The Role of Technology in Research: Perspectives from Studentsand Instructors

Mary S. Laskowski

portal: Libraries and the Academy, Volume 2, Number 2, April 2002,pp. 305-319 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/pla.2002.0036

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Middle Tennessee State University (8 Sep 2013 20:02 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pla/summary/v002/2.2laskowski.html

Mary S. Laskowski 305

portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2002), pp. 305–319. Copyright © 2002 by The JohnsHopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD 21218.

The Role of Technology inResearch: Perspectives fromStudents and Instructors

Mary S. Laskowski

abstract: This article represents results of a survey designed to investigate the role of technology inresearch, both from the instructor and student standpoints. Results indicate a wide discrepancybetween instructor and student expectations and methods, as well as an increasing demand onthe part of students for full-text sources.

Academic librarians and teaching faculty share a growing concern that the preva-lence of electronic resources is undermining students’ ability effectively toevaluate and to select material for research assignments. The simple fact that

a particular source is available in electronic format may take precedence over the cred-ibility and appropriateness of a better print resource. Or, at least, that is the fear. How-ever, many students believe that their instructors do not appreciate or understand thewide variety and scope of material available online and that they devalue online re-sources because of format rather than content. This article represents results of a surveydesigned to investigate the role of technology in research, both from the instructor andstudent standpoints. Technology, in the context of this article, refers to the use of online,digital, or networked resources such as the Internet, CD-ROMs, or online library data-bases to access information.

In addition to assessing current use of and attitudes towards technology in researchby students and instructors, the survey was also designed to point out discrepanciesbetween instructor expectations and assumptions and what students actually have doneand continue to do. The survey results also indicate problems in instructor-student com-munication and reveal differing perceptions of what it means for information to beavailable online. The numerous problems shown by the survey data reflect the need forlibrarians and instructors to have a better understanding of the way students approachresearch assignments.

The Role of Technology in Research: Perspectives from Students and Instructors306

Literature Review

Technology plays an integral role in information literacy and research. The introduc-tion and widespread use of information in electronic formats through article databases

and the Internet has had a great impacton the way students and instructors findand utilize research material. Thoughtechnology has had many positive effectson the accessibility of information, therehave been drawbacks as well. As anyonewho has worked hours at a reference deskknows, there is often a disconnect be-tween what faculty members or instruc-tors ask or expect their students to do fora research assignment and what the stu-dents, undergraduates in particular, are

willing and/or able to accomplish in the time allowed. Part of this disconnect can beascribed to lack of communication or miscommunication between instructors and stu-dents regarding what is expected for a specific assignment, and part can be attributedto expectations based on wrong assumptions.

Barbara Valentine, in her article “The Legitimate Effort in Research Papers: StudentCommitment versus Faculty Expectations,” demonstrates through interviews with stu-dents writing research papers that students most often are looking for the fastest meansto a good grade. In most cases this means using sources they have used previously thatare easily obtained, such as material found using Internet search engines or full-textonline databases. Valentine argues that instructors and students have differing expec-tations regarding research assignments, “whereas students focused on the assignment’sobjective criteria and the ways in which they could fit the work into their busy sched-ules, professors often defined the value of the research assignment more intangibly.”1

Valentine goes on to discuss the communication problems between instructors and stu-dents, and comes to the conclusion that “the source of this communication breakdownmay have been the research process itself. Getting materials from which to create thepaper was more daunting, and took much more time, than many of these students hadexpected. And, it is possible that professors are unaware of just how tangled up stu-dents can get trying to do research in this age of information overload.”2 Barbara Fisteraddresses this idea in her article “The Research Processes of Undergraduate Students.”She discusses the fact that undergraduate research often focuses on specific tool-ori-ented search techniques rather than a greater understanding of the research pool of aspecific field.3 While the faculty member or instructor may know exactly or assumewhat research has been done in a particular field, they need to remember that the un-dergraduate student does not have the same background to draw upon.

