• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
A needs analysis for information literacy provision for research : a case study in University College Dublin. Author: Avril Patterson
 

A needs analysis for information literacy provision for research : a case study in University College Dublin. Author: Avril Patterson

on

  • 406 views

Presentation delivered at Librarians' Information Literacy Annual Conference (LILAC 2009), 31st March 2009, Cardiff, UK. 2009-03-31.

Presentation delivered at Librarians' Information Literacy Annual Conference (LILAC 2009), 31st March 2009, Cardiff, UK. 2009-03-31.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
406
Views on SlideShare
406
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    A needs analysis for information literacy provision for research : a case study in University College Dublin. Author: Avril Patterson A needs analysis for information literacy provision for research : a case study in University College Dublin. Author: Avril Patterson Document Transcript

    • Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher policies. Pleasecite the published version when available. A needs analysis for information literacy provision for research Title : a case study in University College Dublin Author(s) Patterson, Avril Publication 2009-03-31 Date This items record/more http://hdl.handle.net/10197/2779 information Downloaded 2012-09-20T18:36:57Z Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above.
    • NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR INFORMATIONLITERACY PROVISION FOR RESEARCH:A CASE STUDY IN UNIVERSITYCOLLEGE DUBLIN LILAC 2009 Avril Patterson, University College Dublin avril.patterson@ucd.ie
    • Outline• Introduction• Case Study• Methodology• Findings• Analysis• Recommendations Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Background• National Development Plan 2007-2013• Government aim – double PhD output by 2013• Restructuring of Graduate / PhD training• Fourth Level Ireland Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • University College Dublin – James JoyceLibrary
    • University College Dublin• Largest of Ireland’s 7 universities• Academic restructuring 2004/05 - 5 Colleges ; 35 Schools• 2,000 Research students• Structured PhD programme 2006• Research and Professional Development Plans (RPDPs) introduced 2007 Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Challenges to Information Literacy (IL)Provision • IL implicit rather than explicit in Irish Universities Association’s skills statement • Students’ IL level or needs unknown to IL providers • Risk of over-rated evaluation through self assessment • Focus of IL in HE is on undergraduate needs Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Research Objectives• Clearly identify target audience & its needs• Provide a base line from which resource requirements can be determined• Inform design of relevant programmes Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Research Questions• What are the IL competencies of incoming research students?• Are there different requirements for different disciplines?• Are they predicated by student profile?• Do current programmes meet requirements?• How can this study inform future development? Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Case Study• Literature Review• Research-Practice gap• Multi-faceted research tool facilitated by Evidence Based Librarianship & Information Practice (EBLIP) Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • EBLIP• “promotes the integration of user-reported, practitioner-observed and research-derived evidence as an explicit basis for decision making” (Booth, 2006) Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Case Study’s LimitationsEBLIP process truncated – Implementation tasks outside scope- Application- Performance evaluation Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Methodology• Survey Questionnaire• Information Behaviour Observation• Focus Group Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Survey Questionnaire• Built on published research in the field• Four components: – Personal profile – Self assessment – Diagnostic tool – Free text• Online administration• Purposive sampling Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • IL AssessmentAdaptation of two published assessment tools:• Checklist used at Loughborough University (Stubbings & Franklin, 2005) – self assessment based on confidence levels• London Metropolitan University’s Applied Information Research (AIR) programme (Andretta, 2005) – diagnostic test Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Information Behaviour Observation• Theoretical framework - Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process (ISP)• Identification of “zone of intervention”• Non participative observation in IL workshops Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • IL Workshop
    • Focus GroupPurpose: to elicit response to current IL programmesThemes :• Format• Content• Delivery• Logistics (location, dates, times)• Other Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Research Findings• Survey Questionnaire – Personal Profiles – Previous Library Induction – Self Assessment – Diagnostic Questionnaire• Information Behaviour Observation• Focus Group Findings Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Programme Programme 8% 14% PhD Research Masters Others 78% Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Postgraduate Status 100% 7% 90% 12% 23% 80% 70% 60% Part time 50% 93% 40% 88% Full time 77% 30% 20% 10% 0% s s D nt r Ph te da as on M sp ch re r ea l Al es R Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Gender Gender 45% Female 55% Male Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Age Age 120 100 55 80 Total 44 60 Male Female 30 24 40 24 18 14 20 3 31 20 16 15 4 2 0 2 1 <25 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Postgraduate Profile• Irish graduates 72%• Previous postgraduate qualification 56% – Of this 65% achieved in Ireland• English not first language 22% Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Previous Library Instruction• Experienced by 62%• Library tours and presentations most common• 16% had engaged in interactive workshops• Online tutorials used by 10%• Integrated and timetabled for 17%• Credit bearing for 7% Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Self AssessmentQuestions ranged from basic to complexIncluded :• Resource selection• Information retrieval• Information management• Ethical use Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Findings – Self Assessment• Marked difference in confidence levels of PhD and Research Masters students• Previous postgraduate experience did not equate with higher confidence levels• Gender a significant variable• Age also significant• In general, discipline not significant, but further investigation is required. Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Findings – Information Selection &Retrieval• Use of catalogue to find books Confident• Finding reference material• Locating journal articles• Selection of appropriate databases• Identifying existing research Not confident• Search strategies• Use of citation indexes Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Locating Theses 100% 90% 80% 70% No FamiliarityConfidence 60% Not Confident 50% Fairly Confident 40% Confident 30% 20% 10% 0% PhD Research Masters Other Programme Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Findings – Information Environment• Lack of awareness of “invisible colleges”• High confidence levels in use of internet and search engines• Lower confidence rates in use of subject gateways• Lack of familiarity in setting up alerts to keep current Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Findings – Information Handling & Use• High confidence levels in ethical use and avoidance of plagiarism• Confidence in saving/exporting/e-mailing references• Confidence in creating a bibliography• Low confidence levels in use of bibliographic management tools Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Diagnostic QuestionnaireMultiple choice questions• Searching skills• Evaluation skills• Referencing skills Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Findings - Diagnostic Questionnaire• Some lack of knowledge in how internet worked• Lack of knowledge of Boolean operators (31%)• Lack of knowledge of interlibrary loan services (36%)• Lack of knowledge of subject portals (40%)• High expectations of access to e-journals (47%)• Some difficulty in referencing skills Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Preferred method of IL provision 100% Other 90% 80% Information skills integrated in course work 70%Confidence 60% Interactive workshops covering specific resources / skills 50% 40% Presentations throughout the year 30% Library tours on demand 20% 10% More printed guides to the library 0% Full-time Part-time Other More web based information Progamme Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Findings – Information BehaviourObservationConcept of building a search strategyunderdeveloped. Areas of difficulty:• Identification and conceptualisation of search terms• Use of synonyms• Boolean operators Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Findings – Information BehaviourObservation (Continued)• Generic search skills did not transfer• Unfamiliarity with library terms• Need for assistance in establishing criteria for database selection observed Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Model of the Information Search Process Tasks Initiation Selection Exploration Formulation Collection Presentation ————————————————————————————————————————————→ Feelings uncertainly optimism confusion/ clarity sense of satisfaction or (affective) frustration/ direction/ disappointment doubt confidence Thoughts vague———————————————→focused (cognitive) ————————————————→ increased interest Actions seeking relevant information——————————-→seeking pertinent information (physical) exploring documenting Carol Collier Kuhlthau Information Search Process Rutgers University
    • Findings – Focus Group• Postgraduate research cohort not homogeneous with a standard IL• Varying levels an issue in workshops• Suggested problem based approach centred on student’s own research useful• Workshop descriptors and learning outcomes should be clearly articulated Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Findings - Focus Group (Continued)• Less coverage could result in greater confidence• Discipline specific approach favoured• Link with Schools’ Research modules desirable• Underestimation of complexity of e-resources• Assumption of abilities Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Comparative AnalysisResearch Student Needs Analysis Survey (RSNA), University of Leeds, 2005-2006 (Newton, 2007)• Lack of confidence in tracing research• Low confidence in finding theses• Use of Boolean operators• Use of bibliographic management tools Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Summary of Analysis• Identified gap between IL levels sufficient for taught courses and for research• Need for attention in formulation of search strategies• Variation in level of IL acumen• Consistent difference in findings between Research Masters & PhD students• ICT/IL relationship Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Recommendations for practice• Ensure “top down” approach to IL provision• Ensure disciplinary variation is understood• Adopt theory of adult learning• Use literature review process• If possible allow students to use their own research for interactive work• Include concepts of ISP model Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Recommendations for practice(Continued)• Develop longitudinal evaluation processes• Keep current• Offer what is feasible and sustainable• Seek possible funding for research and support Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Objectives Achieved• Established research students’ perceptions of their IL• Identified areas where guidance and intervention could benefit• Highlighted importance of collaboration• Alignment from taught programmes to research recognised Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • Next StepsComplete EBLIP framework, i.e.• Apply the results• Evaluate performance• Explore further possible domain differences Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • References• Andretta, S. (2005) Information Literacy: a practitioner’s guide. Oxford : Chandos.• Booth, A. (2006) “Counting what counts: performance measurement and evidence-based practice” Performance Measurement and Metrics, 7 (2) : 63-74• Kuhlthau, C. C. “Model of the Information Search Process” (http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~kuhlthau/recent_ presentations/isic/isic_presentation.ppt) Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • References• Newton, A. (2007) “Reaching out to research students: information literacy in context”. In Connor, Elizabeth (ed.) Evidence-based Librarianship: Case studies and active learning exercises. Oxford : Chandos, pp. 119- 140.• Stubbings, R., Franklin, G. (2005) “More to life than google – a journey for PhD students”. Journal of eLiteracy, 2 : 93-103 Avril Patterson LILAC 2009
    • To conclude : “Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it” Samuel Johnson (1709-84) Avril Patterson LILAC 2009