Blundell Dissertation Defense - 3.31.2015 REVISED
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•390 views
![Agenda [1 of 2]
Rationale for the study
Importance of the study
Conceptual framework for the study
Theoretical model of the AISP of the Millennial undergraduate
student
Methodology
General overview
Participants
Data collection
Data analysis
Issues of trustworthiness & limitations of the study]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Blundell Dissertation Defense - 3.31.2015 REVISED
Similar to Blundell Dissertation Defense - 3.31.2015 REVISED (20)
Blundell Dissertation Defense - 3.31.2015 REVISED
- 1. Dissertation defense: A descriptive phenomenological investigation of the academic information search process experience of remedial undergraduate students. Tuesday, March 31, 2015 Shelley Blundell College of Communication and Information Kent State University Dissertation committee: Dr. Yin Zhang, Dissertation chair (SLIS, CCI) Dr. Pamela Takayoshi, Graduate Faculty Representative and Moderator (English, College of Arts and Sciences) Dr. Don Wicks (SLIS, CCI) Dr. Jodi Kearns (SLIS, CCI, Cummings Center for the History of Psychology, the University of Akron Dr. Tricia Niesz (Foundations, Leadership & Administration, College of Education, Health, and Human Services)
- 2. Agenda [1 of 2] Rationale for the study Importance of the study Conceptual framework for the study Theoretical model of the AISP of the Millennial undergraduate student Methodology General overview Participants Data collection Data analysis Issues of trustworthiness & limitations of the study
- 3. Agenda [2 of 2] Findings Emergent themes A thematic representation of study findings model of the participants’ experience Key findings from the study Conclusions Implications for practitioners and for targeted information literacy instruction Recommendations for future research Final remarks
- 4. Rationale for the study Sound academic information search process (AISP) = strong information literacy (IL) skills.* IL skills “intertwined” with learning.** AISP of remedial undergraduates is understudied; better understanding of experience = better understanding of information needs, and the implications of these needs for IL instruction. *Boon, Johnston, & Webber (2007); **Salisbury and Karasmanis (2011), p. 43
- 5. Importance of the study Remedial undergraduate students (RUS) ± ¼ of all incoming undergraduate students. RUS have higher rates of course failure and institutional attrition than college-ready peers. Knowing more about AISP = knowing more about IL skills. Improving IL skills could promote academic progress and increase RUS’ chances of persistence to graduation. *Bailey, Jaggars, & Scott-Clayton, 2013; Bettinger & Long, 2005; Buglear, 2009; Di Tommaso, 2012; Hamilton, 2013; Mulvey, 2009; Parker, 2012; Roselle, 2009; Sparks & Malkus, 2013
- 6. Conceptual framework for the study Blair’s (1990) “Point of Futility” and (Patrick) Wilson’s (1983; 1977) Personal Information Systems and Cognitive Authority theories.* Breland & Breland’s (1961) “Instinctive Drift” theory.** Kuhlthau’s (1991) “Information Search Process” model.*** Williamson’s (2005) Ecological Theory of Human Information Behavior.**** (T. D.) Wilson’s (1999) Models of Information*Blair, 1990; Wilson, 1983; 1977; **Breland & Breland, 1961; ***Kuhlthau, 1991; ****Williamson, 2005; *****Wilson, 1999
- 7. Theoretical model of the AISP of the Millennial undergraduate student
- 8. Methodology: General overview RQ: How do the study’s participants (traditional undergraduate students enrolled in a remedial English class) explain and describe their academic information search process (AISP) experience: During the process, and Once the process has concluded and the final product (i.e. the research assignment) has been submitted for a grade? Descriptive phenomenological methodology.* *Colaizzi, 1978; 1973; Giorgi, 2009; 1997
- 9. Methodology: Participants [1 of 2] Enrolled in remedial English course “College Writing Stretch I” at regional campus of MidState University. Had to conduct an AISP to complete final assignment. Incentives provided via University Bookstore gift cards.