Fred R. Van Hartesveldt, in “The Undergraduate Research Paper and ElectronicResources: A Cautionary Tale,” draws some similar conclusions. In addition to prob-lems with undergraduate students not having the background to make appropriateselections from the wide variety material found on the Internet, Van Hartesveldt also

The numerous problems shown bythe survey data reflect the need forlibrarians and instructors to have abetter understanding of the waystudents approach researchassignments.

Mary S. Laskowski 307

makes the point that in many ways the Internet has made research assignments moredifficult for instructors as well. He claims that not only is it easier for students to buypapers off of the Internet, or copy and paste sections of text, but it is extremely hard forinstructors to catch them in the act due to both the variety of material available and thedifficulty in tracking down individual cited sources.4 Van Hartesveldt also emphasizesthe growing need for faculty/instructors to spend a great deal of time communicatingto their students the appropriate criteria for selecting and utilizing material specificallyfrom the Web. According to Susan David Herring, even if students are not plagiarizing,faculty members are not confident that their students can evaluate web sources ad-equately.5 The research results contained in “Worries with the Web: A Look at StudentUse of Web Resources” suggest that one reason faculty are not confident in their stu-dents’ ability to use web resources is that they are not very familiar with web resourcesthemselves.6 In order for faculty to communicate effectively not only their expectationsregarding specific assignments, but also their concerns with electronic resources, theyneed to have a clear understanding for themselves first.

Clear communication of expectations is essential for a productive learning experi-ence. Robert A. Scott and Dorothy Echols Tobe, in “Communicating High Expectations:Effective Undergraduate Education,” emphasize the importance of good communica-tion between instructors and students, particularly the articulation of expectations forassignments.7 As Gloria J. Leckie states in “Desperately Seeking Citations: UncoveringFaculty Assumptions about the Undergraduate Research Process,” though “the expertscholar anticipates the knowledge one will gain from information gathering and tendsto regard the mechanics as inconsequential . . . even sophisticated students are unlikelyto have a macro view of the entire retrieval universe at their disposal, so they will not beable to discard mentally certain options as less helpful because they have no experiencein using all of those options.”8 Leckie also stresses that assumptions by faculty mem-bers or instructors regarding their students in general are dangerous as “students aremuch more diverse today – they may be older, come from a broader range of ethnic andlinguistic groups, have certain disabilities, be working on their degree part-time, andbe commuting. There are more information resources available, but also more tech-nologies to master.”9 In short, faculty members, instructors and librarians all need tounderstand better the way students approach a research assignment and their use oftechnology in particular, in order to educate them effectively about the appropriateselection and use of research materials.

For librarians, the process of understanding better the way students approach re-search assignments is often accomplished through user studies. In “Check the citation:library instruction and student paper bibliographies,” Karen Hovde discusses the im-portance of assessment and evaluation. “Librarians, in particular, can benefit from evalu-ation of the processes in which they take part because so many of their interactions areseverely truncated. They do not have the luxury of either time or multiple meetings inwhich to assess, at more informal levels, the success of their transactions.”10 In additionto creating and analyzing user studies to understand better how technology is beingused in research, librarians need to be aware of the influence they can have on studentperceptions. Zhijia Shen and Keith Gresham discuss this aspect of the role of technol-ogy in “When technology transforms research methodology: the role of librarians in

The Role of Technology in Research: Perspectives from Students and Instructors308

reforming the curriculum.” Though this article focuses on Asian Studies, the conclu-sions drawn are applicable to librarianship in general. They state, “Given the promi-

nent role which information tech-nology will play in the academiclives of future scholars, academiclibrarians need to re-examine theirresponsibilities as information spe-cialists in relation to the researchtraining received by today’s stu-dents.”11 Though Shen andGresham stress the positive as-pects of technology, particularlythe ability of librarians to use tech-nology to reach students in an ef-

fective way through new databases and electronic reference tools, others take a muchmore negative approach.

