the research experience for education graduate students: a phenomenographic study

This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 11 November 2014, At: 02:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Internet Reference Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wirs20

The Research Experience for EducationGraduate Students: A PhenomenographicStudyBarbara Blummer a , Sara Lohnes Watulak b & Jeffrey Kenton ca Center for Computing Sciences , Bowie , Maryland , USAb Towson University, Educational Technology & Literacy , Towson ,Maryland , USAc Towson University, College of Education , Towson , Maryland , USAPublished online: 20 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Barbara Blummer , Sara Lohnes Watulak & Jeffrey Kenton (2012) The ResearchExperience for Education Graduate Students: A Phenomenographic Study, Internet Reference ServicesQuarterly, 17:3-4, 117-146, DOI: 10.1080/10875301.2012.747462

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2012.747462

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wirs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10875301.2012.747462

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2012.747462

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 17:117–146, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1087-5301 print / 1570-4749 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10875301.2012.747462

The Research Experience for EducationGraduate Students:

A Phenomenographic Study

BARBARA BLUMMERCenter for Computing Sciences, Bowie, Maryland, USA

SARA LOHNES WATULAKTowson University, Educational Technology & Literacy, Towson, Maryland, USA

JEFFREY KENTONTowson University, College of Education, Towson, Maryland, USA

This article presents the findings of an exploratory study of ed-ucation graduate students’ information-seeking behavior andattitudes. Qualitative data included interviews with educationstudents, focusing on their research habits, and analyzed fromphenomenographic approach that focused on variations in individ-uals’ experiences. The quantitative analysis stemmed from partici-pants’ responses to the survey of their information-seeking behavior.A comparison of interview participants and survey respondents’search skills, research strategies, and attitudes toward previous li-brary instruction illustrate the wide variation in students’ abilitiesand experiences between the groups. This suggests the need for fur-ther analysis of these students’ information seeking behaviors.

KEYWORDS information seeking behavior, graduate students, re-search strategies, phenomenographic, information literacy instruc-tion, library training

INTRODUCTION

This article presents the findings of an exploratory study of educationgraduate student information-seeking behavior and attitudes. The numer-ous problems with education graduate student information literacy skillsare illustrated throughout the literature, including their unfamiliarity with

Address correspondence to Barbara A. Blummer, EdD, Center for Computing Sciences,17100 Science Dr., Bowie, MD 20715, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

117

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

118 B. Blummer, S. L. Watulak, and J. Kenton

relevant databases, failure to utilize advanced search techniques, dependenceon Google for information, and difficulty in locating appropriate resources(Catalano, 2010; Chu & Law, 2007; Evans, 1986; Green & Macauley, 2007;Park, 1986; Pickert & Chwalek, 1984; Switzer & Perdue, 2011).

Still, many of the studies of education graduate student information-seeking behavior were conducted prior to the advent of the Internet andonline databases. Research on student information-seeking behavior, espe-cially its currency, is particularly important in directing the design of appro-priate information literacy instructional programs (Hoffman, Antwi-Nsiah,Feng, & Stanley, 2008; Green & Macauley, 2007; George et al., 2006). More-over, it remains important that students’ information needs are examinedwithin their respective discipline. For example, Fidzani’s (1998) findings onthe information-seeking behaviors of graduate students at the University ofBotswana suggested the creation of an information literacy skills committeefor each program at the institution. Likewise, Barrett’s (2005) research onthe information-seeking habits of humanities graduate students at WesternOntario University linked information-seeking strategies to their disciplineas well as their stage in the program. Earp (2008) concurred, arguing thatinformation seeking among graduate students varied according to their dis-cipline; therefore, research on information-seeking behaviors within specificdisciplines is necessary to the creation of instruction and research assistance“tailored to their needs” (p. 73).

Given this lack of research, we undertook a small, mixed methods studythat sought to understand education graduate students’ information-seekingbehavior and attitudes. Our study asked the following questions: (1) How doeducation graduate students use resources to find information for a courseassignment? (2) What are education graduate students’ attitudes regardingthe information-seeking process?

To answer these questions, we collected qualitative data from inter-views with education graduate students (n = 5), focusing on their researchprocess timelines, databases selected, search strategies employed, ability tonarrow the topic, difficulties confronted, encounters with librarians, accessto the library catalog, interlibrary loan requests, utilization of Google or otherlibraries, and the point at which individuals ceased obtaining information.These data were analyzed from a phenomenographic perspective in orderto understand variations in individual experiences (Andretta, 2007). A surveyof students’ information-seeking behavior was also administered (N = 17).

The university is a four-year public institution located in a metropolitanarea in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The student populationexceeds 21,000 individuals and includes predominantly white male and fe-male students, the majority between 18 and 22 years of age. In 2012, graduatestudent enrollment included nearly 4000 individuals. The university providesmore than 70 graduate programs at the certificate, masters, and doctorallevel and remains aggressive in seeking monies for scholarship and researchprojects for students. The college of education, the setting for this study, has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Research Experience for Education Graduate Students 119

more than 130 fulltime faculty members and offers five different master’sdegree programs, including a master’s program in school library media, aswell as a doctorate in instructional technology. Graduates of the college ofeducation typically accept employment in schools as teachers.

We hope that the results of this study will be used to inform the ap-propriate design of library training instructional programs for the educationgraduate students at the university. Our students represent future teachersof elementary, middle, and high school students in the local area, state,and beyond. Insuring they are capable of searching, accessing, and utiliz-ing information correctly fosters the development of similar skills in theirstudents, and consequently facilitates the creation of an information literatepopulation.

BACKGROUND

Education Graduate Students’ Information-Seeking Behavior

A review of the literature highlights the scarcity of research on educationgraduate student information-seeking behavior. However, the existing re-search underscores the importance of this research in the development ofappropriate and relevant instructional guides for users. All of the studiesreviewed sought to collect data to inform the library staff in the creationof appropriate services—and especially instructional programs—for theseusers. The methodologies utilized were diverse and included quantitative,qualitative, and mixed methods approaches.

The earliest efforts to determine the information-seeking behavior ofeducation graduate students relied on quantitative survey measures. Park(1986) identified information needs and information-seeking behavior froma survey of 100 graduate students (predominately in education) at Mem-phis State University. Although the report lacked a description of the dataanalysis method, it included statistical results adjacent to the questions. Stu-dents’ responses to the questionnaire suggested time restraints, problemswith locating resources, and failure to consult the librarian, as impedimentsto information access. Moreover, the author noted that students preferredprint resources and felt they were “somewhat” successful in their searches(p. 14). Survey results indicated the importance of students’ understandingtheir information needs, developing skills to analyze information needs andwants, and learning how to interact with information systems (Park, 1986).Research findings were used to develop a search worksheet to assist Mem-phis State University’s users with online searching.

Likewise, Evans (1986) utilized a component of Park’s survey to pro-pose the creation of a research skills course for education graduate studentsat the institution. Although Evans admitted the small sample size of the re-search prevented “any conclusions” from the study, he did emphasize that thefindings displayed these students as “unsophisticated users of information”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


(p. 13). In addition, he underscored participants’ desire for authoritative,accurate, and objective information resources. To this end, the author ar-gued for library skills training for “strategies, process and methodologies”(p. 14).

Chu and Law (2007) sought to identify the information needs, over time,of six education and six engineering graduate students at the University ofHong Kong. Through a mixed method approach, the authors utilized quanti-tative and qualitative data to depict the development of students’ search skillsover one year. The data included participants’ search statements, interviewswith individuals, transcriptions of participants’ “think-aloud” movements indatabase searching, and users’ rating of the importance of search techniquesover the period (p. 298). Findings revealed an increase in students’ searchskills during the study, especially in their use of “complex keyword searches”(p. 314). According to the authors, the results illustrated the organization oflibrary training by discipline, the importance of teaching education graduatestudents complex keyword searching, and the value of library instruction forall students regardless of their level of study.

