Introduction
Competency J
"Describe the fundamental concepts of information-seeking behaviors."
Introduction
Research, like writing, is a recursive process. Although there are frameworks to help guide students and other researchers “[gain] control over how they interact with information in their environment,” such as the Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL’s) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2004), there are many approaches to “doing” research. In today’s information-heavy world, there are many possible options from which to begin searching for needed information, however, although technology has improved accessing information, information-seeking behavior is not necessarily at an equally advanced level. All too often, students and other information-seekers jump onto Google or another search engine to find their answers. Even students who have been taught to look for professional journal articles generally take the first few results. Research is much messier, involves extensive critical thinking, and does not always lead to conclusive findings. “Experienced researchers loop back and forth, move forward a step or two before going back in order to move ahead again, change directions, all the while anticipating stages not yet begun” (Booth, Columb, and Williams, 2008, p. xi).
In a candid article Fister (2002) writes, “Digital access has made research appear to be easier and faster, but it has also given rise to a confusing array of choices. Experienced researchers constantly use filters that they aren't even aware of. In my own field, I know enough context that I can reject inappropriate sources almost instantly and seize a promising lead when I see it. But if I had to find information in an unfamiliar discipline, I wouldn't know a core journal from a marginal one, a tantalizing clue from a dead end. We ask our students to make such choices all the time, without realizing how much being able to choose wisely depends on a knowledge base they lack and experiences they haven't had” (para. 9).
Part of the problem is that middle and high schools in the United States focus on teaching the very basics of research in very confined ways that do not reflect the mental and emotional processes involved when people undergo a research project, much less the fluidity of information-seeking. I graduated from high school in 2003, and when I was in my freshmen year, I remember my English teacher had students spend the week in the library so that the high school librarian could teach us how to make source cards to guide our research. Needless to say, this exercise caused much anxiety as the cards themselves were graded, and increased feelings of dread for anything “research-related.” It was only when I became a writing tutor in college that I began to realize how this kind of research philosophy was a disservice to our education and creativity.
In LIBR 210 Reference and Information Services, I was introduced to the theories of Carol Kuhlthau, one of the primary voices in information seeking research. Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP) model and Uncertainty Principle are based on her evidence-based studies which focused on the affective, cognitive, and physical experiences of high school students (she also did follow-up studies with the students as they finished college) as they progressed through the research process (1991; 1993). The ISP model has six stages: initiation, selection, exploration (often the most difficult process), formulation, collection, and search closure or presentation. Respective feelings that students go through in these six stages are uncertainty; optimism; confusion, frustration, and doubt; clarity; sense of direction or confidence; and satisfaction or disappointment. Related to the ISP model is the Uncertainty Principle. In the early stages of the research process, it is normal for researchers to experience frustration and anxiety. “As knowledge states shift to more clearly focused thoughts, a parallel shift occurs in feelings of increased confidence. Uncertainty due to a lack of understanding, a gap in meaning or a limited construct initiates the process of information seeking. The uncertainty principle is expanded by six corollaries, each of which offers an explanation of a particular component of the Information Search Process: process, formulation, redundancy, mood, prediction, and interest” (Kuhlthau, 2008, para. 6).
Besides being familiar with various print and digital reference resources and a willingness to help library users articulate their needs and find users what they need or be able to teach users how to help themselves, reference and instruction librarians must also be familiar with these stages and feelings in order to determine at which point a library user is in the information seeking process. Determining the points in which a library user is in his or her research--the "zones of intervention" as coined by Kuhlthau (2003)--can be very helpful in order for librarians to provide the “right” type of help.
Evidence
As further evidence of my understanding of library users’ varied approaches to find and utilize information, I am submitting assignments from LIBR 202 Information Retrieval, LIBR 244 Online Searching, and LIBR 210 Reference and Information Services, and LIBR 250. While many of these assignments are not specific to the inner workings of information seeking behavior, they are grounded in the understanding that people have differing levels of information literacy skills and that research can be a stressful experience.