Vicki Tolar Burton and Scott A. Chadwick are very concerned that technology haslessened selectivity in choosing sources. As they state in “Investigating the Practices ofStudent Researchers: Patterns of Use and Criteria for Use of Internet and LibrarySources,” for students at the college level “a key element of academic literacy is theability to locate, select, evaluate, synthesize, and cite outside sources in their own writ-ing. This traditional cornerstone of academic writing has been called into question, evenendangered, by the nature and sheer number of resources available on the Internet andby students’ apparently random selection and use of this and other borrowed informa-tion in their writing.”12 This perspective is of particular interest because neither authoris a librarian; they work in Composition and Communication Studies programs. Theystrongly encourage continued research in this area because “whether student research-ers are choosing inappropriate sources due to lack of training, lack of time, lack of dis-cretion, or for some other reason, the practice merits attention because it both devaluesand places at risk a central assumption of academic writing: that a writer will supportclaims with appropriate, valid, and authoritative evidence.”13 Burton and Chadwickare not alone in their concern.

Brad Macdonald and Robert Dunkelberger, though not as negative as Burton andChadwick in their assessment of the quality of student research, also express fears thatstudents are not selective enough in finding appropriate research sources. Having con-ducted a survey designed to determine what sources are most heavily used for researchassignments and how much of an influence the availability in electronic format is, theauthors conclude that “the survey results confirmed the authors’ belief from encoun-ters at the reference desk that students are becoming dependent on the availability offull-text databases and are using them in some cases to the exclusion of all other infor-mation sources.”14 This is cause for growing concern and, as all of the aforementionedauthors agree, evidence of a need to research further the role technology plays in selec-tion and utilization of research sources.

In addition to creating and analyzinguser studies to understand better howtechnology is being used in research,librarians need to be aware of theinfluence they can have on studentperceptions.

Mary S. Laskowski 309

Methodology

Two separate surveys were constructed for the purpose of this research. One surveywas designed to assess instructor attitudes towards and use of technology both in theirown research and in that of their students. The other survey was targeted at studentsand designed to deter-mine how they use tech-nology in research. Por-tions of the instructor sur-vey mirrored the studentsurvey so that the authorcould also assess discrep-ancies between instructorand student expectations.

The surveys were conducted at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign dur-ing the Spring 2001 semester. In an effort to reach a wide spectrum of freshman stu-dents, the surveys were targeted towards the Rhetoric 105 and Speech Communication112 instructors and students. From information gathered from the two departments,there were forty-nine instructors teaching Rhetoric 105 and twenty-two instructors teach-ing Speech Communication 112. These instructors represented seventy-two and thirty-four classes respectively. The total number of students enrolled in these two courseswas not determined, but the average number of students in the Rhetoric 105 classessurveyed was nineteen and the average number of students in the Speech Communica-tion 112 classes was seventeen.

The instructors were contacted through e-mail, and also at departmental meetings,requesting their participation in the project. Twenty-three (47 percent) of Rhetoric 105instructors agreed to participate, representing thirty-three classes. Twenty (90 percent)of the Speech Communication 112 instructors, representing thirty classes, also agreedto participate. Of these combined forty-three instructors who agreed to participate, thirty-nine (91percent) actually followed through with the project, at least to some extent.

Survey Results

Student Respondents

Over a thousand students, 1,022 to be precise, responded to the survey. This represents100 percent of the students whose instructors actively distributed the survey. Thesestudents were spread between the Speech Communication 112 and Rhetoric 105 in-structors and classes as mentioned above. Of the 1,022 student respondents, 939 (92percent) were freshmen, 64 (6 percent) were sophomores, 15 (1 percent) were juniors,and only three were seniors. One student respondent did not indicate his or her aca-demic standing. This sample is largely as expected, as the courses were specifically chosenbecause they are required for many programs on campus. A large percentage of freshmenwas desirable to help determine student expectations regarding the use of technologyin research before they were likely to have done in-depth research in a specific field.

Portions of the instructor survey mirrored thestudent survey so that the author could alsoassess discrepancies between instructor andstudent expectations.

The Role of Technology in Research: Perspectives from Students and Instructors310

The student respondents’ ages and sexes were also unsurprising. The survey al-lowed for ages ranging from under seventeen to over twenty-one, but there were norespondents under the age of seventeen. Three student respondents indicated that theywere seventeen years of age, 437 (43 percent) were age eighteen, 536 (52 percent) agenineteen, thirty-five were age twenty, seven were age twenty-one, and only four wereover the age of twenty-one. Five hundred and forty-three, or 53 percent, of the studentrespondents were female, and 479, or 47 percent, were male. In addition to these basicdemographic questions, students were asked to identify their college and major if al-ready determined. Two student respondents did not indicate their college of study,leaving a total of 1,020 respondents. Of those 1,020 student respondents, 39 percentwere enrolled in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 18 percent in the College ofBusiness Administration, and 16 percent in the College of Agricultural, Consumer andEnvironmental Studies.