A mixed method approach was also utilized in a pilot study of Kent StateUniversity’s education graduate student information preference (Earp, 2008).One-hundred thirteen participants responded to a 20-item questionnaire de-signed to solicit open-ended comments on journal and article characteristics,information services, and demographic information. The results indicatedthe students’ reliance on the Internet and online sources for information,and the importance of noneducation databases for doctoral students. Earp(2008) also found that the graduate students were reluctant to seek assis-tance from others if necessary. These results led to the creation of optionallibrary skills workshops on searching various databases, utilizing RefWorks,and employing advanced search strategies.

Although Moulding and Hadley’s (2010) study did not consider edu-cation graduate student information-seeking behavior, their findings illus-trated the need to highlight the purpose and types of educational research tothese individuals. The authors surveyed 81 students in four different researchcourses in a master of education program in the western United States. Thequestionnaire tracked participants’ understanding of educational research infour required research courses, each course representing a prerequisite forthe next level. The survey explored the students’ perspectives on the valueof educational research. We considered the users, the value, and the sourceof research as well as students’ previous research experience, the effect ofresearch on their “practice,” and the “meaning of research” (p. 48). The find-ings illustrated differences in understanding of the research process basedon the course level. For example, students in the third-level course under-stood research as a “production of knowledge” as well as impacting policy(p. 49). An increased number of students in this course had also conductedaction research or research related to work than their counterparts in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


other classes. According to the authors, the most important finding was therealization that participants’ understanding of the meaning of educationalresearch did not change as they progressed through their research courses.Participants’ responses also indicated “misconceptions” over whether the lit-erature review constituted educational research (p. 50). The authors referredto the need to promote informal action research projects during students’graduate study to highlight the “value and applicability” of research (p. 50).

Catalano (2010) reported on 172 graduate education students’ self-perception of their information literacy skills through a survey that focusedon the Association of College and Research Libraries Information LiteracyStandards for Higher Education. Almost half of the respondents identifiedtheir biggest challenges as utilizing the American Psychological Associationstyle and locating appropriate articles. Nearly one third admitted difficultyin using online databases and in formulating a research topic. The findingsalso revealed a low use of interlibrary loan as well as a service that allowedstudents to acquire items from academic libraries in the area. While 85% ofrespondents reported they were comfortable “identifying potential sourcesof information” (p. 25), 44% indicated a desire to initiate searches in anInternet search engine rather than library database. The author concludedstudents remained unaware of “aspects of bibliographic knowledge” andwere dependent on Internet sources. She pointed to Martin’s (2008) findingsthat suggested that students avoided library resources due to the “complexityof databases” (p. 29). In addition, the article noted Earp’s (2008) suggestionthat students’ desire for full-text articles online led them to avoid print ma-terials. The article concluded that education graduate students need libraryinstruction since students may overestimate their online search skills.

Green and Macauley (2007) adopted a qualitative methodology in theirexamination of education doctoral candidates’ engagement with informa-tion. The data centered on semistructured phone interviews with studentsin programs in the United States and Australia, as well as the librarians thatinteracted with them in their programs of study. The authors sought to un-derstand the scholarly literature review process and how doctoral studentslearn to “accumulate, evaluate, and synthesize literature to support their re-search” (p. 321). Findings showed that doctoral student engagement withinformation is greatly affected by “experience, habits and knowledge” (p.328). The authors suggested that initially these students had an “informationliteracy foundation” that evolved into increased “use of scholarly resources”as they progressed through the program (p. 322). Furthermore, the authorsnoted that students sought both print and electronic publications through“browsing, serendipity, and using a range of informal and formal search-ing strategies” that included tracing footnotes (p. 325). Green and Macauley(2007) recommended individualized instruction and one-on-one interactionto combat students’ inexperience by providing “new skills, new knowledge”as well as a supportive academic community (p. 329).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Summary and Implications

Taken as a whole, the literature on education graduate student information-seeking behavior argued for increased attention to the information literacyskills of this population, especially in providing guidance in search tech-niques, selecting relevant resources, and utilizing databases. In addition, theresearch revealed student preference for online materials and instructionalprograms. However, the lack of improvement in education graduate stu-dent research skills from 1984 to 2010 suggests that librarians and educationfaculty have failed to promote library instruction to this audience. As earlyas 1984, Park highlighted the need for providing library skills instructionto education graduate students. Her study, which was conducted prior towidespread availability of online resources and the Internet, found thesestudents experienced difficulties locating resources, had time restraints, andremained hesitant about consulting librarians for assistance.

More than 20 years later Catalano (2010), Green and Macauley (2007),Chu and Law (2007), and Earp (2008) found education graduate students stilllacked search skills. These research initiatives, which considered educationstudents’ online search skills, underscored their need for library instruc-tion. Moulding and Hadley (2010) maintained education graduate studentsrequired knowledge and applications of educational research, underscoringthe need to design instruction that takes into account discipline-specific skillsand knowledge. This information remains valuable in designing the appro-priate instructional program for students. This may stem, in part, from afocus on the provision of teaching rather than on research skills in academiceducation departments. Nevertheless, it remains especially important thatfuture educators are savvy searchers, not only to enhance their curriculumdevelopment abilities, but also to support their students’ information literacyendeavors.

Finally, the use of qualitative measures to capture user perspectivesprovided richness to the quantitative data, as well as “a better understandingof the experiences and perceptions” of the respondents (Kuruppu & Gruber,2006, p. 622). To that end, we adopted a mixed methods approach to capturethe range of education graduate student information-seeking attitudes andbehaviors.

METHODOLOGY

Seventeen students at the university participated in this exploratory, pilotresearch study examining education graduate student information-seekingbehavior and attitudes. Pseudonyms are used throughout the article to pro-tect the privacy of students and faculty at the institution. We employed bothquantitative and qualitative methods to examine the following research ques-tions: How do education graduate students use resources to find information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


for a course assignment? What are education graduate student attitudes re-garding the information-seeking process? Data were collected using a survey,and through in-depth, one-on-one interviews with five survey participants.First, we detail our rationale for selecting the approach as well as the basictenets of phenomenography.

Phenomenographic Approach to Understanding Graduate Students’Research Experiences

In selecting the best research design for our study, we considered groundedtheory and phenomenography since both methods explore human percep-tions and experiences. Because grounded theory focuses on developing amodel or theory (Kinnunen & Simon, 2012), while phenomenography cen-ters on variation in group experience (Marton & Booth, 1997), we decidedthat phenomenography was the most compatible choice with our intendedobjective: to uncover the variations in education graduate students’ researchexperiences.

In addition, we appreciated the strong tradition of phenomenographyin educational research. For instance, Sjostrom and Dahlgren (2002) dis-cussed applications for phenomenography in nursing research includingunderstanding nursing students’ conceptions of medical care, understand-ing patients’ experiences with their illnesses, and using the information toimprove nursing education. Rose, Le Heron, and Sofat (2005) described aphenomenographic study used to identify university students’ understand-ings of information system design to foster the development of teachingstrategies. Lupton (2008) explored undergraduates’ research habits througha phenomenographic study, characterizing their experiences in hierarchicalcategories that included gathering evidence, creating the argument, and thesocial responsibly of learning. Likewise, we hoped to gather informationfrom our study to inform the creation of appropriate library instructionalenvironments to support education graduate student research initiatives.

