table1).
Despite the fact that participants perceived their current learning environment as
being somewhat different to anything they had experienced previously, it is not at all
clear whether or to what extent this impacted on their modes of studying and using
information. Participant 1, for example, stated:
“You go to lectures, you write an essay, you get your mark so it’s generically
similar”.
43
Furthermore, Participant 4 stated:
“…it was still about getting information and assessing it, and synthesising it, you
know? Is this valid, is it…”.
Finally, a number of participants placed a great deal of emphasis on the actual
experience of learning, and valued the opportunity to engage with the course material in
new ways. See, for example, the following excerpt from Participant 3:
“…it’s been a revelation on this course, and very exciting to, you know, be in a
lecture where it’s interactive. And you’re expected to contribute to the lecture,
and sort of form the lecture based on who’s in the room at the time”.
4.3.1.4 Motivation
As might be expected, all participants emphasised the need to acquire skills and
knowledge in relation to a future career in information. See, for example, the following
except from Participant 1:
“It [the course] is quite well designed in a way because the core modules we have
to do, they are all kind of useful… Information literacy and information search
engines, if you cast your mind back to the first semester, they were quite useful,
because it is something we have to contend with. We have to be able to use things
like the Boolean operators, effectively”.
Furthermore, all participants demonstrated an intrinsic interest in the course material.
See, for example, the following excerpt from Participant 8:
“I went out of my way to choose what I thought would be like an exciting and
original topic that wasn’t on the list. It turned out to be a pretty boring subject,
and it was too similar to the work we’d already done. So I didn’t particularly
enjoy that… Most of the essays I have enjoyed. I think you’re always more
motivated to work and perhaps even produce better work when you are interested
in the subject”.
44
There is some evidence of tension between participants’ intrinsic motivation and the
competing pressures of the course, as can be seen in the following excerpt from
Participant 2:
“One of the modules I found really interesting. And I was really tempted to
continue going along to that module, even though I decided in the end to stick to a
double weighted module, I still found this other – it was educational informatics –
I still found that quite interesting. And I was going to continue going but… And
then I realised that I had a lot of work involved with the double weighted module.
So I had to stick to that really. I couldn’t keep going to educational informatics”.
Intrinsic motivation was most common amongst those participants who perceived the
academic context as allowing sufficient freedom in learning, as can be seen in the
following excerpts from Participants 1, 5 and 7:
“But having said that, this semester, we did get to choose the modules, and they
kind of tallied more with my research interests, as it were. The one’s we were
doing this semester. And so, in that sense, it’s instructive not just for use, but also
as something that you can be genuinely interested in as well”.
“Well I’m doing the CPD [Continuing Professional Development] programme, so
I’ve been able to give it my own twist anyway, because I had freedom of choice…
If I’m not interested in something, I usually try to work my way out of it… And
you know, when I have that freedom of choice, it’s just far more interesting to do
these things”.
“Because even in the core subjects you’re allowed to choose your essay title, so
you can tailor the essay to something that you’re interested in. And I’ve done that
so that actually, ok, you’re doing an essay, but it’s actually a subject which I’ve
got some interest in and maybe even background knowledge and experience in”.
45
There is also evidence to suggest that core elements of the Masters programmes (i.e.
compulsory modules) were of less interest to participants, although this did not
necessarily lead to a negative perception of the learning environment. Participant 1, for
example, recognises the value of gaining professional skills which, though of little
personal interest, would be of great value with regards a future career in information:
“…the core modules we have to do, they are all kind of useful… And even
though, even though it’s not necessary to be particularly interested in… It’s fine
because I do perceive this course as quite vocational. When I signed up for this
course, it was like, yeah I’m doing this because I want to go into this professional
field, and do it, you know, using… Having to learn things that you might not
especially be fascinated about. It’s part of it”.
In addition, Participant 8, having originally enrolled onto the Continuing Professional
Development Programme, decided that the Professional Preparation Programme would
be more suitable with regards a future career in information:
“I always felt that I would be going a bit too much in at the deep end and being too
specialised when I didn’t have enough of a clear idea what to do. So I didn’t want
to waste my choices really. And I think that doing an independent study module
or something at that stage, even though I had enough work experience, I sort of
came to the course more to expand my horizons than pursue personal interests. I
just wanted to make the best of the course really”.
Finally, there is evidence that the nature and level of participants’ motivation affected
their course perceptions. See, for example, the following excerpts from Participants 1,
3, 5, and 7:
46
“But you have to say, an essay… Ok, in the future you’re probably going to have
to write a report or two, say if you’re working in some company… But writing an
essay, you know? You know, it’s not something you’re really going to have to do,
in our profession, I don’t think. The group work on the other hand, that’s
something. Yeah, ok, you probably will have to do presentations, so that was
more useful”.
“I’ve just been for a job interview, and I got some feedback about how the
interview went and they said you were good but you were very theoretical… I’d
say that’s what I think about this course, and I think that’s what this course is
about… I suppose my point is that it’s quite theoretical on this course, and it’s
sometimes quite difficult to tie-in to your experience”.
“I thought the accent was far too much on essays, overall. I understand why they
do it, and I understand the theory behind it, but I don’t find essays are always the
best way to test someone’s knowledge about something. And they’re also quite far
removed form real life, if you like”.
“I’ve enjoyed going away and researching things. The only thing that’s frustrating
maybe is, you know, there’s quite a high percentage of things that you learn in
research that you don’t… aren’t applicable”.
Clearly certain elements of the Masters programmes are at odds with participants’ desire
to obtain skills and knowledge relating to a future career in information.
4.3.2 Information behaviour
4.3.2.1 Attitudes towards information-seeking
As might be expected, all participants were acutely aware of the need to evaluate
information sources, and the various techniques involved in selecting high-quality
information in relation to their coursework assignments. It is also likely that students in
the Department of Information Studies are more confident with regards their information
behaviour (i.e. due to skills acquired on the various programmes of study). This could
47
account for the predominantly positive attitude towards information-seeking, and the
relatively few examples of information overload which emerged from the qualitative
interviews. See, for example, the following excerpts from Participants 1, 6, 7 and 8:
“The WWW has led to an information explosion. As we’re always told, that’s
why there’s a need for information literacy, and information professionals to help
train people in information literacy. But, you know, it’s just a case of phrasing
things properly, and using the appropriate Boolean operators. And as a result of
that, I think yeah, you want as much information available as possible”.
“You should be able to refine your search and get the results down. I don’t feel
overloaded by information at all. I feel I can cope with it, and critically analyse
what’s useful and what’s not useful. And I think the more the better”.
“I feel that my skills in actually searching and researching have improved as I’ve
gone through the course, that’s for sure. I guess I’ve developed, you know, my
research skills as I’ve gone through the course. But they’re certainly a lot better
than when I arrived on this course. I feel a lot more comfortable and confident”.
“…you’ve got go into any resource with the right attitude. You’ve got to have
certain things in mind. You know, keep in mind where it’s coming from, who’s
written it and what evidence is it based on… I mean I suppose with a topic where
there is a load of information you have to focus yourself a bit more, you know, try
not to get bogged down and perhaps even focus on a specific issue within what
you’re researching”.
In total, five out of eight participants had a predominantly positive attitude towards both
the wealth of available information and their skills in information-seeking more
generally (Participants 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8). It is interesting to note that these participants
also produced the five highest overall scores for the deep approach to studying in the
quantitative inventory (see Table 1).
48
Conversely, the perception that one is expected to be skilled in the retrieval and
evaluation of information seemed to be a source of concern for some participants. See,
for example, the following excerpts from Participants 2 and 4:
“I suppose, yeah, I don’t know how well regarded it is. I know that peer-reviewed
journals… And if you use Google Scholar it tells you how many times it’s been
cited by other people. I do all that, but I still don’t know if sometimes…
Sometimes I find articles that aren’t peer reviewed, and I think they’re quite good,
and maybe they’re not. I don’t know”.