A wide range of majors was represented in the colleges mentioned above. One itemto note is that of the 939 freshmen, 144 respondents, or 15 percent, were undecided interms of their future major. Another thirty-one, or 3 percent, list general curriculum astheir major. All of the sophomores, juniors and seniors, with the exception of two sopho-mores who were undecided, listed specific majors. There did not appear to be a signifi-cant correlation between academic standing and college of study or major with theexception of the relatively high percentage of freshmen who understandably were notyet certain of their degree goals.

Instructor Respondents

The surveys were distributed to nineteen Speech Communication 112 instructors repre-senting twenty-eight classes, and to twenty Rhetoric 105 instructors representing thirty

Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Studies 168

Applied Life Studies 59

Institute of Aviation 11

Business Administration 185

Education 46

Engineering 97

Fine and Applied Arts 58

Liberal Arts and Sciences 395

Nursing 1

Table 1Student Respondents by College of Study

College of Study Student Respondents

Mary S. Laskowski 311

classes. Though the surveys were distributed during class-time with the cooperation ofthese thirty-nine instructors, and student results are available for all fifty-eight classes,two of the instructors, one from Speech Communications 112 and one from Rhetoric105, did not complete the instructor survey. Therefore, the following instructor respon-dent statistics are based on a total of thirty-seven instructors.

The instructor respondents were split almost exactly between males and femaleswith nineteen males and eighteen females responding. Of the thirty-seven instructorrespondents, twenty-six (70 percent) were graduate students, ten (27 percent) were non-tenure track faculty, and one respondent was tenure track faculty. Though this sampleis high in the number of graduate students, this was expected because of the nature ofthe courses sampled. There was quite a variety, however, in the amount of experiencevarious instructors had in teaching. Responses ranged from one semester to seven yearsof teaching this particular course. The average of the responses was 2.12 years of teach-ing overall, with a higher average of 2.47 years for the Rhetoric 105 instructors and anaverage of 1.75 years for the Speech Communications 112 instructors. There was nocorrelation between the academic standing of the instructor and experience in teachingthe course. A graduate student, rather than a tenure or non-tenure track faculty mem-ber as might be expected, indicated the longest period of seven years of teaching his orher particular course.

In addition to academic standing and experience, the instructor respondents repre-sented a wide range of age groups and individual courses of study. The survey allowed foran age range from under twenty-two to over thirty-five, but none of the instructor re-spondents were under twenty-two. The majority of the instructors, thirteen, or 35 percent,were between the ages of twenty-five and thirty. Nine instructors, or 24 percent, weretwenty-two to twenty-five years old, eight (22 percent) were over thirty-five, and seven(19 percent) were between the ages of thirty and thirty-five. Thirty-six of the thirty-seven instructors who filled out the instructor survey indicated their own area of study.Although the majority of the instructors, fourteen (39 percent), were in an English-re-lated field, there were many other areas represented as well. Nine, or 25 percent, of theinstructors were in the law school, six (17 percent) were in speech communications, andseven were in a variety of other subjects ranging from foreign service to music studies.

Though the survey sample itself is fairly large, including 1,022 student respon-dents and thirty-seven instructor respondents, the resulting wide range of ages, areasof study, and experience combined with a nearly even mix of males and females allowfor the survey results to be generalized to the larger academic population.

Student and Instructor Expectation Discrepancies and Communication Issues

As mentioned in the introduction and literature review, one of the reasons that the useof technology in research has caused problems is that instructors and students approachresearch very differently, with different expectations that aren’t always clearly commu-nicated. One of the goals of the survey was to determine the level of discrepancy be-tween these expectations, based in part on a simple analysis of how students and in-structors answer similar questions differently. The first four questions of both the stu-dent and instructor surveys were mirrored to reflect inconsistencies between studentand corresponding instructor responses.