- 10. Methodology: Participants [2 of 2] Gender Second semester at Midstate (regional) Intends to transition to main campus of Midstate Failed this course in the previous semester
- 11. Methodology: Data collection Triangulation of data collection methods - Epoché and bracketing. ‘Point of contact’ interviews. Observation of participants during class (IL instruction taught by instructor) and lab AISP sessions. Protocol writing (out-of-class AISP journals). Participants’ final assignments, prior to being graded by instructor.
- 12. Methodology: Data analysis Phenomenological reduction. Modification of Colaizzi’s (1978) method of analysis. Pre-analysis actions. Steps in analysis process. Issues of trustworthiness & limitations of the study.
- 13. Findings: Emergent themes EMERGENT THEMES THEMATIC CLUSTERS 1. The AISP experience is affected directly by internal elements related to the experience. Reported confidence in AISP skills/abilities AISP experience is simple/easy AISP experience is difficult/challenging How AISP is conducted/implemented Feelings/emotions related to the AISP experience 2. The AISP experience is impacted indirectly by external elements related to the experience. Previous AISP experiences Role of instructor assistance in AISP experience Role of outside-class support in AISP experience 3. The AISP experience is influenced by ecological factors outside of the immediate experience. General perspectives on course instruction Feelings/emotions related to the course overall Previous course/college experiences
- 14. A thematic representation of study findings model of the participants’ experience
- 15. Key findings from the study Responding to the research question. AISP artifact review. Mapping findings to the conceptual framework.
- 16. Conclusions The concept of ‘academic hopelessness.’ How seeking assistance impacted AISP experience. Influence of ecological factors on AISP experience, and participants’ predicted academic outlook.
- 17. Implications for practitioners and for targeted information literacy instruction Collaborative information literacy instruction. Created through partnerships between remedial educators and academic librarians. Presented contextually. Multi-modal instruction. Perhaps IL should be self-instructed.
- 18. Recommendations for future research How academic hopelessness impacts information behavior and future academic performance. Effective instructional support for remedial undergraduate student information tasks. Blair (1990), Wilson (1983; 1977), and the remedial undergraduate student. The influence of ecological factors on remedial undergraduate student information behaviors. The impact of emotion on remedial undergraduate student information behavior.
- 19. Final remarks “If a child can’t learn the way we teach, maybe we should teach the way they learn.” Ignacio Estrada
- 20. References [1 of 2] Badke, W. (2011, March/April). Remedial information literacy? Online, 51-53. Bailey, T., Jaggars, S. S., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2013). Characterizing the effectiveness of developmental education: A response to recent criticism. Community College Research Center, 2-16. Retrieved from http://www.delta.edu/files/DevEd/Research/response-to-goudas-and-boylan.pdf Bain, K. (2014, October 6). The promising syllabus. What the best college teachers do seminar. Lecture conducted from Kent State University, Kent, Ohio. Bettinger, E. P., and Long, B. T. (2005, May). Addressing the needs of under-prepared students in higher education: Does college remediation work? (NBER Working Paper 11325). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Blair, D. C. (1990). Language and representation in information retrieval. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc. Boon, S., Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2007). A phenomenographic study of English faculty’s conceptions of information literacy. Journal of Documentation, 63, 204-228. DOI: 10.1108/00220410710737187 Buglear, J. (2009). Logging in and dropping out: Exploring student non-completion in higher education using electronic footprint analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33, 381-393. DOI: 10.1080/03098770903272479. Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. S. Valle & M. King (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48-71). New York, NY: Plenum. Colaizzi, P. F. (1973). Reflection and research in psychology: A phenomenological study of learning. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Di Tommaso, K. (2012). Developmental students: The challenge of peer relationships. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36, 941-954. DOI: 10.1080/10668920903299304. Englander, M. (2012). The interview: Data collection in in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43, 13-35. DOI: 10.1163/156916212X632943. Fields, V. S., & Holland, G. (1998, Nov. 4). Outcomes of students enrolled in developmental education courses. Conference paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28, 235-260. Giorgi, A. (1989). Some theoretical and practical issues regarding the psychological phenomenological method. Saybrook Review, 7, 71-85. Hamilton, D. W. (2013). Contextualized learning may redefine remedial education. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37, 1016-1020. DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2012.746209.