“And I think what we learned straight away was that you have to be quite
sophisticated with your searches and stuff. You almost have to accept that you’re
not going to cover everything. And all you can do is just guess. I don’t know…
There’s so much information about information. You know? Even just looking at
the library website, you think, where do I start?”
As can be seen from the above excerpts, whereas Participants 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 were
confident in their ability to cope with the wealth of available information, Participants 2
and 4 demonstrated negative perceptions with regards their skills in information literacy.
In the case of Participant 2, this led to concerns regarding the quality of information,
whereas Participant 4 clearly demonstrated an extreme case of information overload.
Participants 2 and 4 also produced the two highest overall scores for the surface
approach to studying (see Table 1).
However, the exact relationship between participants’ study approach and
information behaviour is unclear. Participants 2’s reluctance to use information
perceived as low quality may, for example, result from an extrinsic desire to achieve
good grades (see the achieving sub-scale in Table 4), a high degree of anxiety (see the
fear of failure sub-scale in Table 3), or a lack of confidence in one’s own ability (i.e. low
self-efficacy).
49
The question regarding how participants perceive the wealth of information which is
available to them in relation to their coursework assignments did in fact prove to be an
especially rich source data. Specifically, it would seem that students’ perceptions
depend upon a range of intermingling factors, as can be seen in Figure 1. Participants 2;
4 and 5; 6 have been included in Figure 1, as they represent extreme ends of each scale.
The remaining participants (Participants 1, 3, 7 and 8) displayed elements of each
underlying factor, but to a lesser degree.
As can be seen from Figure 1, whereas Participants 2 and 4 were worried and
anxious with regards their information-seeking, Participants 5 and 6 were relatively
confident and found it to be a thrilling experience. The following comment was made
by participant 6:
“I love it. I love researching. And I love searching for information. I love it all.
Putting it all together… Yeah… I think it’s sort of like a detective search really”.
It is also interesting to find that, whereas Participants 2 and 4 were concerned that their
searches might not be comprehensive, Participants 5 and 6 associated the wealth of
available information with the ability to perform specific searches and an increased
chance of finding information relevant to their coursework assignments. The following
excerpts from Participants 4 and 6 stand in complete contrast to one another, and
therefore provide a useful illustration of how students can differ in their attitude towards
information:
“…I am very anxious about comprehensive searches. I am nervous about it
because… I want to know that there isn’t some obvious omission”.
“I’m happier doing an essay where there’s lots of information out there already,
rather than something where I know there’s not so much written about it”.
50
Figure 1: Model illustrating the various ways in which participants perceived the wealth of information available to them for their coursework assignments.
Negative Positive Attitude towards wealth of information
Participants 2; 4 Participants 5; 6 TTeerrrriiffyyiinngg,, wwoorrrryyiinngg,, aa ccaauussee ffoorr ccoonncceerrnn AAnnxxiioouuss// llooww sseellff--eeffffiiccaaccyy PPeerrcceeppttiioonn tthhaatt sseeaarrcchheess mmuusstt bbee ccoommpprreehheennssiivvee:: II mmiigghhtt mmiissss ssoommeetthhiinngg iimmppoorrttaanntt IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn oovveerrllooaadd:: ““TThheerree’’ss ttoooo mmuucchh ttoo ccooppee wwiitthh”” ““II’’mm nnoott ssuurree II’’mm ggooiinngg aabboouutt iitt iinn tthhee rriigghhtt wwaayy”” CCoonncceerrnnss rreeggaarrddiinngg tthhee qquuaalliittyy ooff iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn
EEnnjjooyyaabbllee,, eexxcciittiinngg,, tthhrriilllliinngg
CCoonnffiiddeenntt// hhiigghh sseellff--eeffffiiccaaccyy
OOppppoorrttuunniittyy ttoo bbee ffooccuusseedd aanndd aavvooiidd iirrrreelleevvaanntt iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn::
IInnccrreeaasseedd cchhaannccee ooff ffiinnddiinngg eexxaaccttllyy wwhhaatt II’’mm llooookkiinngg ffoorr
IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn uunnddeerrllooaadd::
““TThhee mmoorree tthhee bbeetttteerr”” ““II hhaavvee tthhee sskkiillllss nneeeeddeedd ttoo ccooppee
wwiitthh iitt aallll””
OOppppoorrttuunniittyy ttoo aacccceessss hhiigghh qquuaalliittyy,, uupp--ttoo--ddaattee rreesseeaarrcchh
51
The concept of information underload does not exist elsewhere in the literature, and is
used here to account for the feeling among some participants that they simply cannot get
enough information:
“And I quite often for fun just go like looking round the electronic resources just
to see what we’ve got. We’ve got some really strange stuff that we can access.
And I love it, the more the better, you know?”
Finally, whereas Participants 2 and 4 were concerned with regards the quality of the
information they find, Participants 5 and 6 were excited by the opportunity to
incorporate high quality, up-to-date information in their coursework assignments. See,
for example, the following excerpt from Participant 5:
“Google Scholar, you know, that’s so easy to use, and so relevant to what we’re
doing as well. I like to write about up-to-date stuff, you know? I’m not really
interested in what happened in the 80s because it’s not really relevant to what
we’re doing now. So if you want to know the latest developments, things like that,
you have to read the e-journals”.
4.3.2.2 Patterns of information-seeking
There is an unclear pattern of results with regards participants’ actual searching
techniques and their approach to information-seeking more generally. Participants 2 and
4, for example, despite producing similar scores for the deep, surface and strategic
approaches to studying (see Table 1), demonstrated extremely different patterns of
information-seeking during the qualitative interviews:
“Possibly at first be very general actually, and put in very general key terms,
maybe some of the key terms from the title, put them into some of the databases
and, you know, put… And then as I found articles through the databases, that
would maybe inspire me to pick out further terms from my first round of
searching, and then get deeper into the next load of search terms”.
52
“[I derive my search terms] from the title, and then synonyms, and then I will read
one or two articles and hopefully derive from those either the search terms that are
relevant… And then databases first… And then thereafter it would be a kind of
cascade I suppose. You would use the references in the articles you’ve consulted
and you would perhaps adjust your search so that you make sure you are covering
every angle”.
As can be seen from these two excerpts, whereas Participant 2 has a relatively flexible
approach to information-seeking, Participant 4 devises thorough search strategies and
adjusts them in light of search results. A possible explanation is that both participants
produced very different scores for the alertness to assessment demands sub-scale (see
Table 4).
However, Participant 6, who produced the highest overall score for both the
strategic approach to studying and the alertness to assessment demands sub-scale (see
Tables 1 and 4), demonstrated a relatively flexible pattern of information-seeking:
“I think I’m sort of fairly ok about doing it by now, and so I sort of trust myself
just to go. I don’t have like an explicit plan. There’s a basic plan but I allow
myself to slightly drift with the current a bit and I’m confident that I’m more or
less probably going to be covering everything”.
The relationship between participants’ study approach and overall patterns of
information-seeking is therefore unclear, and requires further examination.
The majority of participants engaged with multiple information sources. Again,
this is no doubt a reflection of skills learnt on the various programmes of study.
However, Participant 5, who was highly motivated by an intrinsic interest in the course
material, admitted preferring electronic journals because of the relative ease with which
information can be retrieved. Furthermore, despite producing a high score for the deep
53
study approach and a low score for the surface study approach, Participant 1 reported
selecting information sources based on superficial criteria:
“And basically, I look at the question, look at the keywords within that question,
or what I deem to be the keywords, and then type them into a search engine on,
you know, on the library database, or the catalogue holdings or whatever. And
then just take it from there… If it’s highlighted within the abstract then obviously
they think those words are crucial to the actual article. And the more importance
they put on the keywords, that you were looking for, or that I’m looking for, I
deem it to be more relevant to what I’m going to be looking at”.