The Role of Technology in Research: Perspectives from Students and Instructors312

The first question asked both students and instructors whether or not the researchassignments for the course specified the number of sources to be cited. We asked thisquestion not only to examine problems in communicating the requirements of the as-signment, but also to get a general feel for what a typical assignment in the Rhetoric 105and Speech Communications 112 courses is like. At first glance, the student and in-structor responses seem quite similar. Total student responses for this question were1,020. The majority of students and the majority of instructors agreed that there were aspecified number of sources to be cited for the research assignments in the course.

Student Responses 914 (90%) 106 (10%)

Instructor Responses 34 (92%) 3 (8%)

Table 2Specified Number of Sources Cited

Yes No

However, by matching up the specific student responses with the corresponding in-structor responses, a much greater discrepancy is revealed. Of the 106 students whoindicated that their instructor did not specify the appropriate number of sources, twelvecame from courses where the instructor left that question blank. Twenty-two (21 per-cent) responses came from classes in which the instructors said that they did not specifythe number of sources and seventy-two (68 percent) came from classes where the in-structor did indeed specify the number of sources and the students did not know it.Also, for the three instructors who indicated that they did not specify the number ofsources for research assignments, thirty-five of the combined fifty-seven students, or 61percent, disagreed with their instructor and indicated that they were assigned specificnumbers of sources to cite. Another way to look at the statistics is that in the threeclasses where the instructor did not specify number of sources, only 19 percent, 37 per-cent, and 55 percent of the students concurred with the instructor. While results indi-cate that the majority of students who answered in the positive agreed with their in-structors that they were required to cite a specific number of sources, the discrepanciesare still clear enough to show that a higher than desirable percentage of students andinstructors disagree regarding stated expectations. The underlying communication prob-lem evidenced by this data was apparent in all areas of the survey where instructor andstudent responses regarding stated expectations for assignments could be compared.

Perhaps the most revealing survey data related to differences in student and in-structor expectations come from the juxtaposition of the student survey question “Doesyour instructor specify what types of sources are appropriate for a given assignment?In other words, are you required to use a certain kind or combination of sources such ascurrent journal articles, newspaper articles, books, websites, etc.?” and the correspond-

Mary S. Laskowski 313

ing instructor question. The majority of instructors, thirty-four (92 percent), answeredin the positive, that they do in fact require specific types of sources appropriate to theassignment. However, as experience on a reference desk will also show, 226 (22 percent)of the students did not indicate that their instructors were expecting specific types ofsources appropriate for the assignment. Of the 226 students who indicated that theirinstructor did not specify what types of sources are appropriate for a given assignment,twenty-four (12 percent) were in classes where the instructor did not respond. Twenty-seven (12 percent) were in classes where the instructor agreed that he or she does notspecify the types of appropriate sources. One hundred fifty-five students (75 percent)disagreed with their instructor about the stated expectations. This factor may contrib-ute to an instructor’s lack of confidence in students’ ability to select appropriate sources.Obviously, if the students are not aware that they need to find specific types of sources,either because of the instructor ’s failure to communicate the assignment or studenterror, the student will fail to meet the expectations of the instructor.

Current Attitudes towards Technology in Research

Another major goal of the survey was to assess current attitudes towards technology inresearch. This question was approached from both instructor and student standpoints.As mentioned in the literature review, there are many possible reasons why studentsand instructors may have differing viewpoints on the role of technology. These reasonsinclude instructors’ concerns about plagiarism, students’ inability to distinguish be-tween inappropriate and appropriate selections, and students’ unfamiliarity with sub-ject and method in the instructor’s choice of field of research. Whatever the reason, thesurvey results do indicate a wide range of acceptability for technology in research.

