University Students’ Perceptions of the Internet:An Exploratory Studyby Joann E. D’Esposito and Rachel M. Gardner

Focus group participants aremore sophisticated in their

perceptions and appreciationof both Internet resources and

traditional library resourcesthan was hypothesized. They

do not, however, associate theInternet with the library and

do not think of asking alibrarian for help when using

the Internet for research.

Joann E. D’Esposito is Reference and SpecialCollections Librarian, Guggenheim

Memorial Library, Monmouth University,West Long Branch, New Jersey, 07764

,desposit@monmouth.edu.; Rachel M.Gardner is Instructional Services & Programs

Librarian, Guggenheim Memorial Library,Monmouth University, West Long Branch,

New Jersey, 07764,gardner@monmouth.edu..

I ncreasingly, college and universitystudents are using the Internet as aresource when seeking information

for academic assignments. Simulta-neously librarians, while embracing theInternet as a valuable information tool,express concern that students are usingthe Internet indiscriminately. Yet, little isknown about students’ perceptions of theInternet and Internet resources and theircriteria for evaluating information gath-ered from the Internet. There is also apaucity of information on their viewsabout the role of the library, librarians,and traditional library resources in rela-tion to the Internet, or how faculty per-ceptions of the Internet compare withthose of their students. This preliminarystudy explored these issues and deter-mined whether they are worthy of furtherinvestigation, and what impact any find-ings might have on the work of librarians.It also served the purpose of testing a listof descriptive terms for potential use in anexpanded quantitative study of the sameissues.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Although the Internet has received muchattention in library literature, most of ithas been librarian centered rather thanpatron centered, with emphasis either onhow librarians can use it to provide moreeffective service or on how they can ed-ucate patrons in its use. Few studies haveconcentrated on user perceptions andeven fewer on students’ perceptions of thelibrary in relation to the Internet.

In an Australian Library Reviewarti-cle, Celina Pascoe, Andrelyn C. Apple-bee, and Peter Clayton reported a litera-ture review of the research about theimpact of the Internet on the academiccommunity, including users’ percep-tions.1 They review a 1994 study in whichClifford Perry, using a survey posted to a

number of listservs (with both academicand nonacademic members), focused onthe actual community of Internet usersrather than on the future of the Internetitself.2 Perry concluded that while mostusers found the Internet to be far behindcommercial database systems in structureand sophistication and to have “a longway to go” before becoming the “‘ideal’information resource, . . . its very exis-tence signals the beginning of an excitinginformation age.”3 Pascoe et al. also citeda study by Jane Klobas of Internet use byuniversity administrative and academicstaff that suggested that the most impor-tant factors influencing use were per-ceived utility, convenience, and accessi-bility.4

In a computer-administered study ofSheffield University students’ perceptionsof the Internet and its use, Nigel Ford andDave Miller’s most significant findingsrelated to gender differences.5 Using a31-item, five-point Likert scale question-naire, they found that female studentswere unable to find their way around theInternet effectively, often “getting lost”and feeling “not in control.” They alsofound it to be too unstructured and too bigand searching it too difficult and uncer-tain. Generally, they did not find it enjoy-able and only used it when they had to.Male students were, however, “willing toplow through the irrelevant in search forthe relevant” and generally enjoyed usingthe Internet. Older students, sufferingfrom information overload and anxiety,were aided by the World Wide Web’s(Web) graphical approach, and both olderand female students used the Internet forwork rather than for personal interest.Ford and Miller also found that those witha “verbalizer” cognitive style, accordingto Riding’s Cognitive Styles Analysis, feltas if they were suffering from informationoverload and anxiety; they tried to cope

456 The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 25, Number 6, pages 456–461

by taking guidance from what they saw,avoiding unplanned browsing and using itonly when necessary.