PHENOMENOGRAPHY

Phenomenography represents an empirical approach whereby phenomenog-raphers examine other people’s world perspectives and create categories toillustrate the variations of their experiences (Andretta, 2007). Sin (2010) de-scribed the goal of empirical phenomenography as tracking participants’ ex-periences, identifying their “conceptual meanings,” and categorizing similar-ities and differences among the group. As with other qualitative approaches,Ornek (2008) noted that the phenomenographer investigates a phenomenonfrom the participant’s perspective. Table 1 presents the theoretical assump-tions of phenomenography.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 1 Theoretical Assumptions of Phenomenography

Knowledge based on human understanding of the world, not absolute truthsIndividual expression of understanding through experience becomes their knowledgeScientific knowledge not absolute truth, as humans interact with world, truth changesFruitfulness represents a criterion for evaluating knowledgeEmpirical evidence considering a holistic view of the phenomenon is required to identify

conceptionsMeaningful conceptions require differentiation, abstraction, reduction, and comparison of

interpretation

Note. Adapted from “A Phenomenographic Investigation of Teacher Conceptions of Student Engagementin Learning,” by L. R. Harris, 2008, The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 62.

Unlike other qualitative inquiries, phenomenography centers on the col-lective understanding of groups, not individual participants. Consequently,the goal of phenomenography is to identify and map the “range of con-ceptions present in a population,” using interviews as the central tool fordata collection (Harris, 2008, p. 61). Ornek (2008) stressed the importanceof an interview environment that allows the participant to “think aloud, bedoubtful and also pause” (p. 6). According to the author, the participant andthe interviewer “come to a mutual understanding” of the “meanings of theexperience” (p. 5).

From an analytic perspective, phenomenographers maintain individualsexperience a phenomenon in a limited number of ways, and these groupexperiences are interrelated and have the potential to be categorized intoa hierarchical order termed “the outcome space” (Marton, 1994, as citedin Andretta, 2007, p. 154). Marton (1986) emphasized the importance ofclassifying descriptions of a phenomenon by focusing on the “most distinc-tive characteristics that appear in the data” (p. 34). Akerlind (2005) suggestedthat categories also include the structural relationships linking these differentways of experiencing. He noted that the relationships represent the structureof the outcome space, or the different ways of experiencing the one phe-nomenon. Lupton (2008) suggested the “ways of experiences” categorizedin the outcome space are also a “range of capabilities” (p. 403).

Marton and Booth (1997) defined the outcome space as “the complexcategories of description comprising distinct groupings of aspects of thephenomenon and the relationship between them” (p. 125). They noted thesedifferent ways of experiencing the phenomenon are typically hierarchicaland increase in complexity. According to Marton and Booth, the categoriesrepresented different layers of individual experiences and nothing shouldbe omitted (p. 125). Still, Akerlind (2005) admitted the structure of outcomespace is “one of the least understood aspects of phenomenography” (p. 322).The outcome spaces resulting from the analysis of the interview data for thisresearch are presented with the findings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Participants

Following approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board, partici-pants for this pilot study were solicited from classes taught by the university’seducation faculty and instructors during the summer 2009 semesters. Twiceduring the summer term instructors received e-mails describing the projectand requesting faculty assistance in forwarding the survey and interviewinformation to their students (see Appendix I).

Seventeen students completed the survey, and did not receive any com-pensation for their contribution. The majority of participants were educationmaster’s students; four EdD candidates also participated in the study. Themajority of participants were between 26 and 31 years old, and held fulltimepositions as teachers in grades K-12. The EdD candidates were older thanthe majority, and taught undergraduate and graduate level courses as wellas K-12.

Five participants who completed the survey also participated in a face-to-face interview. The five interview participants included one male and fourfemales ranging in age from 23 to 52 years, all of whom received a $25 giftcard as remuneration for their participation. All interviews were audiotapedand transcribed verbatim due to their central importance to the interpretationand analysis of the data. The interview questions appear in Appendix II.

Data Collection

Participants in this research responded to an online survey on theirinformation-seeking behavior. The authors received permission to utilizeEarp’s (2008) survey that evolved from her study of a similar student popu-lation at Kent State University. Student Voice, an online survey tool availableat the university, served as the technological platform for administering thesurvey. The online software provided several advantages over other surveytools. Student Voice offered a significant amount of technical support tosurvey administrators including consultation services on survey design. Thesoftware remained extremely flexible and allowed for numerous questions,the inclusion of a description of the survey, a consent form, and qualitativeresponses. In addition, Student Voice provided a quantitative analysis and agraphical display of the results for each question. The survey was availableonline from May 26, 2009 to the middle of July, 2009. All survey participantsremained anonymous.

In addition, interviews were conducted in order to obtain a more in-depth understanding of graduate student information-seeking behavior andattitudes. Harris (2008) noted that phenomenography includes a variety ofdata collection methods, but all “must allow participants to give open endedresponses” (p. 61). The interview data were collected from five education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


graduate students and used to consider the variation in their collective ex-periences as they conducted research for class papers.

The interviews occurred during the weeks of June 15th and the 22ndin an empty classroom in the university’s college of education. Prospec-tive participants from the pool of survey respondents contacted the primaryresearcher indicating their willingness to be interviewed on their researchhabits. The researcher began the interview with an explanation of the pur-pose of the study, an assurance of participants’ confidentiality, and a requestfor permission to tape the session. Participants were also provided an op-portunity to ask questions about the process as well as a consent form toread and sign. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and followedthe protocol listed in Appendix II. Participants were encouraged to elabo-rate or clarify responses when necessary. A digital voice recorder served asthe device for capturing the audio. Following the interviews, the digital fileswere copied to a laptop and saved for transcription.

Data Analysis

PHENOMENOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEW DATA

This research sought to attach meaning to graduate student comments onhow they seek information to research a paper for a class assignment. Inanalyzing an interview transcript, phenomenographers attempt to identifysignificant statements—quotes that provide meaning. Sjostrom and Dahlgren(2002) highlighted the importance of frequency, position, and pregnancy forclarifying the meaning of a statement in the dialogue. They defined the latteras an individual’s indication that “certain aspects are more important thanothers” (p. 342). Harris (2008) described how they used the most “frequentlyappearing ideas” for further examination (p. 63).

Akerlind (2005) emphasized the need to consider all of the interviewtranscripts in relation to each other noting similarities and differences as aniterative process. In this research, the interviews were manually transcribedand compared and contrasted to create categories. The data analysis of theinterview transcripts occurred in four phases. In the first and second phases,the researcher examined the transcripts, initially for clarity, and later to iden-tify major themes in education graduate students’ research processes. Aniterative approach that centered on reviewing, questioning, and interpretingthe data facilitated the identification of similar themes and subthemes amongthe transcripts as well as variations and interrelationships. (See Table 2 forguidelines for defining categories from the data in phenomenographic re-search.) In the third phase, the categories and especially the hierarchicalrelationships were created from the major themes identified in the tran-scripts. In the last phase, the identification of the categories informed thecreation of the outcome space (see Table 3). A co-evaluator assisted in theinterpretation of the data for each stage of the data review process.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 2 Guidelines for Defining Categories from the Data

Focus on the meaning of a category or its componentsConsider what or how of the phenomenonUtilize similarities and differences within and between categoriesSeek to resolve information in transcripts that does not fit into categoryUnderstand that changing one category may contain implications for the others

Note. Adapted from “Variation and Commonality in Phenomenographic Research Methods,” by G. S.Akerlind, 2008, Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 4, 328.

VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY

Validation and reliability of the data remains particularly important in thistype of research. According to Creswell (2007), validation refers to the trust-worthiness of the data. Ornek (2008) promoted the credibility of phenomeno-graphic studies that he believed centered on the “relationship between thedata obtained from the interviews and the categories for describing the waysin which people experience a certain phenomenon” (p. 10). He highlightedthe importance of having quotes from interviews to support the creationof categories. The author also underscored the value of the incorporatingprevious findings into the study’s outcome.