There is a limited amount of evidence to suggest that students’ approach to studying
might affect the success with which they seek information, although the exact
relationship is once again unclear. Participant 4, for example, was highly anxious, had a
negative attitude towards information-seeking and perceived their searches as being
unsuccessful:
“Well I’ve gone to databases and developed search terms. And they haven’t been
very good generally… I think, blimey, how’s my searching been recently? And
it’s been not very good”.
Conversely, Participant 5 was confident, had a positive attitude towards information-
seeking and perceived their searches as highly successful:
“…in general, I tend to be fairly confident. I know what I’m looking for. I know
where to find it. So in general I’m quite pleased with it. I actually tend to end up
with far more than I set out to find, if you see what I mean, so…”.
As can be seen in Table 1, Participants 4 and 5 are both predominantly deep in their
approach to studying. However, Participant 4 scored significantly higher than
Participant 5 for the surface sub-scales syllabus boundness and fear of failure (see Table
3). It is difficult to know from these excerpts alone whether Participants 4 and 5 simply
54
perceive their ability differently (i.e. according to their study approach and level of self-
efficacy), or whether there is a real difference in the success with which each participant
searches for information.
4.3.2.3 Serendipitous information-seeking
There is some evidence to suggest that serendipitous information-seeking is associated
with a predominantly deep approach to studying. Participants 3 and 8, for example, both
demonstrated evidence of serendipitous information-seeking during the qualitative
interviews, as well as producing the highest overall score for the deep approach to
studying (a joint score of 91% - see Table 1):
“And things that I’ve sort of picked up through serendipity or curiosity, you know?
Picking up a Cilip magazine and reading a couple of articles sometimes stick,
because I wanted to read them. I found it was something which engaged me. It’s
interesting”.
“I do feel I’ve learnt a lot off my own back and out of my own personal interest. I
guess there’s being exposed to the stuff either by chance, you know, if you just
happen upon a piece of information. Or if you sort of make a mistake…
Something that you didn’t plan to do. And then, you know, you take something
away from that”.
4.3.3 Metacognition
Metacognition was not explicitly mentioned during the qualitative interviews. However,
there is some evidence of metacognition in the form of self-regulation and reflection, the
latter of which is explicitly encouraged and supported by the department in which the
participants were studying. See, for example, the following comments by Participants 3,
6, 7 and 8:
“…I think maybe the older you get the more you direct your own learning. You
have more insight into your own techniques”.
55
“I’m quite good at visual learning, like observing things and picking up things.
And reflecting. I do a lot of reflecting. So quite a lot of these sort of action-
learning things in a way work for me, because I need sort of some time really to
assimilate, you know, what went on, before I can put it into practice”.
“I think that I’ve made quite a big step forward in the way that I approach learning
now. I’ve been introduced to things such as… Well, such as the theory to
learning. Such as the constructivist, objectivist, serialist, holist. I didn’t
understand that before”.
“I mean I think overall with doing the assessed work, it lets you know a little bit
more about how you work. And you learn lessons from doing things well and
doing things badly. And I think having the journal, the reflective element of that
has sort of encouraged me to think more reflectively in general. So I sort of
analyse my own ways of learning a lot more”.
The ability to reflect on and evaluate one’s abilities as a learner is sometimes referred to
in the literature as learning to learn (Ford, 2004).
It is also significant that several of the participants seemed to value and enjoy the
process of being interviewed, as it provided them with an opportunity to reflect on and
discuss their experiences of learning and using information. Participant 7, for example,
made the following statement at the very end of the interview process:
“I enjoyed that. That was quite interesting to… Sort of listening to myself and
thinking about the answers I was going to give”.
As stated in section 4.3.2.1 above, all participants demonstrated an awareness of the
need to critically evaluate information sources. Furthermore, Participant 8 was able to
monitor the effectiveness with which they searched for and retrieved information:
56
“I pretty much just hit the databases and start searching really. And I think I’ve
found some problems with that. Like often I go in too deep and find too much
stuff. I sometimes dig up a lot of irrelevant stuff and waste a lot of time. And I
think I might look back at my experiences on the course and probably change that
more now, and make sure that I’ve got very clear questions in my head about what
I want to answer”.
57
55.. DDiissccuussssiioonn
5.1 Introduction As elsewhere in the literature, the results of the present study paint an incredibly
complex picture of student learning and information behaviour. Many of the themes
explored during the qualitative interviews intertwined and overlapped with one another
in interesting ways.
However, the results of the present study are also somewhat limited. In
particular there were a number of unexplained contradictions in the data, which no doubt
resulted in part from a limited sample size. Furthermore, as the qualitative interviews
were highly specific to each individual participant, it was often difficult to draw
comparisons. Another potential issue relates to the nature of the sample itself. In
particular, all participants scored highly for the deep study approach and were
intrinsically motivated with regards the course material. Furthermore, there were no
examples of a predominantly surface study approach among participants. This limits the
extent to which the current study may be discussed in relation to previous research
findings.
The remaining sections of this chapter will consider key results from the present
study in relation to the previous literature on student learning and information behaviour.
The discussion is broken down into four main sections. The first three sections
correspond with the research questions outlined in Chapter 1. The fourth section relates
to metacognition, which represents an emerging research agenda in both student learning
and information behaviour.
58
5.2 In what ways do students approach studying? There are several possible explanations for the predominantly deep approach to studying
displayed by the majority of participants. Firstly, there is evidence in the literature to
suggest that mature students are more likely to adopt a deep study approach
(Richardson, 1994). Secondly, all participants demonstrated a high degree of intrinsic
motivation during the qualitative interviews (see section 5.3 below for a more in-depth
discussion of motivation). Finally, although participants demonstrated very different
perceptions of the same learning environment, there was little evidence of an excessively
high workload, and the majority of participants perceived the Department of Information
Studies as providing a high degree of learning support.
5.3 To what extent does learning in an academic context affect students’
approach to studying?
Participants demonstrated extremely different perceptions of the learning environment.
This supports the idea that the relationship between academic context and study
approaches in indirect, and depends to a large extent on the preferences that students
have for different styles of teaching and course design (Ramsden, 1988).
Furthermore, there is some evidence to support the notion that students’
preferences for different styles of teaching and course design correspond with their
overall study approach (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004), although there are contradictions
in the data. Participant 3, for example, despite having a predominantly deep approach to
studying, demonstrated a strong preference for focused essay questions, as opposed to
those which allow the expression of one’s own ideas and interests. Furthermore, in the
case of Participants 2 and 4, there was a certain degree of conflict between their intrinsic
desire to feel engaged during lectures, and the need to feel reassured by the environment
in which they learn.
The extent to which participants’ perceptions of the learning environment
affected their overall study approach is unclear. As stated earlier, all participants scored
highly for the deep study approach. Furthermore, there was little evidence of an
59
excessively high workload, and the majority of participants perceived the department as
providing a high degree of learning support. This to some extent supports the finding
elsewhere in the literature that a positive course perception and the “avoidance of
overloading” are associated with a deep approach to studying (Ramsden and Entwistle,
1981: 381; Ramsden, 1992, cited in Diseth et al., 2006). Furthermore, as with Dart et al.
(1999 : 137), there was evidence to suggest that a deep study approach is associated with
a perception of the learning environment as “highly personalised and encouraging”.
There was a limited amount of evidence to support the idea that a negative
course perception may influence students towards a surface study approach (Ramsden,
2005). Furthermore, negative perceptions were often centred around styles of teaching
and delivering course material (Ramsden and Entwistle, 1981). However, there are once
again contradictions in the data. Namely, a negative course perception, together with the
competing pressures of the course, did not necessarily influence students towards a
surface study approach. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that students’
perceptions of the learning environment are extremely variable, and may reflect their
most recent learning experiences.