After the present study was completed,John Lubans, the Deputy University Li-brarian at Duke University, published onthe Web a draft of the results of a fall1997 online study of use and perceptionsof the Web by 235 freshmen. The draftresults included the students’ perceptionsof the interrelationship between the Weband the library.6 The majority of Lubans’respondents reported that they used theWeb for academic or learning purposesbetween several times a day and severaltimes per week. They were, however,aware of their skill limitations in navigat-ing the Web. The respondents were gen-erally cautious about what they found;only four in 10 rated the Web high foraccuracy, while only 24% rated it high onauthority. The majority, however, rated ithigh on timeliness. With regard towhether the Internet influenced the qual-ity of their papers, the majority said ithelped with the number of sources foundand with their academic work in general,but an even greater number said it madelittle or no difference in the quality oftheir written work. The majority also saidit did not affect their grades. Over one-half, however, said it helped them usetheir time more efficiently. The majorityof the respondents said that, while usingthe Web for academic research, they wereengaged, learning, curious, and havingfun. Fewer than 10% were bored, andabout one-third said they were frustrated,while an equal number said they were not.

With regard to the relationship be-tween their Web experiences and the li-brary, the majority of Lubans’ respon-dents said their primary method forlearning about the Web was surfing; fol-lowed by consulting with classmates; and,lastly, by working with library staff. Theyfound new Web sites primarily throughsearch engines or by surfing. With regardto why the students access the Web in thelibrary versus some other location, Lu-bans reported that a substantial majoritysaid they needed supplemental resourcesthat were available inside the library.About one-third said they liked workingin the library, and another third said thelibrary was user-friendly. Lubans also re-ported that respondents did not depend onthe Web for their research needs; that is,one-half said 20% of the resources theyused were Web based, while 80% weretraditional library resources (including li-

brary databases), and another quarter re-ported the mix as about 50:50.

Lubans also asked respondents whatthe library could do to facilitate students’use of the Web. By far the most commonsuggestions were develop finding aids(best Web site listings by subject); pro-vide live links to Web sites from the li-brary catalog; rate search engines; andprovide a service that regularly notifiesusers, via e-mail, of the best new sites ina subject area. Only one third of the Dukerespondents wanted one-on-one sessionsor classes for making the most of the Webfor personal and school needs.

Although Pascoe et al., Perry, and Fordand Miller established a foundation forresearch about attitudes toward the Inter-net in general, the purpose of the currentstudy was to delve further into students’perceptions of information gathered fromthe Internet and to examine them in rela-tion to their perceptions of informationobtained from traditional library re-sources. In addition, the goal was to ex-amine notions about the role of the libraryand the librarian with respect to Internetinformation resources. Lubans’ research,which complemented and confirmedsome of the findings, was less focused onthe comparison between the two types ofresources.

PROCEDURES

Because of the relative newness of theInternet, and the paucity of informationabout perceptions toward the Internet inrelation to libraries and librarians, focusgroups were chosen as the most appropri-ate method for a qualitative study. Ac-cording to David L. Morgan, focus groupsare especially useful for “exploration anddiscovery,” allowing one to “explorepoorly understood topics,” “discover newinsights,” and “investigate contexts inwhich . . . participants operate.”7 Evenmore to the point was Thomas Green-baum’s suggestion that such interviewsare especially effective for collecting in-formation about how participants “feelabout different products, services, andprograms.”8

In July 1997, two focus groups wereconducted with 14 Monmouth Universitystudents. To recruit participants, 32 sum-mer school faculty (both graduate and un-dergraduate) from a variety of disciplines,were sent letters asking them to recruitstudent volunteers for an Internet researchproject. Along with the letter, the facultymembers were sent a sign-up sheet forstudent volunteers to print their names,

telephone numbers, and the best times tocontact them. The sign-up sheet statedthat the groups would be scheduled tomeet on campus at convenient times. Ofthe 19 students who signed up, 14 wereeconomics students whose professor haddecided, on his own, to offer extra creditfor participation in the study.

The volunteers were then telephonedand asked four screening questions relat-ing to Internet usage as a resource whenworking on a paper within the past fivemonths, voluntary versus required Inter-net usage, library visitation in conjunctionwith an assignment within the past fivemonths, and major area of study(computer science majors were excludedfrom the study to avoid the possibility ofsome group members perceiving them as“experts”).

Students who did not “pass” any one ofthe screening questions were disqualifiedand thanked for their interest. Those whoqualified were invited to participate inone of two scheduled groups. Groupswere scheduled around class times, andrecruits were given a choice of two timeslots (one in the morning and one in theafternoon), both on the same day. Re-cruits were informed that the Internet fo-cus group meetings would each last ap-proximately an hour and a half, and that alight meal would be provided. If the po-tential respondent agreed to participate,he or she was given the time and place ofthe meeting and thanked; the conversationwas then terminated.