LIBR 202: Evaluation and Comparison of UC Merced's and CSU Stanislaus' OPACs
In LIBR 202, one of the final assignments was to compare and contrast similar information retrieval systems. I chose to compare the online public access catalogs (OPACs) of University of California (UC) Merced and California State University (CSU) Stanislaus, universities which are located in California's Central Valley. In this assignment, I created a user test in order to examine the user-friendliness of both OPACs. The three users, born in 1984, 1985, and 1988, had different of educational experiences: one was a community college student transferring to UC Davis, another had recently transferred to CSU Stanislaus from community college, and the final user had a high school diploma but no college background. In the section of the paper that focuses on the user test, beginning on page 39, I noted that one of the users was very apprehensive about getting the answers right and became frustrated during the test because of his unfamiliarity with searching more precisely and his difficult experiences with "schoolwork." This observation shows that I am sensitive to people's feelings, which is very helpful in reference work as research is more than just the tasks involved. For libraries to be relevant, librarians and library workers must not only target products and services to their communities but make the library experience positive by easing fears.
LIBR 210: The ISP Model and Writing Centers Discussion Post
In LIBR 210, one of the units focused on information seeking behaviors. One of the discussion questions for the unit asked how we could adapt Kuhlthau's ISP model for more intensive research assistance in a university library, public library, or other library setting in practical ways. As I was a writing tutor in college, I am very interested in writing centers, and I had always wondered why the university library and university writing center did not share a stronger relationship although the work of composition instructors and reference and instructional librarians is similar. The culture of writing centers is also very sensitive to cultural difference and easing students into academia, and this fits very well with Kuhlthau's focus on not only the physical and cognitive tasks of research but also students' affective experiences while completing research projects. Many university libraries and writing centers and programs have begun working more closely together to strengthen the bonds between research and writing and are beginning to resemble each other in the way services are delivered. I write, "Perhaps by creating space for writing centers in libraries, and space for libraries in writing centers, more students would feel more comfortable stepping into the library or using the library in the way many students are accustomed to dropping by the writing center. Thinking that both writing centers and libraries are one in the same or extensions of each other seems “easier” to mentally handle than treating the two as separate animals. What a relief it would be for students to know they could go to either place and receive the 'right' type of help as they navigate research and writing."
LIBR 210: The Big6 Model vs. ISP Model Discussion Post Response
In the same unit on information seeking behaviors in LIBR 210, students were also introduced to Eisenberg and Berkowitz's Big Six Model. This model is often used in K-12 learning environments, although the authors of this framework suggest that it is a "process model of how people of all ages solve an information problem" (Eisenberg and Berkowitz, 1990). The following is the six stages of the model, with two sub-stages under each stage:
1.Task Definition
1.1 Define the problem
1.2 Identify information needed
2. Information Seeking Strategies
2.1 Determine all possible sources
2.2 Select the best sources
3. Location and Access
3.1 Locate sources (intellectually and physically)
3.2 Find information within sources
4. Use of Information
4.1 Engage (e.g., read, hear, view, touch)
4.2 Extract relevant information
5. Synthesis
5.1 Organize from multiple sources
5.2 Present the information
6. Evaluation
6.1 Judge the product (effectiveness)
6.2 Judge the process (efficiency)
One of the discussion questions related to the Big Six model for this unit asked, "Can you speculate why Eisenberg’s Big Six model is so popular? Is it more profound than I think it is or is it just marketed well?" While I did not respond to this question, I responded to a student's answer in which she found that Kuhlthau's model was much more dynamic, while Eisenberg and Berkowitz's model was "watered-down" and more of a "'one size fits all' philosophy" for writing a research paper. It is popular because it is much more easily understood. I agreed with her post, and indicated that the Big Six model works well in the classroom setting to teach basic skills, whereas Kuhlthau's approach is much more refined and cognizant of not only the tasks involved in research but the feelings researchers experience while working on a research project.The purpose of including this discussion response post is that it shows my familiarity with another information seeking model.
References
Booth, W.C., Columb, G.G., & Williams, J.M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Eisenberg, M., and R. Berkowitz. (1990). Information problem solving: The Big Six skills approach to library & information skills instruction. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Fister, B. (2002). Fear of reference. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://homepages.gac.edu/~fister/FearofReference.html
Kuhlthau, C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42 (5), 361-371.
Kuhlthau, C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. The Journal of Documentation, 49 (4), 339-355.
