Outline:

1. Bridging the Gap: Mediating Student-Professor Research ExpectationsMeg RavenCoordinator of Public ServicesMount Saint Vincent University Librarymeg.raven@msvu.caWorkshop for Instruction in Library Use38th Annual ConferenceMontreal, 25 May 2009

2. The Experience:Academic librarians hear it all the time from faculty: “my students won’t look beyond Google for sources;” “they copy indiscriminately without citing;” “they complain about reading anything longer than a screen.” The lament is different from students: “I don’t understand why I can’t use Google or Wikipedia;” “what’s the big deal about copying - everyone does it;” “I just don’t understand this long journal article - it’s written for an expert in the field, not me.”

3. Background Data results Differing research expectations What role can we play Questions and comments Outline:

4. The broad questions: • Students: What do they expect of the university research process? • Faculty: What do they expect of 1st year students in terms of research? • Librarians: If we can better understand these expectations are there things we can do to help students and faculty better understand each others’ research expectations, and enhance IL learning?

5. Method: • Surveyed approximately 350 students in eight 1st year classes on the first day of class in Sept. 2008 • Classes surveyed: • Business • English • History • Psychology • Sociology/Anthropology • Surveyed 200 faculty online; 75 responses • Ability to compare: • students & faculty • 1st year students with those in other years

6. Mount Saint Vincent University Located in Halifax, NS Approximately 4800 students, primarily undergrad Local students: 75% from NS 80% female student body Demographics:

7. Demographics . . . con’t Students surveyed: • 80% female • 95% full-time • 71% first-year; 14% second-year • 76% age 20 or less; 15% age 21-25 • All disciplines represented • 58% are working • 38% 11-20 hrs/wk • 50% 21+ hrs/wk Faculty surveyed: • All disciplines represented • Teaching experience: • 10% 0-5 yrs • 45% 6-15 yrs • 45% 16+ yrs

8. Students’ online experiences and habits

9. Students’ access to information and communication technologies Percentage

10. Time students’ spent online during the last year Percentage Hours per week spent online e.g., general web browsing, Facebook, e-mail, gaming, etc.

11. Student and faculty rating of students’ general internet searching skills Percentage

12. Who students believe has the best internet searching skills Percentage

13. Students’ use of Google and databases for research in high school Percentage

14. Research and Reading Expectations

15. 1st year students’ preparedness to do university level research Percentage

16. Ratings of 1st year students’ academic research skills Percentage

17. Who is most responsible for 1st year students’ learning how to do research Percentage

18. 1st year students’ reading experiences during the last year Percentage Hours per week spent reading during the last year.

19. 1st year students’ reading expectations Percentage ■ Students’ Actual Reading: low levels of reading experiences in past year. ■Students’ Expected Reading: expect to read more in forthcoming year. ■ Faculty Expectations for Students Reading: significantly greater than what students plan on.

20. Time to research a 10 page paper/assignment Percentage

21. Getting help: who will students go to, and to whom do faculty want them to go, for research assistance? Percentage

22. Research sources

23. Using Google to locate research material: student and faculty expectations ■ Amount of research material 1st year students expect to find using Google (i.e., 30% of students expect to use Google to find 61-80% of their research material) ■ Amount of research material faculty want students to find using Google (i.e., 63% of faculty want students to use Google to find 0-20% of their research material) ■ Amount of research material faculty believe students will find using Google (i.e., 60% of faculty believe that students expect to use Google to find 81-100% of their research material) Percentage

24. How students rank the importance ofsources for a research assignment Percentage

25. Students’ top 10 resources: Books: MSVU Library Google Newspapers Encyclopedias Library web site Books: public library Online newspapers Magazines OPAC (Novanet) Scholarly web sites Professors’ top 10 resources: Journals Library web site Books: MSVU Library OPAC (Novanet) Databases E-journals Books: other universities Scholarly web sites Google Experts Most common academic research sources

26. How did other sources rate?

27. Summary of variation in research expectations

28. Researchexpectations: the differences

29. Research expectations: similarities

30. A research profile of students: Students are: • working at jobs for many hours/week; • well-connected technologically and spend a lot of time online; • believe they have better online skills than their professors and as a result, they likely believe their professors have little to teach them in this area; • confident and believe they have the necessary research skills, but at the same time are looking for guidance and structure in their research experience; • wanting to use electronic sources, but may be identifying traditional print sources as alternatives because they think that’s what we want them to use; • not experienced with, nor do they have a desire to use, journals; • expecting results without expending a lot of time (on reading or researching); • expecting to stay in their comfort zone by relying on friends and family for help; • not changing their research expectations as they advance through their programs.