Of the 19 students recruited by theprofessors, one could not be reached, onewas a computer science major, one re-fused because of a scheduling conflict,and one had not used the library withinthe past five months. The remaining 15qualified students agreed to participate(eight for the morning group and sevenfor the afternoon group.) Both genderswere represented in both groups: fivemales and three females in the morninggroup; two males and five females in theafternoon group. All of the students wereundergraduates. Only one student in eachgroup was enrolled in an upper levelcourse; the remainder were in either 100-or 200-level courses. The day before thegroups were scheduled, each respondentwas telephoned by one of the researchersand reminded of the appointment. Of the15 recruits, only one did not attend asscheduled.

The groups were held in the campusstudent center. Both groups were tape-recorded. One of the researchers, a pro-

November 1999 457

fessionally-trained focus group modera-tor, conducted the groups using amoderator guide designed by the authors,while the other researcher took notes.9

The sessions were divided into eightparts: introduction, ground rules, introduc-tion of participants, general perceptionsabout the Internet, experiences when usingthe Internet to complete an assignment, thelibrary and the Internet, recap, and closing.Proceedings of both groups were tran-scribed verbatim and carefully analyzed forconcept comprehension, perceptual pat-terns, and relevance for future study.

FINDINGS

General Perceptions about theInternet

Although “Internet” is the “official”term used throughout the study, respon-dents defined the Internet as the WorldWide Web and used the terms inter-changeably. (Given the exploratory natureof the study, the researchers had decidedto let participants define the term forthemselves.) In their free time, partici-pants used the Internet for a variety offunctions, including communicating withand locating friends and relatives, down-loading music, and locating informationabout various subjects (e.g., performanceschedules, sports, courses, scholarships,stocks, and consumer issues). Theythought of the Internet as a vast source ofinformation, a large network or commu-nication system where they could accessinformation on almost anything. They haddiverse notions about how material isadded to the Internet, ranging from “anyperson or organization that prepares ahome page” to “the online service pro-vider adds it” to “a committee or group ofpeople is responsible.” Participants hadsome difficulty responding to the question“How is material organized on the Inter-net?,” and generally felt that either it wasnot organized at all or that it was orga-nized by subject or discipline.

“They had diverse notionsabout how material is added tothe Internet, ranging from ‘any

person or organization thatprepares a home page’ to ‘theonline service provider adds it’

to ‘a committee or group ofpeople is responsible.’”

Using the Internet to CompleteAssignments

All participants had used the Internetto complete at least one course assign-ment within the past five months. Thesubject matter of these assignments fellwithin a full range of subject areas (e.g.,history, philosophy, music appreciation,popular culture, social issues, corporatereports, law, and biomedical issues).

When approaching research on the In-ternet, both for their assignments and ingeneral, participants used search engines,such as Yahoo!, WebCrawler, and Info-seek, and had mixed feelings aboutwhether some search engines were betterthan others. They based their evaluationsprimarily on whether a particular searchengine succeeded in satisfying the contentaspect of the query. They used the follow-ing criteria for evaluating the quality ofthe site and the reliability of the informa-tion: authorship or page ownership, linksto other sites, and the possibility of vali-dation from other sources. They felt thesites of highest quality and reliabilitywere those produced by the government,educational institutions, and reputablebusinesses and corporations.

When asked where they go when theycannot find what they are looking for onthe Internet, they said they went to thelibrary. They generally used the Internetin conjunction with library resources tocomplete their assignments. Finally, whenasked what feedback they receive fromtheir professors regarding use of Internetresources for assignments, they respondedthat professors’ attitudes were mixed. Al-though none would accept a paper inwhich only Internet resources were cited,they reported that some professors al-lowed limited Internet use in conjunctionwith traditional library resources, someconsidered Internet use acceptable withproper documentation, and some prohib-ited the use of the Internet for researchaltogether.