Akerlind (2005) emphasized a communicative type of validity checksfor phenomenography that involves the investigator’s ability to persuade theresearch community of the study’s validity at research seminars, conferencepresentations, and through peer-reviewed journals. He suggested commu-nicative validity can include feedback from other members of the populationof the sample as well as the intended audience of the research. He pointedto Marton’s suggestion that the retesting of categories with the data providesa “validation procedure” (p. 324).

Akerlind (2005) maintained that reliability in phenomenographic re-search ensures quality and consistency in data interpretation and describedtwo approaches for this method of inquiry. First, reliability can be fosteredwith coder reliability checks through the use of independent coders whocompare their categorizations. A second method, dialogic reliability, checks,focuses on coder agreement based on discussion and critique. Still, all pro-ponents of phenomenographic research note the difficulties inherent in thecoding process. To that end, Akerlind pointed to a popular approach to

TABLE 3 Criteria for the Outcome Space

Distinctive categoriesLogically relatedFew in number

Note. Adapted from “Variation and Commonality in PhenomenographicResearch Methods,” by G. S. Akerlind, 2008, Higher Education Research& Development, 24, 4, 323.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


FIGURE 1 Screen capture of an analysis of the responses to a Student Voice survey question.(Color figure available online).

reliability that outlines the successive interpretive steps utilized in the codingprocess. This research adopted Akerlind’s latter suggestion of transparencyin reporting the coding process.

Quantitative Analysis of Survey Data

The survey software, Student Voice, provided the descriptive analysis of thedata. For each question, the number and percentage of responses, as well asa graphical display of the data, were provided (see Figure 1). The availabilityof the information in these formats supported an in-depth examination ofthe data and also allowed the authors to draw conclusions about individualquestions.

Limitations

The small sample size, five individuals for the interview component of theresearch and 17 respondents to the survey, was a limitation to the study. Theresearch also suffered from the sample that stemmed exclusively from oneuniversity. Therefore, results from this study are not generalizable beyondthe setting, although we believe they confirm prior research and indicateuseful future directions for other researchers, librarians, and instructionaldesigners.

In addition, the sampling method that utilized classroom teachers toassist with the solicitation of participants affected the composition of thestudy. All of the study’s participants were enrolled in summer classes at theuniversity. Posting notices to e-mail lists and department bulletin boards mayhave brought other students not enrolled in summer courses into the study.

Another limitation included the research methodology that focusedon a phenomenographic interpretation of the data since it did not con-sider individuals’ information-seeking perspectives, but the group experi-ence. Although this focus coupled with the small sample size prevents the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


generalization of the results to similar student groups, it does offer a uniqueperspective in illustrating education graduate students’ research habits.

SURVEY FINDINGS

The survey revealed interesting data related to education graduate studentinformation-seeking behavior and attitudes. For instance, many interviewparticipants relied on Internet search engines as their first step in conductingresearch. On the other hand, an equal number of survey respondents firstconsulted library research databases when researching a topic for a class as-signment or paper. These students listed other avenues to obtain information,including professional organization websites, education research databasessuch as Education Abstracts and ERIC, as well as non-education sources.Following a citation remained especially important for survey respondents;61% suggested they followed citations “always” or “often” for a class assign-ment or research paper. Moreover, nearly 95% of those surveyed noted theimportance of the article’s reference list.

Dissertations were among the least likely resource consulted for con-ducting research: 29% of survey respondents reported occasional use ofdissertations for a class assignment. In addition, the library catalog did notappear to be a popular tool for conducting research among this group. Only18% of survey respondents indicated they “always” used it for research pur-poses, but a greater number, 41%, pointed to an occasional consultation ofthe catalog. Moreover, this audience was less apt to seek research assistancefrom a faculty member or a librarian; only one of those surveyed had en-gaged the education librarian in a reference appointment since enrolling intheir program.

Survey respondents noted different amounts of time spent conductingresearch as well as a preference for online materials and authoritative re-sources. For example, survey respondents indicated the time they devotedto researching a 15-page paper ranged with 59% reporting between threeand 11 hours and the remaining 41% claiming more than 11 hours for theinformation-gathering period. The convenience of the resource was impor-tant to participants: 88% percent of survey respondents indicated it was“extremely important” for an item to be offered electronically. Similarly, 10survey respondents stated it was “extremely important” or “very important”that the article be available in the library.

In terms of choice of sources, respondents especially supported author-itative sources with 14 out of 17 individuals ranking this characteristic as “ex-tremely” or “very important.” Likewise, these individuals also highlighted thereputation of the journal as a factor in its use. Survey participants’ unwilling-ness to consult classmates for research help also reflected the importance ofauthoritative sources to this group. Finally, the unpopularity of blogs among

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


survey respondents suggested they shared interview participants’ views thatthese resources lacked credibility.

One finding of particular interest centered on students’ comfort level insearching the library databases. Only 12% of survey respondents indicatedthey were “extremely comfortable” searching the library databases, the re-mainder, 88% stated they were “very comfortable,” “moderately comfortable,”or “slightly comfortable” using this tool. Likewise, this group also reportedfeelings of confusion and uncertainty when researching at the library or usingthe university’s library resources. Seventy-one percent indicated feelings ofconfusion, uncertainty, apprehension, fear, or tension during these activities.Students’ comments to an open-ended survey question suggested they wereunsure where to begin researching: “I do not always have a clear researchquestion in mind when searching. Which database should I use, is ERIC ok,what does it include what does it not include? Are other specific databasesbetter and more useful?”

Students’ confusion in conducting research remains particularly strikingconsidering the high number of survey respondents, 88%, who participatedin library instructional opportunities. Their anonymous comments in theopen-ended survey questions suggested many failed to benefit from pre-vious library training initiatives. For example, an individual remarked, “Icannot say that the instruction has helped me on a practical level.” Onestudent linked the problem to the level of instruction: “The experience wasgood but I found the advice or instruction to be very basic, almost on theundergraduate or high school level. I have sat through the training twice andI have NOT relied on what was demonstrated to find or locate sources. Ihave conducted all of my research on my own and have called or used theLibrary IM [instant messaging] service to have questions answered.” On theother hand, while many of the interview participants had attended librarytraining initiatives, few related negative feelings to conducting research. Themajority of the interview participants described their instructional experi-ence as worthwhile, but this was not necessarily the case for all surveyrespondents.

DISCUSSION OF SURVEY FINDINGS

The biggest implication from the survey findings is the need to create libraryinstructional opportunities to reduce feelings of confusion, uncertainty, ap-prehension, fear, or tension reported in the survey. We suggest that theinstruction should remain flexible to address different skill levels as well asthe various work and academic schedules characteristic of the university’snontraditional education graduate students. Instructional classes should focuson the various library databases, including their coverage and search tips, aswell as using dissertations in research. Moreover, the survey findings support

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the use of an online instructional tutorial for research skills training. Thistool, which would be available for use with or without faculty collaboration,would include the potential for modification to address specific curriculum.In addition, this tool would accommodate audiences at different skill levelsand with varying knowledge of education resources and related materials.Traditional library instructional classes should be available to these students;however, this instruction should be offered in the evenings and on weekendswhen graduate students are available.

A second finding that emerged from the survey data analysis was theimportance of the librarian and the course instructor in supporting students’research efforts. Perhaps the confusion, uncertainty, apprehension, fear, ortension reported by students in conducting research stemmed from theirreluctance to consult either faculty or librarians. Increasing the visibility ofthe university’s librarians and particularly the subject librarian, could re-duce some of students’ research concerns. Additionally, encouraging facultyto identify relevant library resources as well as collaborate with librariansin utilizing these materials may increase student confidence with databasesearching.