Kuhlthau, C. (2003). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (2nd ed.). Wesport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Kuhlthau, C. (2008). Information search process. Retrieved from http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~kuhlthau/news/isp_chapter.htm
Research, like writing, is a recursive process. Although there are frameworks to help guide students and other researchers “[gain] control over how they interact with information in their environment,” such as the Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL’s) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2004), there are many approaches to “doing” research. In today’s information-heavy world, there are many possible options from which to begin searching for needed information, however, although technology has improved accessing information, information-seeking behavior is not necessarily at an equally advanced level. All too often, students and other information-seekers jump onto Google or another search engine to find their answers. Even students who have been taught to look for professional journal articles generally take the first few results. Research is much messier, involves extensive critical thinking, and does not always lead to conclusive findings. “Experienced researchers loop back and forth, move forward a step or two before going back in order to move ahead again, change directions, all the while anticipating stages not yet begun” (Booth, Columb, and Williams, 2008, p. xi).
In a candid article Fister (2002) writes, “Digital access has made research appear to be easier and faster, but it has also given rise to a confusing array of choices. Experienced researchers constantly use filters that they aren't even aware of. In my own field, I know enough context that I can reject inappropriate sources almost instantly and seize a promising lead when I see it. But if I had to find information in an unfamiliar discipline, I wouldn't know a core journal from a marginal one, a tantalizing clue from a dead end. We ask our students to make such choices all the time, without realizing how much being able to choose wisely depends on a knowledge base they lack and experiences they haven't had” (para. 9).
Part of the problem is that middle and high schools in the United States focus on teaching the very basics of research in very confined ways that do not reflect the mental and emotional processes involved when people undergo a research project, much less the fluidity of information-seeking. I graduated from high school in 2003, and when I was in my freshmen year, I remember my English teacher had students spend the week in the library so that the high school librarian could teach us how to make source cards to guide our research. Needless to say, this exercise caused much anxiety as the cards themselves were graded, and increased feelings of dread for anything “research-related.” It was only when I became a writing tutor in college that I began to realize how this kind of research philosophy was a disservice to our education and creativity.
In LIBR 210 Reference and Information Services, I was introduced to the theories of Carol Kuhlthau, one of the primary voices in information seeking research. Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP) model and Uncertainty Principle are based on her evidence-based studies which focused on the affective, cognitive, and physical experiences of high school students (she also did follow-up studies with the students as they finished college) as they progressed through the research process (1991; 1993). The ISP model has six stages: initiation, selection, exploration (often the most difficult process), formulation, collection, and search closure or presentation. Respective feelings that students go through in these six stages are uncertainty; optimism; confusion, frustration, and doubt; clarity; sense of direction or confidence; and satisfaction or disappointment. Related to the ISP model is the Uncertainty Principle. In the early stages of the research process, it is normal for researchers to experience frustration and anxiety. “As knowledge states shift to more clearly focused thoughts, a parallel shift occurs in feelings of increased confidence. Uncertainty due to a lack of understanding, a gap in meaning or a limited construct initiates the process of information seeking. The uncertainty principle is expanded by six corollaries, each of which offers an explanation of a particular component of the Information Search Process: process, formulation, redundancy, mood, prediction, and interest” (Kuhlthau, 2008, para. 6).
Besides being familiar with various print and digital reference resources and a willingness to help library users articulate their needs and find users what they need or be able to teach users how to help themselves, reference and instruction librarians must also be familiar with these stages and feelings in order to determine at which point a library user is in the information seeking process. Determining the points in which a library user is in his or her research--the "zones of intervention" as coined by Kuhlthau (2003)--can be very helpful in order for librarians to provide the “right” type of help.
Evidence
As further evidence of my understanding of library users’ varied approaches to find and utilize information, I am submitting assignments from LIBR 202 Information Retrieval, LIBR 244 Online Searching, and LIBR 210 Reference and Information Services, and LIBR 250. While many of these assignments are not specific to the inner workings of information seeking behavior, they are grounded in the understanding that people have differing levels of information literacy skills and that research can be a stressful experience.
LIBR 202: Evaluation and Comparison of UC Merced's and CSU Stanislaus' OPACs
In LIBR 202, one of the final assignments was to compare and contrast similar information retrieval systems. I chose to compare the online public access catalogs (OPACs) of University of California (UC) Merced and California State University (CSU) Stanislaus, universities which are located in California's Central Valley. In this assignment, I created a user test in order to examine the user-friendliness of both OPACs. The three users, born in 1984, 1985, and 1988, had different of educational experiences: one was a community college student transferring to UC Davis, another had recently transferred to CSU Stanislaus from community college, and the final user had a high school diploma but no college background. In the section of the paper that focuses on the user test, beginning on page 39, I noted that one of the users was very apprehensive about getting the answers right and became frustrated during the test because of his unfamiliarity with searching more precisely and his difficult experiences with "schoolwork." This observation shows that I am sensitive to people's feelings, which is very helpful in reference work as research is more than just the tasks involved. For libraries to be relevant, librarians and library workers must not only target products and services to their communities but make the library experience positive by easing fears.