The Library and the Internet

When asked “When you think of thelibrary, what kinds of resources come tomind?” responses varied, ranging fromspecific types of resources (e.g., encyclo-pedias, older reference materials, the cardcatalog, books, journals, and periodicals)or specific formats (e.g., microfilm) to theorganization of the materials (e.g., “ev-erything is organized,” or “everything iswhere it is supposed to be with everythingelse”) to stereotypes (e.g., “little old la-

dies”). Although participants acknowl-edged that the Internet was available inthe library and that library Web pageswere accessible on the Internet, the gen-eral perception was that the library andthe Internet were two separate and unre-lated entities.

“Although participantsacknowledged that the Internetwas available in the library and

that library Web pages wereaccessible on the Internet, thegeneral perception was thatthe library and the Internet

were two separate andunrelated entities.”

Three factors determine whether theparticipants begin their research in thelibrary or on the Internet. The first wastime. If they only have two or three daysto complete a project, they were moreinclined to work from home or a dormi-tory room and to use, or at least try, theInternet first. The second factor was thenature of the topic. For humanities-ori-ented projects, particularly literary criti-cism or history, they would go to thelibrary. For more current information,particularly in the sciences and technol-ogy, they were more likely to choose theInternet. Finally, students followed theirinstructors’ directives regarding thechoice of the library or the Internet. Whenasked what they thought of when theythought of “library resources,” they men-tioned items that were housed in the li-brary building, such as books, newspa-pers, journals, Infotrac (a periodicalsdatabase), the electronic card catalog, andmicrofilm. When questioned about howthey would categorize a networked CD-ROM index that is available campuswide, but not part of the Internet, theywere confused.

Comparison between Internet andLibrary Resources

During the focus group sessions, par-ticipants were read a list of factors thatone might consider when comparing In-ternet resources to library resources andwere asked to compare the former to thelatter on each factor. One of the purposesof the list was to test participants’ com-prehension of the phrasing of particular

458 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

concepts, so that the terms could be usedin an expanded, self-administered, quan-titative study. Consistent with earlier find-ings, participants had difficulty distin-guishing between the library building andlibrary resources. Despite this difficulty,some distinct patterns emerged. They as-sociated the following terms and phraseswith Internet resources:

● Technologically advanced;● On the cutting edge; and● En vogue.

On the other hand, they attributed thefollowing to library resources:

● Organized;● Containing reliable information;● Sources that are what they say they

are;● Resources that provide access to his-

torical information;● Stable (dependable and reliable);● Geared toward scholarly researchers;● Having well-defined standards for

adding information; and● Adhering to rigid publication stan-

dards.

Participants had difficulty comparinglibrary and Internet resources with respectto a number of factors:

● Currency;● User-friendliness;● Can be used without asking for help;● Accessibility;● Quality;● Capable of satisfying one’s research

needs;● Content;● Provision of practical information;● Appearance of resources;● Population toward which it is geared;

and● Fashionableness.

A discussion of these factors follows.Although participants agreed that therewas current information on the Internet,they recognized that information on Websites is only as timely as the last Webpage update. Furthermore, journals andmagazines found in the library were per-ceived as being up-to-date.

Both library resources and Internet re-

sources were perceived as user-friendlyfor different reasons. For participants whoconsidered the librarian as a library re-source and valued the option of asking ahuman being for help, the library wasconsidered more user-friendly. For thosewho still associated the library with cardcatalogs, microfilm, and so forth, andthought that it is easier to just “find it onthe Internet,” the Internet was viewed asmore user-friendly. On a similar note,whether or not a resource could be usedwithout asking for help was perceived tobe a direct outcome of the user’s compe-tence. This was true both for library andfor Internet resources.

Participants had mixed perceptionsabout whether Internet resources or li-brary resources were more accessible. Al-though the Internet provides 24-hour ac-cess from home and is, therefore, moreconvenient, access is limited to those whocan afford to purchase a computer andthose who know how to use it.

Participants were divided in their per-ceptions about whether the library and theInternet provided information of equallyhigh quality, or whether one informationsource was superior to the other in thisrespect. There was, in general, a distinctfeeling that the quality of Internet infor-mation was not superior to that found inthe library. Similarly, when asked whichinformation source was more likely tosatisfy research needs, participants re-ported that either the library or a library/Internet combination was acceptable, butnever just the Internet alone.