The present study also explored participants’ conceptions of learning. In a
number of instances, participants’ highlighted the vocational nature of their current
learning environment, and the corresponding need to acquire knowledge and skills in
relation to a future career in information. This supports the idea elsewhere in the
literature that students’ conceptions of learning may reflect their underlying study
motivations (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004). However, the majority of participants
produced high scores for both deep and surface conceptions of learning. There are a
number of possible explanations for this apparent contradiction in the data. Firstly,
participants often demonstrated extremely broad conceptions of learning during the
qualitative interviews, and were consciously aware of the numerous different processes
involved. This confirms the idea elsewhere in the literature that:
60
“…people with a fully developed conception of learning become aware of
the different purposes for which alternative processes of learning can be
used” (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004: 411)
Secondly, some participants acknowledged that acquiring and remembering information,
though part of the overall process, does not in itself constitute learning. Finally, in
accordance with the literature (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004; Marton and Säljö, 2005)
some participants were influenced by their current and previous learning experiences.
For these participants, there was clearly a degree of conflict between an ideal form of
learning and that associated with a formal academic context.
Despite the fact that participants perceived their current learning environment as
being somewhat different to anything they had experienced previously, it is not at all
clear whether or to what extent this impacted on their overall approach to studying.
There was, for example, a sense of generic similarity between learning environments.
However, it is certainly the case that students’ impressions of the academic context are
often formed in comparison with their previous experiences of learning and using
information (Ramsden, 1988).
With regards motivation, participants demonstrated both a need to acquire
professional skills (i.e. extrinsic motivation) and a desire to pursue those aspects of the
course which were of personal interest (i.e. intrinsic motivation). This apparent
contradiction has been found elsewhere in the literature. Ramsden (1983) investigated
the study approaches and overall learning experiences of students studying at British
universities and polytechnics. He found that due to the greater emphasis placed on
“vocational preparation”, polytechnic students were more extrinsically motivated
towards gaining a qualification (Ramsden, 1983: 702). However, the polytechnic
students were also more likely to adopt a meaning-orientation, as well as demonstrating
a greater degree of intrinsic motivation in the course material. A possible conclusion is
that extrinsic and intrinsic motivation do not necessarily represent isolated concepts. On
the contrary, they overlap and intertwine in interesting ways.
61
Previous research suggests that student motivation is relatively consistent across
contexts, although both Entwistle (1988) and Ramsden (2005) highlight the role that
academic departments and teaching staff can play in encouraging a positive attitude
towards one’s studies. The present study suggests that the relationship between
academic context and motivation is in fact reciprocal. That is, a student’s underlying
motivation and academic goals may affect their perception of the learning environment,
but insufficient freedom in learning together with the competing pressures of the course
may equally affect students’ level of intrinsic motivation in the course material.
Although personality was not measured as part of the present study, participants
certainly displayed contrasting personality traits during the qualitative interviews.
Participants 2 and 4, for example, demonstrated signs of extreme anxiety. This in turn
affected their responses to the interview questions, and may to some extent have led to a
surface study approach. Furthermore, there was limited evidence of the impact that
one’s emotions can have on the learning process. Participant 4 in particular was in a
negative state-of-mind at the time the interviews took place. This may well explain the
participant’s somewhat negative perceptions, not only of the academic context, but of
their own ability to search for information. As Entwistle and McCune (2004 : 340)
observe “…there is a surprising lack of emphasis on emotion in learning”. Given this
and the potential for negative emotions to have an adverse effect on search performance
(Case, 2007), further research in this area would certainly be of great value.
In summary, the academic context in which students learn is one of many factors
affecting their overall study approach, conception of learning and motivation. In
addition, it is important to acknowledge that “…there can be both consistency and
variability in students’ approaches to learning” (Entwistle, 1992: 105), and that
academic context alone cannot account for the ways in which students go about their
studies.
62
5.4 To what extent does students’ approach to studying affect their
information behaviour? The results of the present study confirm that, where students possess the requisite skills
in information literacy, they will be better equipped to deal with the wealth of available
information (Heinström, 2000; 2005; 2006b). In addition, those participants who
demonstrated a positive attitude towards both the wealth of available information and
their skills in information-seeking more generally, produced the highest overall scores
for the deep study approach.
Conversely, the perception that one is expected to be skilled in the retrieval and
evaluation of information was a source of concern for some participants. There is
limited evidence to suggest that this negative perception is associated with a surface
study approach, although the exact relationship is unclear. Those participants who
perceived themselves as lacking the requisite skills in information literacy also reported
being unsuccessful in their searches for information. This supports Ford et al.’s (2001 :
1060) finding that fear of failure and low self-efficacy are associated with “poor retrieval
performance”. However, given the qualitative nature of the present study, it is difficult
to know whether participants’ self-reports represent actual or perceived differences in
search performance.
Students’ attitudes towards the wealth of available information are in fact rather
complex, and depend on a range of intermingling factors, as can be seen in Figure 1.
This model shows how students’ overall feelings of confidence and level of self-efficacy
can affect their attitude towards information-seeking, and ultimately towards the wealth
of available information. Participants 2; 4 and 5; 6 are included in the model as they
represent extreme ends of each scale. The remaining participants displayed elements of
each underlying factor but to a lesser degree.
Most likely due to skills acquired on the course, together with relatively low
scores for the surface study approach, participants demonstrated very few instances of
information overload. Those instances which did occur tended to result from high levels
63
of anxiety. For Participant 4, the experience of information overload corresponded with
their desire to conduct comprehensive searches. This ties in with Mansourian and
Ford’s (2007 : 680) finding that “…the risk of missing potentially important information
was a matter of concern to the interviewees”. According to Mansourian and Ford
(2007), searchers’ attitude towards potentially missed information depends on their
perceptions of how much information might have been missed and its relative
importance in relation to the search task.
However, the majority of participants were extremely confident with regards
their information-seeking, and often made comments such as “the more information the
better”. The term information underload is therefore used in the present study to
account for the feeling that one simply cannot get enough information.
There was an unclear pattern of results with regards participants’ actual
searching techniques and strategies. In particular, participants who produced similar
scores on the quantitative inventory often reported going about their information-seeking
in very different ways. Although this contradicts the results of previous research into
study approaches and information behaviour (see sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 above), it is
important to keep in mind the extremely limited sample size on which the present study
is based, and the problems associated with drawing comparisons between qualitative
interviews.
The majority of participants engaged with multiple information sources. Again,
this is no doubt a reflection of skills learnt on the various programmes of study.
However, Participant 5, who was highly motivated by an intrinsic interest in the course
material, admitted preferring electronic journals because of the relative ease with which
information can be retrieved. Furthermore, despite producing a high score for the deep
study approach and a low score for the surface study approach, Participant 1 reported
selecting information sources based on superficial criteria. This to some extent
contradicts Heinström’s (2006b) finding that students whose intention is to understand
the search topic might engage with “multiple information sources”, and that conversely,
64
those students who perceive their search for information in relation to certain “task
requirements” (i.e. as is characteristic of a surface study approach) may select
information sources based on “superficial criteria”.
The academic context in which students learn may also exert more of a direct
influence on their information behaviour. In particular, there was clearly a degree of
conflict between Participants 2’s preferred style of information behaviour and that
espoused by the department. Interestingly, participant 2 also produced the highest
overall score for the surface approach to studying and the fear of failure sub-scale.
There was some evidence to support Heinström’s (2006c : 590) finding that the
incidental acquisition of information is associated with a predominantly deep approach
to studying, an intrinsic interest in the topic of enquiry and “the ability to enjoy
information seeking”. Students presumably benefit from the ability to encounter
information in their day-to-day studies, in addition to the more structured methods of
information-seeking supported by the learning environment. It would therefore be
interesting to investigate students’ attitudes towards serendipitous information-seeking
in more detail.
In summary, students’ approach to studying may affect their attitude towards
information-seeking, as well as the success with which they retrieve relevant
information. The results of the present study also confirm the relationship between
serendipitous information-seeking and a deep study approach found elsewhere in the
literature.