Likewise, the dissatisfaction survey participants expressed in describingtheir previous library instructional experiences could be addressed by de-veloping a variety of learning environments. Reference librarians could alsopromote instruction on an individual basis during face-to-face, online, orphone reference interactions. Students’ comments pointed to the importanceof querying individuals on topics of interest for library workshops. Still, thesurvey illustrated some topics of potential relevance to all education graduatestudents including tips for searching the library catalog, using related noned-ucation databases, consulting dissertations, finding reputable blog sites, andlocating information on professional websites. The comments highlightedthe need to partner with education faculty in devising content for all libraryinstruction.

INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Overall, the interview participants appeared very savvy of the informationresources and library services available to them to support their researchendeavors. For instance, they were aware of key education databases, op-portunities for instructional and reference assistance, and some were knowl-edgeable in the procedure for interlibrary loan. In addition, they highlightedthe importance of utilizing authoritative and relevant resources. Still, somerealized the need to learn more about search protocols and other databasesrelevant to their discipline. This is in contrast to the survey participants; it maybe that those individuals most confident in their search abilities volunteeredfor the interview component of the study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Analysis of the interviews illuminated the process that students under-took to conduct research for a class paper assignment. This process com-prised three steps including identifying the topic, following the trail, andcreating the final project. These three steps represented the outcome spacestudents experienced in their efforts to research a topic for a course assign-ment. The participants typically followed this process in the order listed, butoften revisited steps depending on their research need. Moreover, withineach category or step, variation existed that reflected the amount and typeof work students performed to complete their research assignment. For ex-ample, students’ knowledge of the information resources available to themremained an important factor in their information-seeking behavior. Theseresources included material available from the university’s library, local pub-lic libraries, as well as students’ awareness of Internet sources such as pro-fessional organizations. Next, we explore in depth each of the three stepsof the research process. Pseudonyms are used to protect the privacy of thestudents and the faculty at the university.

Identifying the Topic

The first step for all the participants in tackling a research assignment for aclass was identifying the topic. Individuals discussed three approaches forthis task including using the Internet, consulting faculty, personal and classresources, as well as creating a research plan. Foremost, students sought toselect a topic that was personally meaningful and increased their knowledgebase. Jean noted it must be “something I’m interested in learning moreabout.” Likewise, Wendy insisted “The topic has to mean something to me,or be something that I can use. I pick something I’m interested in.”

USING THE INTERNET

Participants highlighted the importance of the Internet in supporting theirefforts to identify a research topic for an assignment. Kevin described per-forming a Google search that enabled him to locate more specific areas tofocus on, especially in generating a list of relevant keywords to search. Healso utilized Wikipedia to gather general knowledge as well as references onthe topic. Sara likened the Internet to supplying “foundational informationor [as] a point for criticism.” Other students relied on Google searches fordisplaying citation information and especially the correct spelling of authornames. For all participants Google searches served as a gateway to otherresources. Dolores noted, “I conduct the standard Google search to seewhat comes up. Lots of times that’s linked me to the International ReadingAssociation website and they have many, many articles on the site.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


CONSULTING PERSONAL AND CLASS RESOURCES AS WELL AS FACULTY

In addition to the Internet, students depended on course readings to assistin the identification of a research topic. For instance, Wendy described howshe utilized the references at the end of a course readings’ article for ideas.On the other hand, personal resources also served to support the identifica-tion of research topics. Dolores recounted her dependence on the table ofcontents and index of a course textbook to provide relevant paper topics:“I find the topic and then see which researcher they cited in that sectionof the book.” Likewise, several interviews revealed the importance of anindividual’s background knowledge in a discipline in helping select a re-search topic. Wendy referred to “a little bank in my head of ideas” as well asher personal collection of children’s literature that enabled her to meet theprofessor’s multicultural requirement for a recent course assignment.

Faculty also served as an important source for facilitating a student’sability to select an appropriate topic. Sara praised a professor’s ability tooffer “a lot of information, a lot of directives” that provide foundationalknowledge. According to Sara, “From there the research is up to you. Ilike that. As a learner I can’t create foundational knowledge as readily andreliably as that. It takes the most time.”

CREATING A RESEARCH PLAN

For Sara identifying the topic led to the creation of a detailed research planthat facilitated completion of the assignment. She remarked, “For so longI concentrated on the back end. I thought it was so hard. I wasn’t doingthe work on the front end, something as simple as citing the notes you aretaking.” Sara focused on the importance of applying models to the researchprocess, such as the Big Six, which “says every step you are supposed totake at every research point.” Still, she argued in the absence of using theresearch models, identifying that “the problem” was paramount to selectinga research topic. However, Sara suggested it is not an easy task and likenedit to “pulling teeth.”

Following the Research Trail

The second-step characteristic of the information-seeking behavior of edu-cation master’s students as they gather research to complete a course as-signment centered on following the trail. This information-gathering periodencompassed three various levels of research. The easiest and most popularincluded the use of familiar, convenient databases. Students also orderedmaterials not available in the library, consulted books, and browsed pro-fessional association websites. Last, some individuals went beyond standardresources to provide a unique perspective on their topic.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


KEYWORD SEARCHES IN FAMILIAR AND CONVENIENT DATABASES

Students typically relied on keyword searches in familiar and convenientdatabases to accumulate research materials to support their assignment. Typ-ically these sources consisted of standard education databases such as ERIC,Education Research Complete, and Academic Search Premier. Some partic-ipants seemingly likened the research process to following a trail. Doloresdescribed her efforts to begin searching her topic in news articles onlinefor position papers prior to consulting ERIC and EBSCO, but she admitted“If a trail goes cold, I would just abandon it.” Likewise, Kevin recountedhow he would start in Wikipedia and proceeded to reference articles andbooks as well as ERIC and EBSCO available through the library’s databaseportal, Research Port. This allowed him to “get more specific and narrowmy topic.” He noted he typically read as much as possible “because it mightlead me to something else.” For instance, he admitted Wikipedia was not anauthoritative source, but he believed it was useful since it “will guide me toother resources.” Likewise, Jean pointed out “Sometimes one thing leads toanother, one link will lead to another, just reading in general.”

These individuals particularly valued the online availability of scholarlymaterials. For example, Kevin insisted, “I couldn’t live without that [onlineavailability] otherwise I would be going through old book indexes.” He espe-cially appreciated the library’s electronic resources: “It has the biggest wealthof material.” Other interview participants concurred. Jean noted, “I really liketo have the thing right there in front of me. Typically when I do researchI click the button full text only [and] peer reviewed criteria. Likewise Sarastated, “I do prefer that they are electronic resources. I don’t want to spendthe money on copying it.” Still, a few participants indicated their willingnessto retrieve articles from the library if they were not available online. As Kevinremarked, “If it’s something I really need, I’m going there [the library].” Con-venience also ranked in importance to online resources. For some studentsthis involved using personal resources like the local public library or anacademic library near their home. As Sara remarked, “I love having them atmy house. I do a lot of research there.” Other individuals highlighted theresources of the local university and community public libraries. Personallibrary cards allowed them to use the online as well as print collections fromthese libraries. Wendy, new to the university, explained her failure to usethe library’s resources: “As I get more into the program, maybe I will. NowI’m just using what I know. But I think I am missing out on stuff.”

ORDERING ARTICLES, BOOKS, PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,CHECKING OTHER DATABASES

The next level of research students conducted to complete a class assignmentinvolved more diverse strategies such as following a citation, using books,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ordering interlibrary loan material, checking various databases, and brows-ing professional organization websites. One of the most popular forms ofadvanced research techniques included following a citation. Sara remarked,“I love to follow the citations. When you find one journal article you realizethere is a whole list of other things . . .”

In addition, respondents highlighted the importance of books for re-search, especially if there were a limited number of journal articles on thesubject. According to Dolores, “Sometimes I just go to the section of thelibrary where I know the books are and I’ll just browse the shelves, oh hereare the books on adult literacy.” Likewise, Jean described her tendency toconsult Google books to get a sneak preview of the item by reading “partof a book.” Sara highlighted the importance of ordering books through in-terlibrary loan for research: “It’s wonderful. I do it all the time even at thepublic library.” The majority of the other participants, however, had neverused this service at the university.

