Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Bridging Gaps in College Students' Source Perception and Use

대학생들의 정보원에 대한 인식과 이용간의 차이에 대한 분석연구

  • Kim, Kyung-Sun (School of Library and Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison) ;
  • Yoo-Lee, EunYoung (School of Library and Information Sciences, North Carolina Central University) ;
  • Kwon, Nahyun (Department of Library & Information Science, Myongji University)
  • Received : 2013.05.20
  • Accepted : 2013.09.06
  • Published : 2013.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The study examines two aspects that relate to undergraduates' selection and use of information sources for their academic assignments: (1) sources perceived useful vs. sources frequently used, and (2) source characteristics considered important as selection criteria vs. selection criteria used as reflected in characteristics of frequently used sources. A survey of 251 undergraduate students attempted to address the gaps between what students think they should do and what they actually do with regard to source selection. Characteristics of frequently used sources were analyzed to find out the criteria used for source selection. Friends/family were among the frequently used sources although they were not perceived as useful. Unlike other sources suffering gaps between the perceived usefulness and the use behavior, Web sources were the ones not only perceived most useful but also used most frequently. When the important selection criteria were compared with the characteristic of sources used often, students did not seem to actually use the selection criteria they thought important. While students considered some characteristics related to information quality (e.g., accuracy, comprehensiveness) as important criteria for source selection, the actual criteria they applied for choosing information sources could be described as 'convenient' or 'accessible' (e.g., efficient/time saving, easy to use, familiar, accessible). Based on the findings, suggestions were made to help bridge such gaps through information literacy programs and information systems design.