- 21. References [2 of 2] Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 361-371. Mithaug, D. E., Mithaug, D. K., Agran, M., Martin, J. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007). Self-instruction pedagogy: How to teach self-determined learning. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Ltd. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Mulvey, M. E. (2009). Characteristics of under-prepared students: Who are the “under-prepared?” Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 25, 29-58. Parker, S. (2012). From Roadblock to Gateway: Improving Developmental Education for Student Success. Grantmakers for Education. Rollins, S. P. (2014). Learning in the fast lane: 8 ways to put all students on the road to academic success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Roselle, A. (2009). Preparing the underprepared: Current academic library practices in developmental education. College and Research Libraries, 70, 142-156. Salisbury, F., & Karasmanis, S. (2011). Are they ready? Exploring student information literacy skills in the transition from secondary to tertiary education. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 42, 43-58. Schram, T. H. (2003). Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Shosha, G. (2012). Employment of Colaizzi’s strategy in descriptive phenomenology: A reflection of a researcher. European Scientific Journal, 8(27), 31–43. Retrieved from http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/588 Smith, M. D., & Dailey, A. B. (2013). Improving and assessing information literacy skills through faculty-librarian collaboration. College and Undergraduate Libraries, 20, 314-326. DOI: 10.1080/10691316.2013.829370 Sparks, D., & Malkus, N. (2013). Statistics in brief: First-year undergraduate remedial coursetaking: 1999-2000, 2003-04, 2007-08. National Center for Education Statistics, January, 1-12. Spinelli, E. (2005). The interpreted world: An introduction to phenomenological psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd. Williamson, K. (2005). Ecological theory of human information behavior. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. E. F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of Information Behavior (pp. 128-132). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Wilson, P. (1977). Public knowledge, private ignorance: Toward a library and information policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Wilson, T. D. (2010). Fifty years of information behavior research. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 36, 27-34. Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55, 249-270. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario: State University of New York Press.
Editor's Notes
- Good morning everyone, and thank you very much for attending the defense of my dissertation, entitled “A descriptive phenomenological investigation of the academic information search process experience of remedial undergraduate students.” Before I begin, I would like to extend my utmost thanks to my entire dissertation committee for preparing me to deliver this defense, and for working diligently to ensure that the product I defend today is, indeed, defensible. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Zhang for her tireless efforts as my dissertation chair – and Dr. Takayoshi for signing on as the graduate faculty representative, and for her willingness to be a part of this process as moderator and committee member. And to everyone in attendance today who has come to support me – most particularly my family – I appreciate each and every one of you. On to the defense!
- I’ll begin the defense by recapping the rationale for and importance of the study – specifically, why I chose to investigate the academic information search process, or AISP, of a group of undergraduate students enrolled in a remedial English course. I’ll then move into a brief overview of the study’s conceptual framework and the methodology framing my dissertation study.
- Then, I’ll move into the ‘meaty portion’ – the findings! I’ll discuss the emergent themes which explain and describe the AISP experience of the study’s participants, the conclusions drawn from these findings, or, the “what I NOW know that I didn’t know before” elements from the study, And then I’ll discuss the implications I believe the study’s findings have for practitioners and for targeted information literacy instruction, as well as my recommendations for future research in this area. I’ll end with some brief final remarks.