Instructors were asked whether or not they encouraged their students to make useof web resources (not material found in the Library’s online resources, but materialpublished directly on the Web) in their assignments. Students were also asked a corre-sponding question to see if they felt encouraged to make use of web resources. Theinstructor’s responses were surprisingly favorable towards use of web resources in stu-dent research. Twenty-six,or 70 percent of the in-structors indicated thatthey did encourage theirstudents to use web re-sources. Seven of the in-structors who indicatedthat they encourage webuse did, however, qualifytheir responses with addi-tional comments. Thecomments indicated thatthough web resources may be more acceptable than they have been in the past, there isstill concern on the part of instructors regarding the student’s ability to analyze and toselect appropriate sources critically. Therefore, the instructors often specify individualwebsites or require their students to obtain permission to use web sources for their

The comments indicated that though webresources may be more acceptable than theyhave been in the past, there is still concern onthe part of instructors regarding the student’sability to analyze and to select appropriatesources critically.

The Role of Technology in Research: Perspectives from Students and Instructors314

assignment. Of the eleven (30 percent) instructors who did not encourage their stu-dents to make use of web resources, all but one said that they don’t encourage use ofthe Web because the sources aren’t reliable or credible. One instructor even commentedthat students can make use web resources only if they need to cite a example of poorresearch.

The responses to the correlating question on the student survey were much moremixed. There were a total of 977 responses to this question, with forty-five students notresponding. Only 494 (51 percent) of students responding felt encouraged to use webresources, compared to the twenty-six (70 percent) of instructors who claimed to haveencouraged them. An almost equal number, 483 (49 percent), did not feel encouraged tomake use of the Web. This is in keeping with the responses to the earlier question ofwhether or not students knew or understood that their instructors specified particulartypes of sources for each assignment. Somewhat surprisingly, there was not a significantcorrelation between the age of the instructor and whether or not he or she encouragedstudents to use web resources. In general, the overall attitude of the instructors towardstechnology in research was much more positive than earlier studies have indicated.

One area where this positive attitude towards technology was not apparent, how-ever, was in instructors’ distinctions between online and print resources. The trend ofmiscommunication between instructors and students regarding specific assignmentrequirements is only exacerbated by the introduction of various methods of access toinformation, particularly regarding the question of online versus print. In an effort tounderstand better why some students have such difficulty in finding appropriate sourcesfor their assignments, as evidenced when they approach a reference librarian for assis-tance in finding sources for their research papers, instructors were asked whether ornot they distinguish between online sources or print sources. In other words, does itmatter to them whether students use full-text articles found in the library’s online data-bases or use the hard copy of the articles found in the library’s print collection? Thisfocus was different from the questions that attempted to reveal the attitude of instruc-tors towards the Web. The idea was to try to distinguish between attitudes towards theWeb and attitudes towards online resources that are selected by the library and perhapsequivalent to items the library purchases in print. The original assumption was thateven if instructors were anti-Web, they may not be against using online sources foundin the library’s databases. However, the data largely support the opposite conclusion.

While instructors were much more tolerant of material published directly on theWeb than had been anticipated, they were not nearly as accepting of online sourcesfound in the library’s databases as we might have expected. Almost half, or eighteen(49 percent) of the instructors indicated that they do distinguish between full-text ar-ticles found in the library’s databases and the hard copy of the articles found in thelibrary’s print collection. Rationales given for making this distinction centered largelyaround two issues: wishing students to use the physical library and problems withciting online sources. One instructor commented, “If I don’t [make this distinction],students tend to be lazy and only use online sources.” There was again a discrepancybetween what the instructors said they assigned and what the students actually under-stood. Of the 1,018 students responding to this question, 615 (60 percent) indicated thattheir instructor did not distinguish between print and online sources. As libraries con-

Mary S. Laskowski 315

tinue to purchase onlinefull-text sources ingreater numbers, oftendiscontinuing the printsubscription if the onlineversion is consideredstable, instructors’ rejec-tion of this material willbe extremely problem-atic, particularly if theyexpect their students touse the most currentsources on a given topic. Obviously, better communication with instructors concerningthe library’s collection development and retention policies is a must.

Current Research Practices Using Technology

Both the student and instructor surveys included several questions designed to deter-mine how students are currently making use of technology in research. Instructors wereasked to list the top three online sources they recommend to their students for researchand students were asked to list the top three online sources they prefer to use for re-search. The concept of online sources was not defined in an effort to analyze what stu-dents and instructors consider “online.” Though in each case respondents were askedto identify specific sources by name, not types of sources, a fair number of both instruc-tors and students listed types of sources such as “library databases” or “search engines.”All of the open-ended answers were coded into categories such as specific library data-bases, general search engines, etc. Instructor responses overall were much as expected.