31. So what does all this mean and where does it leave us?

32. This is not just about IL: There are cultural and generational differences: • Students arrive at university today believing they are prepared to do research – faculty believe otherwise. This, combined with students’ over-confidence in their technical and research ability creates teaching and learning challenges. • Faculty often approach student research in one of the following ways: • students know nothing and need to be taught research from scratch; or • students arrive at university needing to be “re-programmed”; or • students will just “pick-up” research on their own • Faculty will use their own research experiences and habits as the standard for their expectations’ of students. • Faculty who teach about research are often frustrated with student research outcomes because outdated faculty methods (e.g., linear research templates) are not effective with contemporary students.

33. Bridging the gap: the librarians’ role mediating student-faculty research expectations Things librarians should undertake with students (and model for faculty): • Remind students that we do not expect them to know how to do scholarly research when they arrive at university. • Validate students’ past research experiences in positive ways; it’s their foundation. • Encourage dialogue about students’ own experiences and expectations. Give positive feedback when appropriate sources are used. • Reinforce academic expectations around research time; we should discuss our own experiences and expectations. • Discuss reading and its importance in the academy. • Ask more questions: encourage students to clearly describe what is required of a research assignment: not what they want to do, but what they’ve been asked to do.

34. Bridging the gap . . . con’t Remind faculty that: • Students may be over confident about their research skills and not ask for help. • Students will likely be looking to them for explicit research instructions. If they don’t provide it, students will turn to less reliable sources: friends and family. • More senior students do not necessarily know more about academic research. Research instruction should be ongoing. • Students often think it takes less time to do research than may be necessary. • Students will be reading less than is likely necessary to grasp a subject in depth. Seek out alternate media. • E-sources must be part of the research equation.

35. Bridging the gap . . . con’t The hard things we should be discussing with faculty: • Faculty should not use their own research experiences as a template for student research. • 1st year students don’t need to be researching or writing term papers. • Scholarly journals are appropriate sources for senior and grad students. • Students are drowning in information: give them more direction on appropriate sources. • Embrace Google and newer technological tools like RSS feeds, Pod Casts, You Tube as part of the research equation. • Librarians can not inoculate students against poor research: some components of IL need to be integrated into every course.

36. Bridging the gap . . . con’t Yes to ACRL IL Standards, curriculum integration, credit courses, enhanced teaching about the complexity of the internet and organization of information, etc. But librarians must also recognize that: • Disparate research expectations must be identified and discussed with faculty and students. • We can’t play on both sides of the fence. • It can be difficult work because: • we need to challenge ourselves to go beyond teaching IL and embrace the whole teaching experience; • we often feel caught in the middle with no perceived power to intervene; • we will often have to challenge both student and faculty misconceptions about the others’ research experience and expectations; • but, it can be some of the most rewarding work we do.

37. Questions or comments?

38. Carranza, C. (1999). Listen to what students say. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 16(1), 81. Gardner, S., & Eng, S. (2005). What students want: Generation Y and the changing function of the academic library. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5 (3), 405-420. doi:10.1353/pla.2005.0034 Gibbons, Susan. (2007). The academic library and the net gen student: making the connections. Chicago: American Library Association. Gullikson, S. (2006). Faculty perceptions of ACRL's information literacy competency standards for higher education. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 583. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2006.06.001 Lohnes, S., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Questioning assumptions about students' expectations for technology in college classrooms. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3 (5). Retrieved from http://innovateonline.info McGuinness, C. (2006). What faculty think- exploring the barriers to information literacy development in undergraduate education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 573-582. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2006.06.002 Michel, S. (2001). What do they really think? assessing student and faculty perspectives of a web-based tutorial to library research. College & Research Libraries, 62(4), 317-332. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. and Jamali, H. R. (2007). Diversity in the information seeking behaviour of the virtual scholar: institutional comparisons. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33 (6), 629-638. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.09.001 Reyes, V. (2006). The future role of the academic librarians in higher education. Portal : Libraries and the Academy, 6(3), 301-309. doi:10.1353/pla.2006.0043 Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P. Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R., Jamali, H. R., Dobrowolski, T. and Tenopir, C. (2008). The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings, 60 (4), 290-310. doi:10.1108/00012530810887953 To read or not to read: a question of national consequence. 2007. Office of Research & Analysis, National Endowment for the Arts. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.arts.gov Whitmere, E. (2001). A Longitudinal study of undergraduates’ academic library experiences. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27 (5), 379–385. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(01)00223-3 Williamson, K., Bernath, V., Wright, S., & Sullivan, J. (2007). Research students in the electronic age: Impacts of changing information behavior on information literacy needs. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(2), 47-63. Retrieved from http://www.comminfolit.org Selective references