- As I presented during my proposal defense, the rationale for a study investigating the AISP experience of remedial undergraduate students is based in the research, which asserts that an undergraduate student’s sound AISP is evidence of their strong information literacy skills. Furthermore, research in library and information science, or LIS, also puts forth that strong information literacy skills are ‘intertwined’ with learning in general – in other words; strong information literacy skills may impact and indeed facilitate a student’s academic progress through his or her program of study. I was given the opportunity to teach a class of students on academic probation some years ago, and learned very quickly that at some point, most of them had been classified ‘remedial’ students, and believed their academic issues were rooted in what I recognized as a lack of information literacy skills. I quickly learned the literature suggesting remedy was sparse and that remedial undergraduate students are understudied in LIS, particularly in terms of their information literacy abilities and instructional needs. So, I wanted to use this dissertation study as a way to contribute to this significant gap in the LIS literature, based on the premise that a better understanding of the AISP experience of these students will provide practitioners with a better understanding of their specific information needs – having direct implications for information literacy instruction for these students.
- Why does it matter that this gap exists? At present, remedial undergraduate students account for roughly a quarter of the incoming undergraduate student population at 4-year state universities around the United States, and this number increases a few percent each year. Furthermore, these students are considered high risk in terms of academic progress, because national education statistics show that they have higher rates of course failure and institutional attrition than their college-ready peers. So – if knowing more about remedial undergraduate students’ AISP experience can reveal the current state of their information literacy skills, and if strong information literacy skills really are tied to academic progress – then it stands to reason that improving the information literacy skills of remedial undergraduate students could promote their academic progress, and increase their chances of persisting to graduation. I assert that this study is a crucial first step in creating a foundation for further LIS research into this understudied student population.
- Based on recommendations from committee members, and based on theoretical investigations into the LIS literature looking at academic information-seeking and human information behavior, I selected the work of six researchers to create a conceptual framework for my study, with five as primary theories, and one as a ‘worth considering’ theory. These theories included Blair’s ‘point of futility’ theory, related to user frustrations with information retrieval systems like information databases, and Patrick Wilson’s concepts of ‘personal information systems,’ and ‘cognitive authorities, which examine the ways people create information systems which shape their lives, and the impact of the sources of information each person considers to be fundamental, on their overall personal information systems. The consideration theory was animal psychologists Breland & Breland’s instinctive drift theory, based on their investigations of 1,000s of animals from a variety of species – they found that for no discernible reason and despite conditioning and behavioral training to the contrary, animals will sometimes ‘drift instinctively’ back to natural behaviors – although I don’t consider my participants animals, information theory has drawn heavily on psychological theory in the past, and this theory may bear further investigation at a later time. Kuhlthau’s ‘information search process’ model was chosen because her work underpins many academic information-seeking studies, and because this model in particular discusses the role that emotions play in an information search process, Williamson’s Ecological Theory of Human Information Behavior is included because the theory encourages researchers to consider the role of ‘ecological factors’ like culture, education, family background and the like on information behavior, And finally, T.D. Wilson’s Models of Information Behavior were included because the models represent numerous approaches to studying information-seeking, particularly from the undergraduate student perspective.
- This conceptual framework and the dearth of the literature I examined for my dissertation led to the creation of this: A theoretical model of the AISP of the Millennial undergraduate student – what I consider to be a high-level summary of the research currently available into the AISP of the ‘average’ undergraduate student. The model shows the process as occurring in stages, and reflects the impact on the process of different variables, like what and who are consulted for information by the student, what impacts their development and refinement of their AISP, and finally, whether the last stage sees them completing their assigned information task, refocusing the task and moving back through the previous stages, or abandoning from the task entirely. It also represents the role that librarians play in this process, which as you can see … is quite far removed from the typical first step in Stage 1.