65
5.5 Metacognition Metacognition was not explicitly mentioned in the research aims of the present study.
Nor was it incorporated into the qualitative interviews. However, it represents an
emerging research agenda in the literature on both student learning and information
behaviour. It was therefore considered important to acknowledge the potential value and
impact of metacognitive strategies.
The qualitative interviews did in fact provide evidence of metacognition amongst
some of the participants. In particular, there was evidence to suggest that participants
valued the reflective and learning to learn aspects of particular modules in the
department. Given the results of the quantitative inventory (see section 5.2 above), this
study therefore supports the notion that metacognition and reflective practice are
associated with a deep approach to studying (Case and Gunstone, 2002; Leung and
Kember, 2003).
With regards information behaviour, all participants demonstrated an awareness
of the need to critically evaluate information sources. This is no doubt a reflection of
skills and knowledge acquired on the various programmes of study, and is of particular
importance given the wealth of information now available via the Internet (Stadtler and
Bromme, 2007). In addition, Participant 8, who produced high scores for both the deep
and strategic study approaches, was able to monitor the effectiveness with which they
searched for information, and identify unsuccessful search strategies. This confirms the
finding elsewhere in the literature that the strategic study approach incorporates a degree
of self-regulation on the part of the learner (University of Edinburgh, 1997).
In summary, the present study has confirmed the importance of metacognition
with regards both student learning and information behaviour. Furthermore, it has
provided evidence that students genuinely value the opportunity to reflect and discover
new ways of learning.
66
66.. CCoonncclluussiioonn
Any conclusions drawn from the present study are extremely specific to the participants
who took part and the context in which they were operating at that time. Furthermore, it
is important to acknowledge the limited amount of time in which the study was
conducted. In particular, it would have been beneficial to test the model presented in
Figure 1. In addition, though the qualitative interviews were of great value and interest,
there were some contradictions in the data which could not be explained. It would
therefore have been extremely useful to conduct post-study interviews or focus groups,
in order to further understand some of the more complex issues which emerged.
The results of the present study confirm the extremely complex nature of student
learning, which despite decades of research is yet to be fully understood. As Entwistle
et al. (2002) state:
“The concepts and categories used to describe general differences in
studying provide a valuable analytic framework for considering the ways
individuals study, but also tend to disguise the complexity of the everyday
situation”
With regards information behaviour, perhaps the most significant finding to emerge
from the present research is the influence that study approaches can exert on students’
attitudes towards information-seeking, and towards the wealth of available information.
However, perhaps due to a limited sample size, the relationship between study approach
and information behaviour was often unclear. As Case (2007 : 5) states: “Information
seeking behaviour often defies generalization and usually escapes observation”.
67
Overall, it may be concluded that the academic context in which students learn is one of
many factors which affects their overall approach to studying, and ultimately, their
information behaviour. Context alone cannot account for the ways in which students
approach the task of learning and using information. The relationship between academic
context, approaches to studying and information behaviour is expressed in Figure 2
(Appendix E). This model shows how factors such as personality, motivation and
previous experiences interact in such a way as to determine students’ academic goals
and aspirations. These more consistent underlying characteristics are then adjusted
according to the particular context or environment in which students find themselves,
therefore determining their overall approach to studying and information behaviour.
Students’ information behaviour may change once they enter their first professional
post.
6.1 Pedagogical implications A key impetus behind much of the research presented in Chapter 2 is to improve the
effectiveness with which students learn and use information. However, findings from
the present study support the notion that students’ preferences for different styles of
teaching and course design exert a considerable influence on their overall perceptions of
the academic context. To this extent, it may never be possible to design a programme of
study which suits the needs of every individual learner. Furthermore, it is not
necessarily the case that departments should support all forms of learning, especially
where they may lead to deficient study strategies (Entwistle and Peterson, 2004). If, for
example, student’s preferences for fact-based and structured assessment methods were
supported by the learning environment, it could result in a surface study approach
(Mimirinis and Bhattacharya, 2007).
68
6.2 Recommendations for further study Further investigation of the metacognitive aspects of studying would perhaps help us to
better understand the relative depth with which students dive into and explore the
information they encounter, especially in the context of Higher Education. This would
be particularly apt given the recent growth in interest in metacognition as an aid to
student learning, and its role as a navigational tool during the process of Web-based
information-seeking.
It was beyond the scope of the current research to consider how students
studying different academic disciplines may differ in their overall approach to studying.
Furthermore, there is a relatively large body of research which suggests that approaches
to studying are culturally specific. Factors such as these may have huge implications for
the various ways in which students engage with and use information in the context of
Higher Education, and are therefore worthy of further investigation.
Finally, the present study has to some extent highlighted impact that personality
can have on students’ approach to studying, and ultimately the ways in which they
engage with and use information. Although Heinström (2002; 2005; 2006a; 2006b;
2006c) has conducted a great deal of research in this area, the methods she employs are
predominantly quantitative in nature. It might therefore be interesting to explore the
relationship using a mixed-methods approach, in which some of the quantitative findings
could be further clarified and elaborated via qualitative interviewing.
Word Count: 19,249
69
RReeffeerreenncceess
Boström, L. and Lassen, L. (2006). “Unravelling learning, learning styles, learning
strategies and meta-cognition”. Education & Training [Online], 48 (2/3), 178-189.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00400910610651809 [Accessed 9 January 2008].
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Case, D. (2007). Looking for Information : A Survey of Research on Information
Seeking, Needs, and Behaviour. 2nd ed. Oxford: Academic Press.
Case, J. and Gunstone, R. (2002). “Metacognitive development as a shift in approach to
learning: an in-depth study”. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (4), 459-470.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. et al. (2007). “Personality and approaches to learning predict
preferences for different teaching methods”. Learning and Individual Differences, 17
(3), 241-250.
Dart, B. et al. (1999). “Classroom learning environments and students’ approaches to
learning”. Learning Environments Research, 2 (2), 137-156.
Diseth, A. (2003). “Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic
achievement”. European Journal of Personality, 17 (2), 143-155.
Diseth, A. et al. (2006). “Course experience, approaches to learning and academic
achievement”. Education and Training [Online], 48 (2/3), 156-169.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00400910610651782 [Accessed 15 July 2008].
70
Dochy, F. et al. (2006). “On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: the
effects of the teaching/learning environment”. Learning and Instruction, 16 (4), 279-
294.
Entwistle, N. (2001). “Styles of learning and approaches to studying in higher
education”. Kybernetes [Online], 30 (5/6), 593-602.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&cont
entId=875911 [Accessed 7 April 2008].
Entwistle, N. (1992). Styles of Learning and Teaching: An Integrated Outline of
Educational Psychology for Students, Teachers and Lecturers. London: David Fulton
Publishers.
Entwistle, N. (1988). “Motivational Factors in Students’ Approaches to Learning”. In:
Schmeck, R. (ed), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, pp. 21-51. New York:
Plenum.
Entwistle, N. and McCune, V. (2004). “The conceptual basis of study strategy
inventories”. Educational Psychology Review [Online], 16 (4), 325-345.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l27747602358j724/fulltext.pdf
[Accessed 29 July 2008].
Entwistle, N. and Peterson, E. (2004). “Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher
education: relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments”.
International Journal of Educational Research [Online], 41 (6), 407-428.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.eresources.shef.ac.uk/science/journal/08830355
[Accessed 4 June 2008].
71
Entwistle, N. et al. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of university
teaching-learning environments: concepts, measures and preliminary findings [Online].
Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport1.pdf
[Accessed 4 June 2008].
Entwistle, N. et al. (1979). “Identifying distinctive approaches to studying”. Higher
Education [Online], 8 (4), 365-380.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p3555078t82t1501/fulltext.pdf [Accessed 9 April
2008].
Ford, N. (2004). “Towards a model of learning for educational informatics”. Journal of
Documentation [Online], 60 (2), 183-225.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/Emer
aldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2780600206.pdf [Accessed 28 February 2008].