Still, others commented on the downside of using items not readilyavailable in the library. For example, Sara noted her preference for Googlebooks but suggested the database’s tendency to display only part of theitem hindered its usability: “I swear they leave out important words.” Shealso believed the university’s library’s book collection had become secondto the research journals due to the popularity of online articles. Likewise,participants described the problem with ordering journal articles not presentin the university’s collection, emphasizing the need to look early. Accordingto Sara, “a lot of the resources for school library media aren’t here. I think a lotcome from [another university] and all the other resources that are part of theconsortium. I start looking early.” Sara also complained about the difficultyof searching the library website noting “everything is embedded, not fortechnology users of today. They [the library staff] are providing reliableresources, they are doing it, but [it is] not user friendly.”

Professional organizations’ websites also served as an important re-source for students in conducting research for course assignments. Theseprofessional organizations typically remained educational in focus. Foremost,students commented on their reputable nature. Dolores maintained thesewebsites “provide basic foundational knowledge such as the standards.”Wendy praised the material available from trade association websites: “Youcan access whole [journals] like School Library Journal. You don’t have tobe a member.”

GOING BEYOND

Still, other individuals described efforts that went beyond the standardresources utilized for a class assignment by the typical education mas-ter’s student. For example, Kevin noted that he employed some Web 2.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


technologies to widen his resource list: “I might post something to a listservif it was part of that. I might ask a colleague; ask someone who is involvedin that research. I’ll go anywhere. I am a resource person. I try to be creative.Sometimes I’m rewarded for that, sometimes I’m not. I also attend confer-ences; I will listen to research [and view] poster presentations. You canfollow up [and that] might spark ideas.” Likewise, Jean described her effortsto consult noneducational databases and professional organizations as wellas resources available through her employment, since they supported her re-search area. Jean also represented one of the few participants who revieweddissertations in researching. According to the student, “I would like to lookat more down the road if I decide to get a Ph.D. and I want to get ideas.”

Creating the Final Project

Additional components of the education master’s student’s efforts to researcha topic for a class paper assignment included determining the relevancy andauthority of the source, ensuring complete research coverage of the topic,as well as editing and revising the paper. For many the last step promptedthe need to perform additional research. These features did not necessarilyevolve from a conscious effort on the part of the student nor did all partici-pants engage in them. However, they did represent common characteristicsof the education master’s student information-seeking behavior.

DETERMINING RELEVANCY AND AUTHORITY

All of the participants recognized the importance of using authoritativesources for completing research assignments. However, individuals em-ployed different criteria for gauging the authority of resources. Kevin re-marked, “If it’s a peer reviewed journal, I know I’m in pretty good hands.[If it’s] Wikipedia, I know I am in sloppy hands [since] I can edit the page.Still, I use it to guide me to other resources. Anything with .com is jadedwith whoever paid for it.” Likewise, Dolores noted the importance of peerreviewed articles, especially those endorsed by the International Reading As-sociation: “I consider those to be an authority. If it’s in that journal, I prettymuch take it on faith.”

Other participants linked authority to the author’s credentials, includingas Sara noted, “if he was supported by a reputable institution.” For exam-ple, Jean and Kevin said that the frequency with which an author’s nameappeared in search results, was an indicator of how much the author hadcontributed to the topic. Still, some participants pointed to more conven-tional means to gauge authority. Sara described the library training classesshe completed that emphasized locating reviews, as well as understandingtone, and perspective in articles. According to Sara, “if it is bias, it shouldalways state a perspective.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


For Jean, academic websites typically provided trustworthy material. Shecommented on her efforts to examine university websites to gather informa-tion on her topic: “I also look at different websites from different universitiesto see if professors have conducted research or their students have con-ducted research. . . Purdue University has a lot of really useful information,[or] Indiana University.”

Students’ attention to utilizing authoritative sources prevented them fromusing blogs for research. None of the participants consulted blogs to researcha topic for a class assignment primarily because they were opinion based. AsWendy commented, “I don’t know the person’s perspective. Who are they?Why should I trust them? Who are they [and] why do they know more thanI do?”

Insuring relevancy of the material was also critical to graduate educationstudents during the research process. Foremost, they emphasized the need toread the abstract to determine the article’s relevancy to the topic. Accordingto Wendy, this often allows her to “say right away” [if it is relevant]. “If I amunsure, I get the full copy.” Still others, including Sara, described the needto search for specific words they knew were important.

However, the interviews revealed other mechanisms students employedto determine relevancy. For example, students described matching the re-sources requirements of the paper with the material. According to Jean,“What I do is [determine] if there is a guidance given for each paper by theprofessor. If the information I am looking for is found in those resources, . . .

I know it is useful. Like this one paper, . . . we are looking at different learn-ing theories. . . . How do you observe that the learner has learned using thistheory, [and] give some examples. I will find the researcher who came upwith the theory. . . . I’ll also find other researchers who used the theory.”

On the other hand, Dolores, a savvy database searcher, referred to cluesprovided by the search display: “Is it relevant to the topic? If it comes up, agreen bar, this is 98% relevant to the keywords. I kind of look at that bar.”She also spoke of the value of the article’s abstract and her efforts to “reallyrely on the title of the article. That is a big one.”

GAUGING COMPLETENESS-META-ANALYSIS

Participants also highlighted determining the completeness of the search as astep in the final process of completing the assignment. Here again the criteriafor gauging completeness varied among the participants. According to Kevin,“I will gauge it complete if I found the most recent development done onit. Otherwise I might look for variety in years; I might look for variety in[an] international angle, research in other countries as well. I’m looking fordiversity [in types of research studies].” On the other hand, Sara determinedcompleteness when “I find a sufficient amount to support my argument.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Dolores described her efforts to locate a meta-analysis of the subject thatserved as a guide to appropriate topics, ideas, authors, and articles. Sheutilized this resource to gauge if “I’m hitting on the principles and categoriesthat emerged in this search.”

For others, a determination of completeness appeared during the writingprocess. Jean stated, “I’ll start writing the paper and sometimes, like most ofthe time, I will have all the information because I’ll have lined [sic] everything.This is what I want to include, and I’ll see what I am missing. Oh, you makean outline.”

For other students, determining completeness remained problematic.For example, Sara admitted, “I really feel like my research is never done. Iusually try to set forth an idea of what I’m looking for and determine if I find asufficient amount of argument to support it.” Likewise, Wendy complained, “Ihave a hard time figuring out when I’ve gotten enough information, becauseI always feel I know there is more. When I’m writing I think oh, I neverthought of that, I never thought of that. Now do I go back and try to findinformation? Look it up? There must be a point to stop, [a] cutting off point.”

Still, participants were vague when asked how long they spent research-ing a topic for a class assignment. Overwhelmingly, most suggested that itdepended on the situation. As Kevin noted, “It varies and depends on thetopic, how easy or hard it is to find [materials].” Likewise, Jean suggested,“I spent four good hours one morning just researching.” Locating relevantarticles, following citations, and refining the topic prolonged the researchprocess for most students. Jean believed the original four hours she spentresearching was only a starting point. “[It will] probably be a lot more, twoor three days if you ended up counting all of the . . . hours you spent,” shesaid. On the other hand, Sara admitted that much of the time she spentconducting research was focused on creating foundational knowledge.

REFINING, REVISING, EDITING, USING AN INDEPENDENT READER

The interviews also revealed the need to refine the topic if the search yieldedtoo many or too few items. This could occur early or late in the researchprocess. According to Wendy, she revised the topic whenever “I’ve hit awall. Sometimes it’s in that late stage where [I think] did I forget something?When I am writing, wait a minute I didn’t think of it.” Dolores suggestedshe refined the topic by how much was coming up on the search results.She pointed to a gauge provided by the education librarian liaison, whosuggested optimal search results yielded between 50 and 60 items.