- What existed in the literature about the ‘average’ undergraduate student made me question all the more how the AISP of remedial undergraduate students compared, especially because so little is known about their information needs and behaviors. Therefore, the research question for my study was simple - RQ: How do the study’s participants (traditional undergraduate students enrolled in a remedial English class) explain and describe their AISP experience: During the process, and once the process has concluded and the final product (i.e. the research assignment) has been submitted for a grade? Because I wanted to focus on depth, understanding, ‘meat’ – I chose a qualitative paradigm, so that I could use qualitative methods to dig deeply, and truly explore the experience and all its facets. Further, because I wanted to focus on commonalities of the experience itself, and not necessarily on the variance of the experience (as is the case with many phenomenographical studies in this area available in the LIS literature), I chose descriptive phenomenological methodology as the study’s frame, which focuses on the universal essence of an experience. I drew primarily on the theoretical guidance for such study given by Colaizzi and Giorgi, among others.
- My study participants were all enrolled in the remedial English course “College Writing Stretch I,” offered at a regional campus of MidState University, and were considered ‘traditional,’ in that they came to college within two years of graduating high school. Because this course includes the specific requirement to conduct an AISP toward completing a final research assignment, it gave me an opportunity to investigate the participants’ AISP experience from start, to finish. I did attempt to recruit the whole class but, as is commonplace with remedial undergraduate students, many were loathe to participate, and some who originally signed on … simply disappeared from the course entirely. I did offer incremental incentives by way of University Bookstore gift cards to participants, and in the end, I was able to collect data through numerous methods from six members of the class.
- As you can see from the table, I had four female and two male participants. Of these participants, five were currently in their second semester at the regional campus of MidState University, four of these five intended to transition to the main campus of MidState when their grades met the standard required for transition, And three of these five had failed this course in the previous semester.
- As it is important to focus on the experience of participants, descriptive phenomenological data collection methods include numerous ways for the researcher to continually separate out his or her bias from the experience. The Epoché is created before the researcher enters the field, and requires documenting of all he or she currently knows or understands about the investigated experience. Bracketing occurs during the study, and allows the researcher to continually ‘bracket’ biases alongside documentation of the experience, consistently, but separately. These methods help promote trustworthiness in this type of study, and separate as much as possible pre-conceived notions from what is actually occurring within the experience being investigated. Data collection methods involving participants included one-on-one interviews with each participant, observation of participants during class (to see how information literacy was taught by the course instructor, and lab AISP sessions which occurred during class, as well, protocol writing, or asking participants to keep out-of-class AISP journals, and the participants’ final assignments, after they were submitted, and prior to them being graded by the course instructor.
- As it occurs in data collection, so too does separating researcher from researched occur during the data analysis process in a descriptive phenomenological study. Specifically, I engaged in phenomenological reduction during analysis, documenting any thoughts or notions I recognized as ‘biased’ during the analysis process. For formal analysis of participant data, I used a modification of Colaizzi’s method of analysis, which included both pre-analysis actions, and seven analysis steps. The pre-analysis actions included creating the research question, engaging in ‘focused enquiry’ with participants in the study (such as the interviews), and creating my Epoche before entering the field. The analysis process steps included: 1. Protocol reading; the reading and rereading of participants’ information profiles, which I compiled at the end of data collection, and that were made up of interview responses and observations I made during class and lab time, 2. Extracting significant statements; or, identifying those ‘statements’ within the information profile that were related in any way to the AISP experience, 3. Formulating meanings; or drilling down into each statement to rephrase them and define how each statement was related to the experience, 4. Extracting clusters of themes; the primary themes or concepts that emerged during the previous data analysis steps, 5. Creating an exhaustive description of the AISP experience of participants; which I shall discuss later, 6. Verifying the description; which I did through the use of a peer debriefer, because I wasn’t able to ‘return’ to participants for their verification, and 7. Modeling the experience, the creation of a theoretical model representative of the experience of participants, the required end step in descriptive phenomenological study, and which shall be presented in a few slides.