“Similarly, when asked whichinformation source was more

likely to satisfy research needs,participants reported that

either the library or a library/Internet combination was

acceptable, but never just theInternet alone.”

With regard to subject content superi-ority, participants supported earlier asser-tions that it depends on the nature of thesubject (e.g., humanities vs. science, orhistorical vs. current). Similarly, with re-spect to access to practical information,some participants found that the Internetwas superior, whereas others believed thatit depended largely on the nature of the

information. Library resources were not,however, their top choice.

It was interesting that neither the li-brary nor the Internet resources emergedas a distinct favorite with regard to beinggeared toward specific populations, suchas the general public, students, or profes-sionals. Participants perceived both typesof resources as having particular strengthsand weaknesses for various user groups,depending on the users’ specific needs.With regard to professionals, for example,the students regarded the Internet as betterfor business people, but they thought thattraditional library sources were more ap-propriate for physicians and lawyers.Whereas weather sites on the Internetmay be of use to the general public, thelibrary is perceived as family oriented andas “having something for everybody.”Both types of resources were perceived ashaving information that was useful to stu-dents.

Finally, with regard to which was morefashionable, participants had difficultyunderstanding the question. They also haddifficulty distinguishing between the li-brary building and the library resources,and could not, therefore, decide whichhad a more esthetically-pleasing appear-ance.

Librarians and the Internet

Generally, participants were not in-clined to ask a librarian for help withfinding information on the Internet for avariety of reasons. The first was that theyusually did their searching at home or at acampus computer lab and consequentlydid not feel they had access to a librarian.The second was that it just did not occurto them: “it never even occurred to me,”or “I don’t expect them to know a wholelot more about the Internet than I couldfind out myself.” The third was that theysaw themselves as self-sufficient. Thosewho were inclined to ask for help werenovice users who were accessing the In-ternet in the library.

On the other hand, participants wouldnot hesitate to ask a computer lab assis-tant for help using the Internet. Theywould ask questions such as “What’swrong with my computer?,” “Why won’tit do what I want it to do?,” “How do Icreate my own Web page?,” “What is thebest way to find/do what I want to do?,”and “How do I search?”

Finally, when asked “Do you thinkwe’re getting to the point where the In-ternet can satisfy most of our informationneeds as opposed to other library re-

November 1999 459

sources or don’t you think we are at thatpoint?,” the general feeling was that wewere not there yet and perhaps may neverbe. That is because it will not be possibleto put all historical information and pri-mary literary sources on the Internet andbecause one needs a place to validatewhat one finds on the Web. They re-sponded with comments such as “We’realways going to need the library no matterwhat;” “We will never get every piece ofwritten literature into that Net;” “Youneed to validate what you find on theNet;” “Must go see what else is there;”and “I don’t think it could ever replace thelibrary. It’s not just a place for research; itis a sanctuary;” and “No, not yet. Not fora while.”

DISCUSSION

Generally, the findings reflect the currentmetamorphosis in the information-seek-ing process among student researchers.Respondents used the term “Internet” and“World Wide Web” interchangeably.They were unclear about how informationcontained in these resources is added andorganized. They felt, however, relativelysophisticated in regard to their ability todetermine when the Internet is most use-ful as a research tool and to evaluate thequality of a site and the reliability of theinformation. Their criteria for evaluationincluded authorship/page ownership, theauthority of the sites to which links areprovided, and the verifiability of the in-formation. They named sites produced bythe government, educational institutions,businesses, and corporations as the mostreputable.

“They did not, however,necessarily view the Internet asa library resource and would

not think to ask a librarian forassistance with locating

information on the Internet.”

They continued to value the library andto use the Internet in conjunction with thelibrary to complete assignments (consis-tent with Lubans’ findings). They did not,however, necessarily view the Internet asa library resource and would not think toask a librarian for assistance with locatinginformation on the Internet.10 Their deci-sion about which to try first was based onavailable time, the nature of the topic, and

their instructor’s directives. They had dif-ficulty, however, distinguishing betweencommercial library resources deliveredover the Internet and Internet informationresources freely available to all. They alsohad difficulty distinguishing between thelibrary building and the actual resourceshoused in the library. Despite this confu-sion, they were able to attribute the char-acteristics listed above to either Internetresources or library resources or to both,with only two exceptions: “fashionable-ness” and “appearance of resources.” Fi-nally, from the participants’ perspectives,faculty perceptions vary, and, like the stu-dents, they viewed the Internet as supple-mental to library resources.