Still, Jean admitted she would refine the topic if her search revealed “Imade the topic too specific or to general.” She also indicated she “mightrefine the search if I am not really sure if I’m interested in the topic or not.”Kevin spoke of the mechanics of narrowing the topic: “I was looking for a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


very specific application of [this process] and I limited [my search] to thisdefinition. Language can be unspecific or cover a wide range of meanings.”

Last, Wendy highlighted the writing phase of the assignment in theresearch process and especially ensuring clarity in the final product: “I writeand write and write and edit and revise. I enjoy writing, but I’m slow at it.I want it to be right. I show what I write to other people who don’t knowanything [about the topic]. Sometimes it’s just I’ll ask a friend will you proofread it? Other times I’ll ask a friend if it makes sense, was there somethingyou didn’t understand?”

DISCUSSION OF INTERVIEW FINDINGS

While the interviews revealed that these individuals shared many of the re-search habits of the survey respondents, such as a preference for onlinematerials and articles, the conversations also illustrated findings that con-trasted with the information gleaned from the survey respondents. The latteremphasized their lack of confidence in their search skills, failure to consultlibrary catalogs and librarians, and apprehension and confusion while search-ing. However, interview participants were self-selected, and their seemingconfidence in searching, using library resources, and consulting librariansmost likely contributed to their willingness to participate in the interviewcomponent of the study. This suggests these individuals’ advanced searchskills were unlike the typical education graduate student at the university.

In addition, the interviews highlighted the university’s education grad-uate students’ superior search skills compared to literature discussed earlier.For example, students pointed to familiarity with key education databasesas well as knowledge of advanced search techniques such as Boolean op-erators. In addition, interview participants appeared cognizant of the im-portance of relevancy and authority in selecting Web resources. Moreover,these students, all master’s students, differed from their counterparts in otheruniversities by consulting a wide range of material to conduct research inorder to complete a class paper such as professional organizations, academicwebsites, dissertations, listservs, other students, and professional colleagues.

These education students’ superior search skills stemmed from facultyefforts, the presence of the education library liaison, and previous librarytraining. Interview participants benefited from university faculty efforts toexpose students to library training. They described database training initia-tives arranged by their instructors or provided by a faculty member. Stu-dents also gained research skills from the professor’s clear directives on therequirements for the research assignment as well as pointers to relevantwebsites.

In addition, students’ encounters with the librarian liaison for the edu-cation department expanded their knowledge of the resources available to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


them as well as how to conduct searches. More than half of the participantswere aware of the librarian’s role in providing information on the resourcesat the university and some described attending an instructional class with thisindividual. On the other hand, many of the interview participants referred toprevious instruction of library databases at other institutions including theirundergraduate years. This library training appeared to boost student confi-dences in utilizing the resources at the university as well as their local publiclibrary.

Still, student responses to the interview questions suggest several in-structional opportunities for this audience to increase their knowledge of in-formation resources. For example, students’ preference for searching Googlesupports the provision of a class centered on enhancing students’ Web searchskills especially in setting limits, locating meta-browsers, and accessing theinvisible Web. Likewise, participants’ affinity for Google Books illustrates theneed to promote the availability of the university’s library’s electronic bookcollection to these patrons. Students should also be directed to the varietyof digitalized books and online reports located on the Internet.

Introducing education graduate students to the library’s diverse databasecollection represents another instructional area for librarians. Although the in-terviews suggested students remained familiar with key education databases,the majority of participants appeared unaware of relevant material outsideof these avenues. Consequently, it would benefit students to receive anoverview of related sources to their field. This could be provided as a work-shop or compiled in a list form and posted on a library website or learningmanagement site for an education course. Similarly, the lack of interlibraryloan use among this group suggests students are not aware of this service.Students should be instructed in the advantages of using interlibrary loanand provided an overview of the service and especially how to use Illiad.

Interview participants also expressed a hesitancy to use dissertations.Students should be exposed to the wide variety of research available fromProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. This instruction should also in-clude information on how to obtain a dissertation since the library does notsubscribe to this database. However, students do have access to it from anacademic library in the vicinity on a walk-in basis. Similarly the interviewsrevealed a lack of interest in exploring blogs. Students should be providedinformation on locating professional blogs that can provide information rel-evant to scholarly research.

Finally, the interviews revealed students’ attention to time when re-searching. This stemmed in part to employment schedules. Four out of fiveof the students noted they worked either full- or part-time. According toJean, she began researching early “because I work full time so whatevertime I have available I would try to give myself two to three weeks aheadof time [for researching].” On the other hand, Sara did not work but shealso admitted to beginning the research process early “otherwise you have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


a hundred orders a night, you are frustrated [and] anxious.” This concernfor time may explain their preference for online materials. Dolores stated,“I prefer fast and easy, that is the key, online articles.” Kevin appreciatedthe currency of online material: “There is such a lag now between print andonline material. Print material is just a supplement at this point.”

This clear preference for online resources coupled with students’ timerestraints in conducting research, supports the popularity of an online librarytraining tutorial for education graduate students. Time demands may haveprevented them from scheduling personal appointments with the librarianliaison for the department. During the interviews the majority of participantsadmitted their informational consultations with this individual had occurredwithin a class period. Providing an online tutorial that contained informationon the various resources available, database search tips, as well as keyrelevant websites would remain most beneficial to this audience.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

Although a small, exploratory study, our comparison of interview partici-pants and survey respondents’ search skills, research strategies, and attitudestoward previous library instruction illustrates the wide variation in students’abilities and experiences between the two student groups, suggesting theneed for further analysis of education graduate student information-seekingbehavior. Future research should consider employing measures to matchinterview participants with their survey responses. This would allow for con-sideration of students’ demographic data as well as their academic majorduring analysis of their information-seeking behavior and categorizing theirresearch experiences.

In addition, in the current study the interviews included individuals atvarious stages in their academic studies. Future research should considercomparing and contrasting the information-seeking behaviors of beginningmaster’s students with those near completion of the degree. This would en-able a better understanding of the research skills of students at differentstages in their academic career. Finally, another area for research includesfocusing on students in different programs, such as early childhood educa-tion or instructional technology, since this would determine the necessity ofcreating different instructional classes for various subdisciplines of educationgraduate programs.

CONCLUSION

The interviews and survey data suggest the need to consider a flexible in-structional format such as an online tutorial, as well as library training classesoffered in the evenings and during the weekend. The findings also point to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


instructional content that educates students on the availability of relevantlibrary database subscriptions, provides training in utilizing meta-search en-gines, lends support for course work, promotes course integrated instruction,includes techniques for gauging completeness, as well as suggests tips for re-vising the final product. Moreover, the research highlights the importance ofdiscipline-specific librarians in delivering instruction as well as the role of fac-ulty in providing opportunities for information literacy training. Education li-brarians may need to consider maintaining regular office hours in the collegeof education to increase their visibility to students. Likewise, these librariansshould encourage education faculty to promote subject-specific databases.

In addition, participants’ remarks regarding the library’s webpage, bookcollection, and instructional techniques provide user perspectives on the in-stitution’s library services, with implications for improving these services. Thelibrary should consider conducting a website usability study and reviewingthe currency of the library’s book collection. Devising an instructional planadapted for teaching information literacy skills to support the university’s stu-dent research needs will support their academic endeavors, reducing searchanxiety and creating lifelong learners as well as excellent teachers.