- As you can see from this chart, the 11 thematic clusters which were created from the formulated meanings during data analysis are split into three emergent themes, representative of the AISP experience of participants. Emergent theme 1: The AISP experience is affected directly by internal elements related to the experience: like emotion, confidence in AISP skills and abilities, and how the implemented the AISP, Emergent theme 2: The AISP experience is impacted indirectly by external elements related to the experience: such as participants’ previous AISP experiences, and the role of the instructor and outside-class support in how the AISP experience was conducted to meet the needs of the final assignment. Emergent theme 3: The AISP experience is influenced by ecological factors outside of the immediate experience: Specifically, ecological factors like participants’ general perspectives on course instruction, their feelings and emotions related to the course as a whole, and their previous academic experiences, all played a role in the emergence of this theme. From these emergent themes, the exhaustive description of the AISP experience of study participants was created: In brief, The AISP experience of study participants, i.e. remedial undergraduate students, is complex and multi-faceted, and the AISP is a) affected directly by internal elements related to the experience, b) impacted indirectly by external elements related to the experience, and c) influenced by ecological factors outside of the immediate experience.
- As discussed previously, step seven of the modification of Colaizzi’s Method of Analysis was the creation of a theoretical model representative of the participants’ lived experience with the phenomenon under investigation. So presented here is that step – a thematic representation of study findings model of the participants’ experience. The remedial undergraduate student participant is at its center, and the emergent themes, seen here as shapes, surround the student and are connected within and to each other. In comparing the theoretical model of the AISP of the Millennial undergraduate student to this one, there were some similarities between the theoretical model, and this thematic representation model. Specifically, findings revealed that emotion plays a role in the AISP experience of participants, as was included in the theoretical model as well, and negative emotions affect the experience negatively, also included in the theoretical model. However, the main difference between the models exists in how the AISP itself is represented. The theoretical model presents the AISP as occurring in stages, and represents that change can occur within stages and still not ‘shake the core’ of the overall model. However, this model shows that internal elements, external elements, and ecological factors of the AISP experience are continual and all-encompassing – a change can’t be made to one of the themes without change occurring to one or the other themes as well.
- The exhaustive description presented in brief previously constitutes a summative response to the study’s research question, I wanted to note some specifics here to explain the breadth of this response, as was stated in my dissertation. Specifically, it is pertinent to add that findings from the study revealed that the AISP experience is impacted during the process by emotion, instructor expectations and instructional clarity, perception of ease or difficulty in its implementation, personal motivation, prior experience, and the success or failure of external support systems, and Holistically, the experience was influenced by a range of negative emotions, including confidence, frustration, anxiety, and confusion, and at its conclusion, i.e. the assignment was submitted, the experience left most participants anxious and uncertain about their success in the course and in future academic pursuits – leading me to succinctly describe this expression of uncertainty as academic hopelessness, which I’ll discuss more with the conclusions. Turning now to my review of the artifacts – the participants’ final assignments – I found that four of six participants included some evidence of the information they retrieved during the AISP in the paper, but failed to adhere to assignment-required MLA citation. The other two participants’ papers showed no evidence of their having retrieved or used information for the assignment at all. In mapping these findings to the conceptual framework for this study: As seen in the thematic representation model, participants expressed that emotions impacted the experience (as seen in Kuhlthau, Williamson, Wilsons, etc., and participants also relied on assistance and advice from Patrick Wilson’s cognitive authorities (two specifically consulted their mothers and the instructor, other participants just the instructor) in learning more about AISP. Blair and Wilson: Participants frustrated with IR system, turn to mother and instructor; library (talked too much), writing support service (gave wrong advice). Williamson – ecological factors do have a role on participants’ AISP – particularly how they feel about academic future.