본 연구는 대학생들의 학업과제수행에 필요한 정보원에 대한 인식 및 선택과 그 이용과 관련하여, 학생들이 (1) 유용하다고 인식하는 정보원과 자주 이용하는 정보원의 차이를 비교하고, (2) 정보원 선택 시 중요하게 생각하는 정보원의 특성과 자주 이용하는 정보원의 특성을 비교, 분석함으로써, 학생들의 정보원에 대한 인식과 실제 이용행동간의 차이를 파악하고자 하는 목적으로 수행되었다. 미국 대학생 총 251명을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시한 연구결과에 따르면, 학생들이 가장 빈번히 이용하는 정보원이자 가장 유용한 정보원은 웹자원으로 밝혀졌다. 온라인DB/저널은 가장 빈번히 사용된 정보원은 아니었지만 유용한 정보원으로는 인식되고 있었다. 또한 '정확성'이나 '망라성' 등과 같은 정보의 품질을 정보원 선택의 중요한 기준으로 생각은 하지만 실제로는 편리하고 접근가능한 정보원을 선택하고 있음이 밝혀졌는데, 이는 대학생들이 중요하다고 생각하는 선택기준에 근거해 정보원을 선택하지 않고 있음을 보여준다. 정보원의 선택기준과 실제 이용간의 간극을 보여주는 이러한 연구결과를 토대로 대학생들이 양질의 정보원을 선택하도록 도울 수 있는 정보활용교육과 더 사용하기 쉽고 편리한 정보시스템 설계를 위한 방안을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Burton, V., & Chadwick, S. (2000). Investigating the practices of student researchers: Patterns of use criteria for use of internet and library sources. Computers and Composition, 17(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(00)00037-2
  2. Cox, C. (2007). Hitting the spot: Marketing federated searching tools to students and faculty. Serials Librarian, 53(3), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v53n03_10
  3. Davis, P. (2003). Effect of the web on undergraduate citation behavior: Guiding student scholarship in a Networked age. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(1), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2003.0005
  4. Gardner, S., & Eng., S. (2005). What students want: Generation Y and the changing function of the academic library. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(3), 405-420. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pla/ https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2005.0034
  5. Generation Y. (August 30, 1993). Ad Age, p. 16.d.
  6. Gerstberger, P., & Allen, T. (1968). Criteria used by research and development engineers in the selection of an information source. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(4), 272-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026041
  7. Hamilton, L. (2008). Embedding information literacy into the prehospital care curriculum. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care, 6(1), Article 3. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/jephc/vol6/iss1/3/
  8. Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2009). Lessons learned: How college students seek information in the digital age. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, University of Washington's Information School. Retrieved from http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2009_finalv_YR1_12_2009v2.pdf
  9. Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010a). How today's college students use Wikipedia for course-related research. First Monday, 15(3). Retrieved from http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2830/2476
  10. Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010b). Truth be told: How college students evaluate and use information in the digital age. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, University of Washington's Information School. Retrieved from http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2010_Survey_FullReport1.pdf
  11. Himmelfarb, S. (1993). The measurement of attitudes. In A.H. Eagly & S. Chaiken (Eds.), Psychology of Attitudes, 23-88. Thomson/Wadsworth.
  12. Holiday, W., & Li, Q. (2004). Understanding the Millennials: Updating our knowledge about students. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 356-365. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320410569707
  13. Kim, K., & Sin, S. (2007). Perception and selection of information sources by undergraduate students: Effects of avoidant style, confidence, and personal control in problem-solving. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6), 655-665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.09.012
  14. Kuhlthau, C., Heinstrom, J., & Todd, R. (2008). ISP revisited: Is the ISP-model still useful. Information Research, 13(4). paper 355. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper355.html
  15. Lee, H.-L. (2008). Information structures and undergraduate students. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 211-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.004
  16. Lee, J.-M. (2010). Seeking and using information sources by college students: Comparisons of information seeking in everyday life and during elections. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 36(1), 41-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2010.44.3.117
  17. Lim, S. (2009). How and why do college students use Wikipedia? Journal of the American Society for Information science and Technology, 60(11), 2089-2202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21142
  18. Mann, T. (1987). A guide to library research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
  19. Nagy, A. (2011). Analyzing the next-generation catalog. Library Technology Reports, 47(7), 5-28.
  20. North Carolina State University (2013). Library's online catalog. Retrieved from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/index.html
  21. OCLC. (2005). Perceptions of libraries and information resources. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/Percept_all.pdf
  22. Osgood, C. E. (1962). Studies of the generality of affective meaning systems. American Psychologist, 17, 10-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045146
  23. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  24. Rockman, I. F. (2004). Information literacy into the higher education curriculum: Practical models for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  25. Rogers, J. (2010). Some thoughts on federated search. Posted in attempting elegance. Retrieved from http://rogersurbanek.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/some-thoughts-on-federated-search/
  26. Ruddock, B., & Hartley, D. (2010). How UK academic libraries choose metasearch systems. Aslib Proceedings, 62(1), 85-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531011015226
  27. Scoyoc, A., & Cason, C. (2006). The electronic academic library: Undergraduate research behavior in a library without books. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(1), 47-58. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pla/v006/6.1van_scoyoc.html https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2006.0012
  28. Tang, R., Hsieh-Yee, I., & Zhang, S. (2007). User perceptions of metaLib combined search: An investigation of how users make sense of federated searching Internet. Reference Services Quarterly, 12(1&2), 211-236.
  29. Tomeo, M. L. (2012). Adding users to the Website design process. Public Services Quarterly, 8(4), 350-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2012.730414
  30. Tversky, A., & Fox, C. (2000). Weighing risk and uncertainty. In Choices, values and frames, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (pp. 93-117).
  31. University of Chicago (2013). Library's online catalog: http://lens.lib.uchicago.edu/
  32. Valentine, B. (1993). Undergraduate research behavior: Using focus groups to generate theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19(5), 300-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0099-1333(93)90026-2
  33. Warwick, C., Rimmer, J., Blandford, A., Gow, J., & Buchanan, G. (2009). Cognitive economy and satisficing in information seeking: A longitudinal study of undergraduate information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2402-2415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21179
  34. Yoon, J-O. (2004). Information seeking in context: content analysis of information search by college students. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 35(2), 199-218.
  35. Young, N., & Seggern, M. (2001). General information seeking in changing times. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 41(2), 159-169.
  36. Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Cited by

  1. A Study on Intention of Accepting for Consumer Health Information Services in Public Libraries vol.48, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2014.48.2.221