The multifaceted roles of today’s teachers underscore the importance ofresearch skills among education graduate students. To this end, it is criticalthat they possess research skills in order to develop curriculum, contributeto the literature and professional associations, and instill best practices forinformation literacy in their students. By addressing current issues with edu-cation graduate student information seeking, we can better prepare them tomake a positive impact in the lives of their students.

REFERENCES

Akerlind, G. S. (2008). A phenomenographic approach to developing academics’understanding of the nature of teaching and learning. Teaching in Higher Edu-cation, 13(6), 633–644.

Akerlind, G. S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic researchmethods. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 321–334.

Andretta, S. (2007). Phenomenography: A conceptual framework for informationliteracy education. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 59(2),152–168.

Barrett, A. (2005). The information-seeking habits of graduate student researchers inthe humanities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 3(4), 324–331.

Catalano, A. J. (2010). Using ACRL standards to assess the information literacy ofgraduate students in an education program. Evidence Based Library and Infor-mation Practice, 5(4), 21–38.

Chu, S. K., & Law, N. (2007). Development of information search expertise: Researchstudents’ knowledge of source types. Journal of Librarianship and InformationScience, 39(1), 27–40.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among fiveapproaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Earp, V. (2008). Information source preferences of education graduate students.Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 27(2), 73–91.

Evans, J. E. (1986). Information resources, perspectives and strategies for graduateeducational research: A course proposal. (Report No. IR051945). East Lansing,MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 82578).

Fidzani, B. T. (1998). Information needs and information-seeking behavior of grad-uate students at the University of Botswana. Library Review 47(7), 329–340.

George, C., Bright, A., Hurlbert, T., Linke, E. C., St. Clair, G., & Stein, J. (2006).Scholarly use of information: Graduate students information seeking behavior.Information Research 11(4).

Green, R., & Macauley, P. (2007). Doctoral students’ engagement with information:An American-Australian perspective. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7(3),317–332.

Harris, L. R. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions ofstudent engagement in learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1),57–79.

Hoffmann, K., Antwi-Nsiah, G., Feng, V., & Stanley, M. (2008). Library researchskills: A needs assessment for graduate student workshop. Issues in Scienceand Technology Librarianship.

Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2012). Phenomenography and grounded theory as re-search methods in computing education research field. Computer Science Edu-cation, 22(2), 199–218.

Kuruppu, P. U., & Gruber, A. M. (2006). Understanding the information needs ofacademic scholars in agricultural and biological sciences. Journal of AcademicLibrarianship, 32(6), 609–623.

Lupton, M. (2008). Evidence, argument and social responsibility: First-year students’experiences of information literacy when researching an essay. Higher Educa-tion Research & Development, 27(4), 399–414.

Martin, J. (2008). The information seeking behavior of undergraduate educationmajors: Does library instruction play a role?. Evidence Based Library and Infor-mation Practice, 3(4), 4–17.

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography-A research approach to investigating differentunderstandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28–49.

Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen, and T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 8). Oxford, UK:Pergamon.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Moulding, L. R, & Hadley, K. M. (2010). Graduate students’ understanding of educa-tional research in a master of education program. New Horizons in Education,58(1), 43–52.

Ornek, F. (2008). An overview of a theoretical framework of phenomenography inqualitative education research: An example from physics education research.Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 1–14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Park, B. (1986). Information needs: Implications for the academic library. (Report No.IR052 140). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 288 525).

Pickert, S. M., & Chwalek, A. B. (1984). Integrating bibliographic research skills intoa graduate program in education. Catholic Library World, 55, 392–394.

Rose, E., Le Heron, J. & Sofat, I (2005). Student understandings of informationsystems design, learning and teaching: A phenomenography approach. Journalof Information Systems Education, 16(1), 183–195.

Sin, S. (2010). Considerations of quality in phenomenographic research. Interna-tional Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(4), 305–319.

Sjostrom, B., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Applying phenomenography in nursingresearch. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(3), 339–345.

Switzer, A., & Perdue, S. W. (2011). Dissertation 101: A research and writing inter-vention for education graduate students. Education Libraries, 34(1), 4–13.

APPENDIX I

Email Sent to Faculty

I am requesting your help with research I am conducting this summer oneducation graduate students’ information seeking behavior. Dr. Sarah Lohnesis directing this research and it has been approved by the university’s Insti-tutional Review Board. The research represents a pilot study for my disserta-tion topic and includes a survey of education graduate students’ informationseeking behavior as well as semi-structured interviews with five student vol-unteers. To this end, I require help in soliciting participants to answer thesurvey as well as in identifying interview candidates. I would greatly appre-ciate your sending the email below to education graduate students in yourcourses as soon as possible.

Subject Line: Your participation is requested for a study on educationgraduate students’ information seeking behavior

Education graduate students,I am a doctoral student in instructional technology at the university.

I require your assistance in a research study I am conducting this Juneon education graduate students’ information seeking behavior. My studyseeks participants to answer a brief survey on students’ research habits. Allrespondents remain anonymous and the survey should not take more thantwenty minutes to complete.

In addition to the survey, I need volunteers to interview on their researchhabits. The interviews should take no longer than one hour and participantswill receive a $20 Starbucks gift certificate for their time.

I truly appreciate your help with this research. The survey can be ac-cessed through this link.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


If you have any additional questions or comments, do not hesitate tocontact me or Dr. Sarah Lohnes.

Thank you.Sincerely,Barbara Blummer

APPENDIX II

Interview Protocol

Graduate Students’ Research Strategies

Interview introduction & descriptionI am conducting a study about how graduate students conduct research for aclass paper. I am conducting this interview in conjunction with a qualitativemethods class to collect data for my study. I will be writing down notesregarding your responses to my questions. I will also be audio taping theinterview unless you object. Please don’t worry about saying anything incor-rect. This interview centers on how you approach the process of obtainingresearch information for a paper. Nothing you say will be given to any ofyour professors and all interview participants will remain anonymous. Com-pensation is in the form of the Starbucks certificate. Only one interview isneeded. Thanks.

Participant information:Please state your academic major and age category (20–25, 26–30, 31–36,36+).How long have you been in a graduate program?When did you graduate from college?

Participant Knowledge of Library Resources

Q. What do you know about the library resources at the university?B: Have you ever had library training?B: If yes was it conducted within a course? What did you learn from

it? Was it a positive experience? Can you describe the format (class lecture,hands on, tutorial based, one on one)

B: I have written the names of some databases available from the library.Would you look at them and state your familiarity with their focus? (Studentprovides input) If you do not recognize a database please state so.

B: Do you know how to access the catalog and do you utilize books forresearch or primarily articles? Do you know how to order an interlibrary loanitem? If yes do you order or prefer to locate online articles? Do you knowhow to search multiple databases together? Do you understand Booleansearching, field searching, the find it button?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Research Process

Q. How would you approach researching a topic for a class paper?B: Who would you contact if you were having problems with a search?B: How do you use the Internet in obtaining research for papers?B: Approximately how soon do you begin research on a topic for a class

assignment?B: What is your first step? What database do you access first? For exam-

ple, do you look on the Internet, Google, Yahoo? Do you access the librarycatalog, or library databases? Are you comfortable using these databases?

B: How much time do you spend conducting research?B: Do you ever use faculty, fellow students, librarians, internet

search engines, blogs, professional organizations, education databases, otherdatabases, dissertations, library catalogs, and citations for research?

B: Which of these are most important to you?B: How do you determine the materials are relevant to your topic? What

about authority of sources?B: How do you gauge completeness of the search?B: When, if at all, do you refine the topic?B: What is important to you regarding journal use, electronic availability,

easy to understand, available in the library, short in length, long in length,scholarly, reputation of journal?

B: What degree are you working toward?B: Are you employed?

ConclusionB: Thank you very much for answering these questions for me. You

really helped me out! Here is your Starbucks gift certificate.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:58

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the research experience for education graduate students: a phenomenographic study

Documents