- As I discuss in my dissertation, for me, there were three main conclusions, or “what I NOW know that I didn’t before” elements - First, is the concept of ‘academic hopelessness’ as experienced by research participants, which revealed itself to impact participants’ overall AISP experience, and also their self-reported predictions of their future academic performance. This concept was most tangible to me in terms of the influence it had on a) how participants engaged in learning tasks like conducting AISPs, b) how and who they asked for assistance (and whether or not they believed that assistance helped or hurt them in the long run), and c) their feelings and emotions related to learning tasks like AISP, and their learning experiences as a whole, - in fact, the impact of academic hopelessness on participants’ visions of their futures was both profound and limitless. I assert that the concept of academic hopelessness and its ramifications for remedial educators and LIS professionals is perhaps the most significant contribution this study makes to the current gap in the literature, and further, I speculate that academic hopelessness could be the biggest impediment for participants, to their learning academically appropriate information-seeking skills. In summarizing the other two main findings, I learned more about the role seeking the assistance of support services (instructor, out-of-class, and, in the case of two participants, their mothers) played in how participants proceeded with their AISPs, and whether they believed that assistance increased their understanding of the overall process or not, and finally, I was able to ‘see’ the influence of ecological factors on participants’ related AISP experience, and their attitudes toward academic information-seeking in general, and how these factors framed their mental and emotional processes as part of the AISP itself.
- I was lucky enough to attend a talk by Ken Bain, author of “What the best college teachers do”, last year, where he talked about student success and also, student failure. Specifically, Bain talked about strategies for motivating demotivated students – his top three tips in this area were first, students need to believe that what they are learning has greater purpose for their overall education, second, students need to believe they can actually do what they’ve been asked to do, and they should be given the opportunity to practice in a penalty-free environment, and lastly, students need to feel a deep sense of autonomy, and control over their education experience as a whole. Herein lies the crux of the implications for practitioners and for targeted information literacy instruction. Despite the debate regarding the best ‘type’ of information literacy instruction that exists in the literature right now, there’s a strong consensus emerging which supports collaborative information literacy instruction – specifically for the purposes of this study, and based on what was shared with me by participants about their feelings toward the information literacy instruction and guidance they received for the instructor, I put forth here that study findings support the need for collaborative information literacy instruction for remedial undergraduate students, and more specifically, that academic librarians and remedial instructors should investigate collaborative partnerships that allow for information literacy instruction to be contextual – in other words, structured around course content. Further, in light of Bain’s recommendations for motivating demotivated students, and based on the emergent concept of academic hopelessness in this study and the literature currently available on dynamic pedagogical practice for engaging students – I put forth that multi-modal information literacy instruction that allows students to ‘cafeteria style’ select learning objects which align with their learning styles may go a long way toward helping these students regain a sense of autonomy. Lastly, perhaps self-instructed information literacy which allows students to learn at their own pace, and revisit challenging concepts, will allow them to move beyond academic hopelessness, develop a sense of personal autonomy, and ultimately, to persist toward graduation.
- As I explored in chapter 5, study findings brought to light five potential areas for future research – A line of inquiry I firmly intend to pursue, a study on how academic hopelessness impacts information behavior and future academic performance for remedial undergraduate students – taking this study ‘on the road’ as it were, and looking at student experiences in other courses where AISPs are required, Exploring effective instructional support strategies for remedial undergraduate student information tasks, such as those I just discussed, A modern exploration of the theories of Blair and Wilson, within the broader context of the remedial undergraduate student population, The broader influence of ecological factors like outside support services and student perspectives on their academic futures, on remedial undergraduate student information behaviors as a whole, and The deep and comprehensive impact of emotion on remedial undergraduate student information behavior – particularly negative emotions like anxiety, frustration, and uncertainty.
- To conclude, I present you with this quote from Ignacio Estrada, which was brought to my attention by one of my most influential cognitive authority sources – my mother: If a child can’t learn the way we teach, maybe we should teach the way they learn. In a 2012 report about the current state of remedial undergraduate education, national higher education groups met, and concluded, that the nation’s remedial education system is broken. I believe this is because higher education as a whole spends too much time telling students what they don’t have, and not enough time asking them what they feel they need to succeed. It is my most fervent hope that this study will make a difference to the life of at least one remedial undergraduate student, and that just perhaps, both library and information science professionals and remedial educators will further investigate ways we can teach these academically at risk students, in the way THEY believe they learn best. Thank you.