As libraries continue to purchase online full-textsources in greater numbers, often discontinuingthe print subscription if the online version isconsidered stable, instructors’ rejection of thismaterial will be extremely problematic,particularly if they expect their students to usethe most current sources on a given topic.

Specific library database 20 16 14 50

Non-specific library database 3 4 3 10

Non-specific Web search engine 0 2 0 2

Specific Web search engine 3 0 2 5

Specific Web site 1 1 0 2

Specific online newspaper 2 3 1 6

Specific online magazine 0 0 1 1

Specific news Web site 0 1 0 1

Table 3Instructor Recommended Sources

Instructor Responses 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Total

The Role of Technology in Research: Perspectives from Students and Instructors316

As evidenced by the data in table 3, the majority of instructors selected a specific librarydatabase as their first choice, and a specific library database was also chosen most fre-quently in total number regardless of choice priority. The two specific databases listedmost frequently were Expanded Academic Index (InfoTrac) and Lexis-Nexis AcademicUniverse. This was not at all surprising as those two databases are heavily used andtaught at the Undergraduate Library; however, it was interesting to note that those twodatabases in particular are geared towards full-text—in light of the fact that instructorshad indicated that they prefer their students to use the print version of articles. We alsonoticed that instructors indicated specific online magazine and news sites that the li-brary also subscribes to in print rather than sources that are only available online.

Student responses revealed a much wider variety of preferences for online researchsources than the instructor responses. However, the majority of the responses weresomewhat similar to the instructors’ recommendations.

Specific library database 479 317 165 961

Non-specific library database 54 42 17 113

Specific library database at other libraries 0 2 4 6

Specific library service 0 1 2 3

Non-specific library Web site 52 23 21 96

Specific library Web site 1 1 0 2

Non-specific Web search engine 18 20 23 61

Specific Web search engine 157 205 182 544

Specific Web site 7 21 13 41

Specific online newspaper 37 48 41 126

Specific online magazine 19 31 42 92

Specific online journal 4 1 2 7

Specific online encyclopedia or dictionary 12 6 13 31

Specific online service 0 7 8 15

Specific news Web site 18 16 8 42

Table 4Students’ Preferred Online Sources

Student Responses 1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd Choice Total

In particular, the majority of students (961 total) showed a preference for specific li-brary databases. Again, the most popular were Expanded Academic Index (InfoTrac)and Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe. This is in keeping with what the instructors rec-ommend to their students, but also reflects student’s preferences for working with full-text resources. Unlike the instructor-recommended preferences, the next highest listedand prioritized online source for students was for specific web search engines or direc-tories. A total of 544 students listed a specific web search engine or directory; 157 stu-

Mary S. Laskowski 317

dents chose one as their first preference. Of the 544 students who listed a specific websearch engine or directory, the largest group (239 students) listed Yahoo!. While this isnot a particularly unexpected result, this data does help define one of the problems ofusing technology in research. First of all, instructors are not likely to be happy withresearch conducted with a web search engine rather than a specific database, as manymore questions of authenticity and continuity emerge. Second, libraries and librariansneed to be aware of the fact that though more students prefer specific library databasesthan specific web search engines, the search engines were a relatively close second.

In addition to determining which sources instructors are recommending and stu-dents are using, the survey was also designed to ascertain how students choose onlinesources to use for research projects. Students were asked to rank the following choices:

• It is specified/recommended by my instructor,• It is recommended by a librarian,• It has full-text available online,• It is accessible from home,• It is easy to use,• It is available at a library I use,• I have used the source previously.