CONCLUSION

The focus groups succeeded in explor-ing students’ perceptions of the Inter-net; their evaluation criteria for Internetresources; their views about the role ofthe library, librarians, and library re-sources in relation to the Internet; andtheir experiences with faculty regardinguse of Internet resources for researchassignments. It is important to acknowl-edge, however, that the methodology, asapplied in this study, although generallysound, has some limitations, specifi-cally with respect to the low sample sizeand the heterogeneous composition ofthe groups.11 It would, therefore, be in-appropriate to project these findings to abroader population. Nevertheless, thegroups yielded valuable insight and metthe study’s objectives of determiningthe importance of researching these is-sues and of providing a foundation forfurther study. With a few exceptions,the list of terms used to describe Inter-net and library resources can be used inan expanded, quantitative study.

The implications for these findings andfor future research in this area fall intotwo categories: library instruction andpromotion of library resources. Furtherstudy is needed to explore whether or notthe average student is as savvy aboutevaluating Internet resources as the sum-mer school participants said they wereand, if so, whether or not they are usingthese evaluation skills to “filter” out lessreputable sources for their research pa-pers. The results of such a study wouldhave a substantial impact on how librari-ans approach user instruction, specificallyon what they choose to emphasize. Fur-ther, the research also brings to light aseries of questions regarding the value ofeducating students about the differences

between “librarian-sanctioned” fee-basedresources and “free” Internet resources.As the methods of delivering both typesof resources become indistinguishable,should instructional librarians continue toemphasize this dichotomy? Is it a neces-sary component of developing criticalthinking skills about value and scholar-ship? If yes, what is the best method forteaching these concepts?

With regard to promotion of libraryresources, librarians spend substantialamounts of time evaluating and develop-ing expertise about the Web; yet, if usersare unaware of this expertise and do nottake advantage of it, is this a valuable useof librarians’ time? What are librariansdoing to educate users and to promote theprofession in a way that increases the“customer” base? Studies that illustratethe value students place on a librarybuilding may serve to help our causewhen high-level administrators questionthe need for such a structure in the midstof a burgeoning supply of digital re-sources.

Finally, although this study focusedprimarily on students’ perceptions, it alsotouched tangentially on faculty percep-tions. A comparable study of college anduniversity faculty perceptions might pro-vide substantial insight into whether fac-ulty attitudes and perceptions coincidewith those of the students and might jus-tify programs to implement some of theeducational and promotional implicationsof this study.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Celina Pascoe, Andrelyn C. Applebee, &Peter Clayton, “Tidal Wave or Ripple?The Impact of Internet on the Academic,”Australian Library Review 13 (May1996): 147–153.

2. Clifford Perry, “Travelers on the Inter-net,” Online 19 (March 1995): 29–34.

3. Ibid., p. 34.4. Pascoe, Applebee, & Clayton, “Tidal

Wave or Ripple?” p. 152.5. Nigel Ford & Dave Miller, “Gender Dif-

ferences in Internet Perceptions and Use,”Aslib Proceedings48 (July/August 1996):183–192.

6. John Lubans, Jr., “How First-Year Univer-sity Students Use and Regard Internet Re-sources” (draft) [Online]. Available:http://www.lib.duke.edu/staff/orgnztn/lubans/docs/1styear/firstyear.html(April 8, 1998).

7. David L Morgan, The Focus GroupGuidebook(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,1998), pp. 12–13.

8. Thomas L. Greenbaum,Handbook for Fo-cus Group Research, 2nd ed., rev. and

460 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

exp. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998), p. 11.9. A copy of the moderator guide is available

from the authors.10. A significant omission from the study was

a question as to whether or not partici-pants had asked for assistance with tradi-tional materials.

11. Because some students were given extra

credit and others were not, and becausegenders and ages were mixed, the groupswere not as homogeneous as they wouldideally have been.

November 1999 461