Web-based information searching: Understanding student experiences to enhance the development of this critical graduate attribute

Exploring essential differences between four categories of variation in student experiences of information searching, this paper outlines each category’s structure of awareness. This structure reveals the way in which variation influences learning design to bring about the ways of experiencing searching we want students to engage in. INTRODUCTION Analysing student viewpoints, and their references, in submitted papers can be both rewarding and frustrating; rewarding if the student shows great promise and an obvious understanding in their work, and frustrating when it is clear that the student has totally misunderstood the subject matter and failed to recognize, or locate, relevant references. Questions roll around the teacher’s brain, begging for answers to this puzzling phenomenon, while answers remain fleeting, vague, and even confusing. What is clear is that student experiences of web-based information searching are varied. Furthermore, their reference lists reveal many students hold a basic ability to search for information, but an inability to perceive resources that are both relevant and significant. This paper reports research findings highlighting how structural variations reveal the essential differences in student experiences of web-based information searching. The intention is to amplify a previous paper (Edwards & Bruce, 2002), which provided the focus and meaning of four categories of variation in student searching experiences. This paper will show how the identified structural variations can be used to design activities that may bring about the ways of experiencing searching we want students to engage in, so on graduation they are able to search more effectively. In order to understand this, variation theory will be outlined, explaining how to apply this theory in teaching. The implications for both assessment and curriculum design will be provided, along with potential ways to encourage students to increase their searching skills. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Today’s tertiary level students have grown up during the IT revolution. Exposed to popular media culture that suggests someone can “googlewhack” or “google” their problem to find an answer, students may have little comprehension of a world where searching for information does not involve a computer. Most believe searching is easy; they find the search window, type in the desired topic, click the search button, scan the results list, and select. Does this simplistic perspective, however, contribute to a lack of understanding of the information environment? We need to know how students approach their searching, in order to help them deal with the information resource environment in a more productive and professional manner. Information Searching Research Over the past four decades, there have been numerous research studies into information searching end-user characteristics. For this period the work of the most interest would be Kuhlthau’s work looking at students working on assignments and their experiences when using information in the library (Kuhlthau, 1988). This work led her, over the next few years, to eventually describe information literacy in terms of a “way of learning” (Kuhlthau, 1993). Preliminary studies looking at information searching behaviours (Cole & Kuhlthau, 2000) have suggested that users make an attempt to define what they deem to be information in each individual context. That is, what to one person seems highly relevant, to someone else would be useless, as it does not suit his or her needs in their own work or study environment. Information science research is showing an emerging interest in applying educational research into the variety of ways needed to understand the searching process (Kuhlthau, 1988; Limberg, 2000a, 2000b). Limberg and Kuhlthau’s work is particularly relevant to this study, in that they show that the variation in the users’ experience of searching can highlight areas where a gap exists between the search process and the learning outcomes. Limberg’s work goes further to suggest that information seeking is actually not content specific, but is a more general process. This process, however, cannot be described without relating it to the content of what is learnt. These latter studies confirm that human factors in web-based searching behaviour must not be ignored. What is clear, is that the searching experience involves a combination of factors. We need to understand the variation in the experience of internet searchers, and we should be looking at their “way of learning” (Kuhlthau, 1993). In doing so, we may identify why particular search behaviour is evident, and in understanding the underlying reasons for the approach, we may be able to build a framework to help individuals move into more satisfying search experiences. METHODOLOGY Based on previous research and teaching observations, this research had a series of broad aims. This paper reports findings from the research aiming to consider the variation in ways students search for information when using the Internet and library databases, and attempts to recommend teaching and learning strategies for curriculum design based on managing student’s experiences. Ethical clearance was obtained. As the research aimed to make sense of the students’ understanding of the information searching and retrieval concepts, the research was undertaken using phenomenography (Bowden & Walsh, 2000, p.1). Phenomenography looks at the different ways people experience or conceive a range of phenomenon (Marton, 1988). In simple terms it is a way to describe how things appear to people (Marton & Fai, 1999). Variation Theory Central to understanding phenomenography is appreciating how the findings may apply in teaching. Teaching and learning research to date has found that ways of experiencing something are essential to what learning takes place (Shulman, 1986). Marton & Booth contend that qualitatively changed ways of experiencing something is the most advanced form of learning (Marton & Booth, 1997). If we can describe learning as coming to experience something in a changed way, we should also acknowledge that experiencing something must require the ability to discern this new way of seeing the experience. Discernment then, is a significant attribute of learning (Runesson, 1999). In order to discern a difference, however, we must have experienced a variation from our previous experience. To explain simply, if everything in the world was brown, then we would have no concept of what the word “brown” meant, nor what the word “colour” meant either (Bowden & Marton, 1998; Runesson, 1999). Once shown that apart from brown, there is also blue or green, then we have experienced a variation and discerned a difference in what we have previously experienced. Variation then is the primary factor needed for discernment, which will lead to learning (Bowden & Marton, 1998). If at the same time we noticed that the object had a different colour and that it was smaller or larger, or of a different texture, then we have simultaneously discerned other aspects of this experience against possible variations. To discern then it is necessary to experience the variation (Runesson, 1999). Variation, therefore, is a primary factor in encouraging student learning, but in order to understand what variations to use in the classroom to encourage student learning, it is first necessary to understand the varying ways of experiencing something, in this case, information searching. Phenomenography aims to uncover the variations in an experience, and describes these variations as a finite set of categories. These categories reveal the space of the variation, or, the varying ways of seeing information searching. Having found the variations, we can use them to identify ways to encourage students to discern another aspect of the information searching experience, an aspect they have previously not discerned. We can structure the learning environment to ensure students experience the variations of the information searching experience. By doing so, we may encourage learning. Gathering and Analysing the Data Using the phenomenographic method the identified variations in the experience of information searching were found. With a broader database than that presented in the previous paper (Edwards & Bruce, 2002), the data gathering encompassed first year, third year, and postgraduate student perspectives. The participants were QUT students (Queensland University of Technology) from the faculties of IT (Information Technology), Science, and Creative Industries (dance students). Different cultures, ages and genders were represented. From 43 interviews, the final transcripts comprise 31 first round interviews and 12 second round interviews. Both interviews were used to identify variation in information searching experiences. The second interview was analysed to reveal students’ perceptions of influences on their learning. Analysis of the data was undertaken according to traditional phenomenographic approaches. After the development of the categories of description of the phenomenon (Edwards & Bruce, 2002), the categories have been further analysed to distil the essential structural variations in which the phenomenon is experienced. In this way, we can clearly identify the variation found in each group’s way of looking at the world. Ways of Experiencing Information Searching A framework of four categories captures the variation in the student’s different ways of searching and learning to search for information. It is important to note that the investigation with first year students in various faculties has confirmed the categories previously reported (Edwards & Bruce, 2002). Category 1: Information searching is seen as looking for a needle in a haystack. Category 2: Information searching is seen as finding a way through a maze. Category 3: Information searching is seen as using the tools as a filter. Category 4: Information searching is seen as panning for gold. Expanding each categories awareness structure illustrates the essential differences between them, showing that each may be characterized in terms of different foci, and in different ways of seeing the information environment, the information tool structure, and their awareness of the quality of information. Table 1 shows the essential category structural variations, and following that each awareness structure is further illustrated. Table 1 Structure of Awareness for each Category: Significant Differences Primary Focus Internal Horizon Focus External Horizon Areas not attended too Structure of Awareness Summary