LIBR 210: The ISP Model and Writing Centers Discussion Post
In LIBR 210, one of the units focused on information seeking behaviors. One of the discussion questions for the unit asked how we could adapt Kuhlthau's ISP model for more intensive research assistance in a university library, public library, or other library setting in practical ways. As I was a writing tutor in college, I am very interested in writing centers, and I had always wondered why the university library and university writing center did not share a stronger relationship although the work of composition instructors and reference and instructional librarians is similar. The culture of writing centers is also very sensitive to cultural difference and easing students into academia, and this fits very well with Kuhlthau's focus on not only the physical and cognitive tasks of research but also students' affective experiences while completing research projects. Many university libraries and writing centers and programs have begun working more closely together to strengthen the bonds between research and writing and are beginning to resemble each other in the way services are delivered. I write, "Perhaps by creating space for writing centers in libraries, and space for libraries in writing centers, more students would feel more comfortable stepping into the library or using the library in the way many students are accustomed to dropping by the writing center. Thinking that both writing centers and libraries are one in the same or extensions of each other seems “easier” to mentally handle than treating the two as separate animals. What a relief it would be for students to know they could go to either place and receive the 'right' type of help as they navigate research and writing."
LIBR 210: The Big6 Model vs. ISP Model Discussion Post Response
In the same unit on information seeking behaviors in LIBR 210, students were also introduced to Eisenberg and Berkowitz's Big Six Model. This model is often used in K-12 learning environments, although the authors of this framework suggest that it is a "process model of how people of all ages solve an information problem" (Eisenberg and Berkowitz, 1990). The following is the six stages of the model, with two sub-stages under each stage:
1.Task Definition
1.1 Define the problem
1.2 Identify information needed
2. Information Seeking Strategies
2.1 Determine all possible sources
2.2 Select the best sources
3. Location and Access
3.1 Locate sources (intellectually and physically)
3.2 Find information within sources
4. Use of Information
4.1 Engage (e.g., read, hear, view, touch)
4.2 Extract relevant information
5. Synthesis
5.1 Organize from multiple sources
5.2 Present the information
6. Evaluation
6.1 Judge the product (effectiveness)
6.2 Judge the process (efficiency)
One of the discussion questions related to the Big Six model for this unit asked, "Can you speculate why Eisenberg’s Big Six model is so popular? Is it more profound than I think it is or is it just marketed well?" While I did not respond to this question, I responded to a student's answer in which she found that Kuhlthau's model was much more dynamic, while Eisenberg and Berkowitz's model was "watered-down" and more of a "'one size fits all' philosophy" for writing a research paper. It is popular because it is much more easily understood. I agreed with her post, and indicated that the Big Six model works well in the classroom setting to teach basic skills, whereas Kuhlthau's approach is much more refined and cognizant of not only the tasks involved in research but the feelings researchers experience while working on a research project.The purpose of including this discussion response post is that it shows my familiarity with another information seeking model.
References
Booth, W.C., Columb, G.G., & Williams, J.M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Eisenberg, M., and R. Berkowitz. (1990). Information problem solving: The Big Six skills approach to library & information skills instruction. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Fister, B. (2002). Fear of reference. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://homepages.gac.edu/~fister/FearofReference.html
Kuhlthau, C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42 (5), 361-371.
Kuhlthau, C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. The Journal of Documentation, 49 (4), 339-355.
Kuhlthau, C. (2003). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (2nd ed.). Wesport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Kuhlthau, C. (2008). Information search process. Retrieved from http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~kuhlthau/news/isp_chapter.htm
Files
Below are the files to my pieces of evidence.
LIBR_202_opac_evaluation.pdf | |
File Size: | 4218 kb |
File Type: |
LIBR_210_isp_model_and_writing_centers_discussion_post.pdf | |
File Size: | 335 kb |
File Type: |
LIBR_210_big_6_model_versus_isp_model_disussion_post_response.pdf | |
File Size: | 122 kb |
File Type: |