Ford, N. et al. (2005a). “Web search strategies and human individual differences:
cognitive and demographic factors, Internet attitudes, and approaches”. Journal for the
American Society for Information Science and Technology [Online], 56 (7), 741-756.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110439989/issue [Accessed 5 June 2008].
Ford, N. et al. (2005b).“Web search strategies and human individual differences: a
combined analysis”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology [Online], 56 (7), 757-764.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110439989/issue [Accessed 26 June 2008].
Ford, N. et al. (2003). “Web search strategies and approaches to studying”. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology [Online], 54 (6), 473-489.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/104084531/issue [Accessed 2 May 2008].
72
Ford, N. et al. (2001). “The role of individual differences in Internet searching: an
empirical study”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology [Online], 52 (12), 1049-1066.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/85511652/issue [Accessed 15 July 2008].
Ford, N. et al. (1994). “Cognitive styles and searching”. Online Information Review, 18
(2), 79-86.
Fransson, A. (1977). “On qualitative differences in learning: IV. Effects of intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic test anxiety on process and outcome”. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 47 (3), 244-257.
George, C. et al. (2006). “Scholarly use of information: graduate students’ information
seeking behaviour”. Information Research [Online], 11 (4).
http://informationr.net/ir/11-4/paper272.html [Accessed 5 June 2008].
Heinström, J. (2006a). “Broad exploration or precise specificity: two basic information
seeking patterns among students”. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology [Online], 57 (11), 1440-1450.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112749919/issue [Accessed 27 June 2008].
Heinström, J. (2006b). “Fast surfing for availability or deep diving into quality –
motivation and information seeking among middle and high school students”.
Information Research [Online], 11 (4). http://informationr.net/ir/11-4/paper265.html
[Accessed 2 May 2008].
Heinström, J. (2006c). “Psychological factors behind incidental information
acquisition”. Library and Information Science Research [Online], 28 (4), 579-594.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188 [Accessed 26 June 2008].
73
Heinström, J. (2005). “Fast surfing, brad scanning and deep diving: the influence of
personality and study approach on students’ information-seeking behaviour”. Journal of
Documentation [Online], 61 (2), 228-247.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&cont
entId=1465023 [Accessed 15 July 2008].
Heinström, J. (2000). “The impact of personality and approaches to learning on
information behaviour”. Information Research [Online], 5 (3).
http://informationr.net/ir/5-3/paper78.html [Accessed 2 May 2008].
Kuhlthau, C. (1999). “Investigating patterns in information seeking: concepts in
context”. In: Wilson, T. and Allen, D. (eds.), Exploring the Contexts of Information
Behaviour. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information
Need. Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 10-20. 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK.
Laurillard, D. (1979). “The processes of student learning”. Higher Education, 8 (4), 395-
409.
Lee, M. and Baylor, A. (2006). “Designing metacognitive maps for web-based
learning”. Educational Technology & Society [Online], 9 (1), 344-348.
http://www.ifets.info/journals/9_1/28.pdf [Accessed 18 January 2008].
Leedy, P. and Ormrod, J. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and Design.
International, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Leung, D. and Kember, D. (2003). “The relationship between approaches to learning and
reflection upon practice”. Educational Psychology, 23 (1), 61-71.
74
Lizzio, A. et al. (2002). “University students’ perceptions of the learning environment
and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice”. Studies in Higher
Education [Online], 27 (1), 27-52.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/03075070120099
359 [Accessed 15 July 2008].
Mansourian, Y. and Ford, N. (2007). “Search persistence and failure on the web: a
“bounded rationality” and “satisficing” analysis”. Journal of Documentation [Online],
63 (5), 680-701. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00220410710827745
[Accessed 29 July 2008].
Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (2005). “Approaches to Learning”. In: Marton, F. et al. (eds.),
The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher
Education, 3rd ed., pp. 39-58 [Online]. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/resources/EoL.html [Accessed 12 February 2008].
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Mason, J. (1994). “Linking qualitative and quantitative data analysis”. In: Bryman, A.
and Burgess, R. (eds.). Analysing Qualitative Data, pp. 89-110. London: Routledge.
Mimirinis, M. and Bhattacharya, M. (2007). “Design of virtual learning environments
for deep learning”. Journal of Interactive Learning Research [Online], 18 (1), 55-64.
http://proquest.umi.com.eresources.shef.ac.uk/pqdlink?did=1216774581&sid=1&Fmt=4
&clientId=29199&RQT=309&VName=PQD [Accessed 15 July 2008].
Narciss, S. et al. (2007). “Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning
environments”. Computers in Human Behaviour [Online], 23 (3), 1126-1144.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.eresources.shef.ac.uk/science/journal/07475632
[Accessed 23 May 2008].
75
Nijhuis, J. et al. (2005). “Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student
perceptions and learning strategies”. Learning Environments Research, 8 (1), 67-93.
Prins, F. et al. (2006). “The impact of intellectual ability and metacognition on learning:
new support for the threshold of problematicity theory”. Learning and Instruction
[Online], 16 (4), 374-387.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.eresources.shef.ac.uk/science/journal/09594752
[Accessed 23 May 2008].
Ramsden, P. (2005). “The context of learning in academic departments”. In: Marton, F.
et al. (eds.), The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in
Higher Education, 3rd ed., pp. 198-216 [Online]. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/resources/EoL.html [Accessed 12 February 2008].
Ramsden, P. (1988). “Context and Strategy: Situational Influences on Learning”. In:
Schmeck, R. (ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, pp. 159-184. New York:
Plenum.
Ramsden, P. (1983). “Institutional variations in British students’ approaches to learning
and experiences of teaching”. Higher Education [Online], 12 (6), 691-705.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k15727v172275868/ [Accessed 15 July 2008].
Ramsden, P. (1979). “Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment”.
Higher Education, 8 (4), 411-427.
Ramsden, P. and Entwistle, N. (1981). “Effects of academic departments on students’
approaches to studying”. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51 (3), 368-383.
Rayner, S. and Riding, R. (1997). “Towards a categorisation of cognitive styles and
learning styles”. Educational Psychology, 17 (1/2), 5-27.
76
Richardson, J. (1994). “Mature students in Higher-Education. 1. A literature survey on
approaches to studying”. Studies in Higher Education, 19 (3), 309-325.
Rowley, J. and Urquhart, C. (2007a). “Understanding student information behaviour in
relation to electronic information services: lessons from longitudinal monitoring and
evaluation, part 1”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 58 (8), 1162-1174.
Rowley, J. and Urquhart, C. (2007b). “Understanding student information behaviour in
relation to electronic information services: lessons from longitudinal monitoring and
evaluation, part 2”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 58 (8), 1188-1197.
Saito, H. and Miwa, K. (2007). “Construction of a learning environment supporting
learners’ reflection: A case of information seeking on the Web”. Computers &
Education [Online], 49 (2), 214-229.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315 [Accessed 15 January 2008].
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Stadtler, M. and Bromme, R. (2007). “Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW:
The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models”. International Journal
of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning [Online], 2 (2-3), 191-210.
http://www.psych.unito.it/csc/cogsci05/frame/poster/1/f698-stadtler.pdf [Accessed 13
January 2008].
Tickle, S. (2001). “What have we learnt about student learning? A review of the research
on study approach and style”. Kybernetes [Online], 30 (7/8), 955-969.
www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/EUM0000000005918 [Accessed 30 June 2008].
77
Trigwell, K. and Ashwin, P. (2006). “An exploratory study of situated conceptions of
learning and learning environments”. Higher Education [Online], 51 (2), 243-258.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1560276jv1077211/ [Accessed 15 July 2008].
University of Edinburgh. (1997). ASSIST: Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for
Students (short version) [Online]. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/questionnaires/ASSIST.pdf [Accessed 21 May 2008].
Wilson, T. (1999). “Models in information behaviour research”. Journal of
Documentation [Online], 55 (3), 249-270.
http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/papers/1999JDoc.html [Accessed 2 May 2008].