The top ranking choices are illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1. Source Selection Process

The Role of Technology in Research: Perspectives from Students and Instructors318

Instructors might be gratified to know that if they specify or recommend a particu-lar source for their students to use, more students will select based on that recommen-dation than on any other selection method. However, students’ top ranked selectionprocesses were very diverse. As seen in figure 1, the fact that a particular source pro-vides full-text is a very close second to instructor recommendation in terms of sourceselection. Regarding technology, students ranked full-text, then accessibility from home,followed by ease of use. As a follow-up question, students were asked to explain anyother aspects that influence their choice of research tool and the majority of responsesindicated that the source must be relevant to the topic and appropriate for the assign-ment. One other response that occurred with great frequency was that students tend tomake use of sources recommended by their friends. In sum, the responses show thatinstructors may need to give their students more credit for the ability to select appro-priate online sources, but the push towards full-text access from home was also veryapparent.

Conclusions and Opportunities for Further Research

The survey results demonstrate that though there may still be cause for concern that theprevalence of electronic resources is undermining students’ ability to evaluate and se-lect material effectively for research assignments, this may no longer be the greatestconcern. The fact that students prefer library databases to web resources and expressconcern over the reliability of web resources demonstrates a higher level of sophistica-tion with research technology than expected. The survey results demonstrate the needfor better communication between instructors and students, and instructors and libraryfaculty regarding specific attitudes towards and use of technology in research. Particu-larly surprising was the fact that instructors appear to have more of a problem allowingtheir students to make use of online versions of material also published in print thanthey did allowing their students to make use of web pages as research sources, at leastin some instances. The wide discrepancies between student and instructor expectations,as shown by the survey results, are problematic not only in determining the results of aparticular assignment, but also because of a gap in knowledge between instructors andstudents. It was not possible to tell from this survey whether or not students and in-structors had the same understanding of technology terminology, though the questionsasked of each were worded similarly. Further study into instructors’ own understand-ing and use of technology in research is needed to provide insight into how they formexpectations for their students and how they communicate those expectations both interms of attitude and terminology.

The author is the Coordinator of Media Services, Cataloging and Reserves Undergraduate Libraryat the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; she may be contacted via e-mail at:mkschnei@uiuc.edu.

Mary S. Laskowski 319

Notes

The author would like to thank and acknowledge Lori DuBois, Assistant UndergraduateLibrarian for Instruction, Undergraduate Library, University of Illinois, for co-authoring and co-distributing the survey. Additional survey results will be published separately.1. Barbara Valentine, “The Legitimate Effort in Research Papers: Student Commitment versus

Faculty Expectations,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 27, 2 (2001): 110.2. Ibid., 112.3. Barbara Fister, “The Research Processes of Undergraduate Students,” The Journal of

Academic Librarianship 18, 3 (1992): 163–169.4. Fred R. Van Hartesveldt, “The Undergraduate Research Paper and Electronic Resources: A

Cautionary Tale,” Teaching History 23, 2 (1998): 51–59.5. Susan Davis Herring, “Faculty Acceptance of the World Wide Web for Student Research,”

College & Research Libraries 62 (May 2001): 251–258.6. Deborah J. Grimes and Carl H. Boening, “Worries with the Web: A Look at Student Use of

Web Resources,” College & Research Libraries 62 (January 2001): 12–23.7. Robert A. Scott and Dorothy Echols Tobe, “Communicating High Expectations: Effective

Undergraduate Education,” Liberal Education 81 (Spring 1995): 38–43.8. Gloria J. Leckie, “Desperately Seeking Citations: Uncovering Faculty Assumptions about

the Undergraduate Research Process,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 22 (May 1996): 206.9. Ibid., 203.

10. Karen Hovde, “Check the citation: library instruction and student paper bibliographies,”Research Strategies 17 (2000): 3.

11. Zhijia Shen and Keith Gresham, “When technology transforms research methodology: therole of librarians in reforming the curriculum,” Reference Services Review 28, 4 (2000): 360.

12. Vicki Tolar Burton and Scott A. Chadwick, “Investigating the Practices of StudentResearchers: Patterns of Use and Criteria for Use of Internet and Library Sources,”Computers and Composition 17 (2000): 309.

13. Ibid., 310.14. Brad Macdonald and Robert Dunkelberger, “Full-Text Database Dependency: An

Emerging Trend Among Undergraduate Library Users?” Research Strategies 16, 4 (2000):301.