Wilson, K. and Fowler, J. (2005). “Assessing the impact of learning environments on
students’ approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs”.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education [Online], 30 (1), 87-101.
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:zxK6x04naeIJ:www.numyspace.co.uk/
~unn_evdw3/py405/2007b/papers/deep1.pdf+ [Accessed 15 July 2008].
Wilson, T. and Walsh, C. (1996). “Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary
perspective”. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, Department of Information Studies.
Wood, F. et al. (1996). “Information skills, searching behaviour and cognitive style for
student-centred learning: a computer-assisted learning approach”. Journal of
Information Science [Online], 22 (2), 79-92.
http://jis.sagepub.com/content/vol22/issue2/ [Accessed 5 June 2008].
Zhang, L. (2003). “Does the big five predict learning approaches?”. Personality and
individual differences, 34 (8), 1431-1446.
78
AAppppeennddiicceess
AAppppeennddiixx AA::
IIlllluussttrraattiioonn ooff ddeeeepp aanndd ssuurrffaaccee lleeaarrnniinngg:: tthhee rreesseeaarrcchh tteeaamm hhaadd bbeeeenn ffiisshhiinngg tthhee ssuurrffaaccee ffoorr ddaayyss nnooww,, uunnaawwaarree tthhaatt ddeeeeppeerr eexxpplloorraattiioonn wwoouulldd ggiivvee tthheemm aa mmuucchh mmoorree rreewwaarrddiinngg rreessuulltt..
79
AAppppeennddiixx BB::
Research project
80
Research topic
81
AAppppeennddiixx CC:: Interview Plan
Date of interview: /07/08
Participant identification number:
1. Introduction
Have you read and understood everything on the information sheet?
Are there any questions you would like to ask before the interview begins?
The interview should last between 30 minutes and 1 hour – let me know if
you need me to stop the interview at any time
Overall the interview is intended to be informal (more like a conversation
than a question and answer session)
Don’t worry if you have more to say about some topics than others – I’m
interested in your experiences so we will only pursue topics which are
relevant to you as an individual
2. Conceptions of learning What does the word learning mean to you?
Remembering?
Developing as a person?
Acquiring information?
Being able to use the information you have acquired?
Understanding new material for yourself?
Seeing things in a more meaningful way?
What sort of tasks do you associate with the word learning? (attending
lectures? Making notes? Reading? Writing assignments?)
82
3. Perceptions of the learning environment In general, how do you perceive the…
Course design (content / organisation / clarity of aims and learning outcomes
/ workload / vocational relevance)
Teaching (methods / quality of guidance and support)
Assessment (level of difficulty / opportunities to learn and develop your skills /
opportunities to pursue topics which are of personal or vocational relevance
etc…)
Feedback (useful i.e. for future assignments? Appropriate? Consistent?)
Overall environment, departmental ethos and staff attitudes (welcoming?
Friendly? Open (to new ideas)? Relaxed?)
4. Motivation
Own interest / level of difficulty / related to previous modules or work
experience / future career / departmental expectations / value for money
In general…
How did you decide which modules to take?
How did you decide which coursework topics to pick?
How did you decide what to read?
How did you decide on your dissertation topic?
How did you decide whether or not to attend lectures and other taught sessions?
How did you decide whether or not to attend optional elements of the course,
such as departmental seminars and visiting speakers?
83
5. Information behaviour In general…
How do you go about researching topics for both assessed and non-
assessed elements of the course ? (you have just been given an essay
assignment – where do you start?)
What kinds of information resources do you use? And why? (library staff /
academic staff / electronic databases / subject guides / resource lists etc…)
What kinds of information sources do you use? And why? (paper vs.
electronic, websites vs. scholarly literature etc…)
How do you find the experience of searching for and using information in
relation to coursework assignments? (do you typically feel stressed?
Overloaded? Confident? In control?)
What is your attitude towards the wealth of information available to you when
researching coursework topics? (do you find it overwhelming? Too much to
plough through within a limited timeframe? Useful? Opportunity to dig deep
and read around a topic in great detail?)
6. Previous experiences How does what we have been talking about today compare with your
previous experiences of learning and studying as an undergraduate
student?
7. Conclusion
Thank you very much for your participation in this study, your contribution
is very much appreciated
Do you have any questions?
84
AAppppeennddiixx DD:: Interview transcript: Participant 3 Researcher: What does the word learning mean to you? Participant: Learning to me means… Lots of different things… It means… The broader sense of educating yourself. It means memorising, and it means structuring knowledge I suppose. So learning is… I think learning is quite… It’s an organised way of improving what you know. So that’s a case of organising the information that’s out there in a sensible way that fits with your… The way your brain works. And then, a process of sort of educating yourself that you can then put into action at a later date. And I suppose when I think of learning I think of things that I deliberately go out and find. And I also think about things that I hear, or read in a newspaper, or glance, or something that someone mentions to me, sort of more by chance. So, I suppose imagery wise it makes me think of school. Researcher: Ok, so what sorts of tasks and processes do you think of that are associated with learning? Participant: I suppose my initial reaction to that is that it’s changed over time. I suppose my early experience of learning would be directed. You’re told that you’re going to do these courses. And, you know, it makes me think of being at school. Being given things to learn. Be given a way of learning, which might be exercises, homework, exams at the end of term. So I think learning means that. But I think learning has probably changed. And I think maybe the older you get the more you direct your own learning. You have more insight into your own techniques. Researcher: Ok. So the next section is about how you perceive the environment in which you’re currently learning. Having said that it could be a previous experience of learning at university as well. Participant: My first thought was sort of… I’ve just been for a job interview, and I got some feedback about how the interview went and they said you were good but you were very theoretical. That wasn’t meant as a criticism. But I’d say that’s what I think about this course, and I think that’s what this course is about. I think there was some writing in one of the magazines saying; that’s the point. It’s supposed to be theoretical, and then you go out into the field and do your stuff. One of the things that’s been a revelation to me, because perhaps I’m a few years older, and it certainly didn’t happen when I did my undergraduate degree, was the different styles that are used within a lecture, of learning… When I used to go to my lectures as an undergraduate, there used to be sort of didactic… Someone would stand at the front of you for two hours, and then you’d go away, you’d have your assignments and that would be fine. Occasional meeting with your personal tutor. And that would be the whole thing. And we didn’t have any expectation that it would be any different, that there was a different way of doing things. That was just the way it was done. And certainly now, it’s been a revelation on this course, and very exciting to, you know, be in a lecture where it’s interactive. And you’re expected to contribute to
85
the lecture, and sort of form the lecture based on who’s in the room at the time. It’s interactive, they use technology in a completely different way. It’s about reflective practice. It’s about talking about your experiences… So I think the environment is good. There’s some exciting things going on, compared to my first time round, very exciting ways of learning. I just think one of the significant differences about the change in this environment is that I feel like I’ve retained less information. I think that’s probably because it’s a Masters, and there’s a huge volume of information to take in. So I think it’s a necessary evil. You’re not here to memorise everything, that’s not the point. You’re here to do a vocational qualification that you then take out and embed in some practical experience. But I do worry that I feel like I haven’t retained an awful lot. I’ve sort of been quite lyrical about the, you know, this idea about being able to contribute to lectures. But actually, I know what experiences I’ve had, and it is interesting to hear about other people’s experiences, but, you know… For example, when we we’ve been in lectures and someone on the course gives an example of what happened in their practice, as soon as I get out of the room I can’t remember any of that. And given how I already know what I’ve done, I’m not really sure if I should be concentrating more on the material than on reflecting on what I already know. And I do worry that I feel like I’ve remembered less from the courses, and less theory than maybe I have done in the past. And I wonder if maybe that’s because we spend more time reflecting. Which actually… It seems the opposite way round to how it should be. Researcher: Ok, so of the information that you have retained, where would you say that information comes from? Participant: I suppose I mean, retained less of the lectures. I feel like the things I’ve remembered have been through assignments that I’ve researched. And maybe that’s the way it should be. And things that I’ve sort of picked up through serendipity or curiosity, you know, picking up a Cilip magazine and reading a couple of articles sometimes stick, because I wanted to read them. I found it was something which engaged me. It’s interesting. And also… I suppose it depends how your brain works, but I actually just like to… I don’t think you really get a hold on the material until you have memorised it, not necessarily word for word, but until you’ve got some concepts, and you’ve got sort of an internal map of the territory… And sometimes, no matter how much you reflect, you just need to go away and learn things. Researcher: Ok. So I just want to ask you a little bit more about the assignments. Whether or not you feel they enable you to learn, and why. Participant: Yeah, the questions I think have all been quite stimulating. So on the most simplistic level, you know… Have I learned anything from answering this set of questions and going away and reading and that… Yeah, I think I’ve probably found it all interesting. But you’ve got the competing demands all the time, because you can’t just look at that in isolation. I guess you’re considering as well maybe the fact that you’ve got a part time job. The fact that you’ve got four assignments due in on the same day. You’ve got group work that needs to be finished. Your emailing. And you’re trying to sort out a job for next year. So when you think of the whole wider context I suppose I look at the assignments
86
and say that’s great, you know, but I wish I’d been able to look at some of the other questions. Because you’re sort of forced into answering one. It’s always been a series of competing factors, and the guilt that you always feel that you never quite put enough time in. So it’s trying to sort of manage all those competing demands. And some frustration really about… I suppose one of the things I might say would be that the courses are quite broad, and you study them – particularly like management, which goes on for a couple of semesters – and you’re focusing on one question, for your assignment, but you never really get to see what the answers to the other questions were. I suppose maybe that’s just my laziness and I should be looking into the other questions as well. So maybe it’s just a bit frustrating having to do just one question and lose out on the others. Researcher: Ok, so this next section is about how you perceive what’s relevant to you. So just in terms of some of the decisions you’ve had to make on this course, such as which modules to take and whether or not to attend lectures and departmental seminars. Is there anything in particular which goes behind your decision making? Participant: I suppose I’ve sort of used the course to try and balance out a few things. Firstly, building on what I’ve already learned in my graduate trainee post. It was a really good programme, and I wanted to look at some of the theory behind that. And I suppose I wanted to understand maybe some of the things that I’d seen, and heard, and some of the things that I thought weren’t quite right about where I was working. But I also wanted to branch out in areas that I’d never thought of before, or areas that were completely new to me. So I suppose what I was thinking in terms of module choices was trying to get a balance between learning new things, learning things that actually might be useful for the future, and also consolidating some of the things that I’ve learned before. More generally, in terms of things like how do I make my decisions about how to behave on the course… I suppose my feeling is that, that just attending was important. I think my attendance has been very good. And I think part of that was my feeling about how my undergraduate degree had gone, where my attendance was pretty lousy, as most people’s is often I guess. And it felt like that was an opportunity passed up. And I think like since that time – I think it’s like six years – I’ve learned a lot more about, maybe having a bit more humility when you’ve got this kind of opportunity to learn and be around people who are expects in their field. Not to be such an idiot, and pass up an opportunity. And even if you’re just sat at the back not contributing or you’re not feeling on form, just to be there was often important, and to hear the anecdotes from the lectures was important. And it was just like a second chance, so, you know, I should turn up this time. I’m very lucky, and I’d always put that slightly before the assignments. I know for example that people have maybe sacrificed lectures when it’s been deadline time. I’ve always sort of prided myself on trying to sort of manage all my time, and to find time for lectures and time for the assignments as well. I think that, due to my sort of slightly chaotic way of working, I guess I’ve had some late nights towards the deadlines. But I don’t know. Yeah, my decisions have been influenced by trying not to repeat my first experience of
87
being a student. Being genuinely interested in stuff. Trying to give my days structure. Researcher: Ok, so I want to ask you about your information behaviour. So you’ve just picked an essay topic for an assignment, where do you start? Participant: Lecture notes first. I try and tag the essay concepts into the lecture where that was discussed, read through those, look at some of the key issues, look through the reading list if there’s one provided, start thinking it through in my head. I probably wouldn’t write anything at this stage. Just literally working it through in my head, walking round town. And then I’d probably ruminate for a while and not do anything. And then go for a cup of coffee. And then I’d come back. And then I’d go to straight into the journals, usually… It’s interesting actually because I… I suppose you typically start with lecture notes, and then you start with a textbook, which gives you a broad introduction to the area. And then you start drilling down specifically through journals into certain contexts, once you’ve identified the area. But I don’t know… I’ve never really got on that well with textbooks. And since the e-journals have come along, I guess I’d always prefer to use those, and to do very sort of very quick and dirty searches really. Maybe Emerald and LISA to start with. And just finding terms really. In a fairly structured way. And just looking at the words that come back… So I get up very sort of specific articles about a certain issue. So yeah, I get straight into the business of getting into, you know, say 2006, 2007 articles if they had them. And then I’d use that to work my way back. So, you know, they then cite an article, and then I go into the other article. So, and then my searches would become more specific. I’d use a broader range of resources then and go into other databases. And I suppose once I’d got a handle on it I’d go to places like Google Scholar and have a look there. And then maybe think about textbooks. It’s kind of a backwards way of doing it I suppose. And the other thing I might do is just to sound it out with someone at home. It’s amazing how much other people know. And quite often, until you’ve explained it to someone verbally, I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about. And also, I think you can really get your enthusiasm going again. Because often… At times when I’ve maybe been flagging with the course a little bit… As soon as I start explaining what I’m doing to someone, I’ve realised I get quite animated, and I get really interested in my own topic. I think that it can help sustain you. It reminds you why you’re bothering. Which is that, you are doing something interesting. But you can get so bogged down in your own head, that you forget why you’re doing it. Researcher: How do you find the experience of searching for information? So how do you generally feel? Participant: That’s a good one because yeah, my… I work quite intensely, but over a very short period of time I guess. And I tend to leave things quite late. And then go for it, which means that… My feelings generally are… I don’t really get nervous or anxious about work, essays, assignments. However late in the day, I never really worry about that. So I suppose my information seeking might be a bit more relaxed than someone else’s, who’s perhaps worried that they’re not getting back interesting stuff. I suppose I see it as a bit of a challenge really
88
so yeah… If I’m searching for an assignment, and it’s quite late in the day, and I’m not finding stuff, and I’m searching… And I think I’m doing a reasonable search, but I’m getting articles back where the keywords aren’t related to what I’m looking at, I start to feel things like wow, I’m rubbish at searching. But I’ll just think, what else can I put in, you know? I don’t feel threatened by being ignorant of not knowing things… It’s just sort of patience and persistence I suppose. But then it’s all well and good me saying that now. Often I don’t have a lot of choice. By the time I’ve left it so late, there’s no time to panic. It just becomes a series of decisions that you have to make quite quickly, over say a couple of days really. So yeah, quite relaxed. And usually very encouraged. There’s nothing more euphoric than being, you know, backed against the wall, with like a couple of days to go, sweating, you know, sort of just thinking, right, get on with it. And then you do a search and you find say ten articles out of say twenty-four that are just right on the nose what you’re looking for. And then, you know, you don’t need to read them or anything. You just feel like jubilant. You just sort of go and have some coffee, you know… My work here is done. So, you know, I do get feelings of delight, almost like sort of hah hah, I’ve cheated the system! And just sort of like hah! I’m glad I didn’t start four months ago, because I’ve found it anyway. So those sort of feelings.
89
AAppppeennddiixx EE::
Decision I want/need/ought Information need Desire for information
to do a Masters Need for information Course
degree Obligation to learn experience
Information Module choices
behaviour Study approach Coursework topics
Attendance
Strategic Dissertation topic
First etc. professional post
Contextual factors
Deep Surface
Personality Motivation Previous experiences
Students’ information behaviour may alter as they enter their first professional post.