1. Utilization of Heroin Information by Adolescent Girls in Australia: A cognitive analysis Study by Ross J Todd

2. The Study Premise – Ross Todd takes the prior studies of Baran and Davis (1995) and works to identify that the information adolescents are exposed to is not a synonym with information used. Expands on Dervin and Nilan (1986) studies of the user-oriented nature – humans are fundamental to the process and user is the seeker. Todd’ study varied in that it was designed to understand from the adolescent's perspective.

3. The Study What was done with the info? Goal – Sought to determine the perceived effects of exposure to information and establish how the effects changed the adolescents' (in this case girls’) knowledge structure and establish any patterns in the changes. What happened to their minds? What are the effects? How was existing knowledge changed?

4. The Study The Measures – (of the knowledge structure) What was: Appended? Inserted? Deleted? The Process – Graesser and Clark (1985) Conceptual Graph Structure – used in system development

5. Graesser and Clark(1985) Acknowledge the 3 generic cognitive strategies used to change individual thinking: Append, Insert and Delete The Todd study found the girls first appended new areas of the topic that they were exposed to their existing thoughts and then inserted later , much less was deleted overall from the perceived knowledge.

6. What that looks like Add to existing – the framework of knowledge is detailed.

7. New information related to existing framework is considered.

8. Existing information is now thought to be incorrect and is removed. Usually replaced with appended information and not just solely deleted.

9. Pattern observed The behavior most often observed was of an Elaborative Knowledge structure. (Append) Other knowledge structures include: Expanded and Integrated and a mixture or progression of both. For instance, Elaborative changes led to integrative changes at times. (Insert may lead to deletion)

10. Bertram Brookes’ Fundamental Equation of Information Science (1980) K[S] + rI = K[S+rS] Existing knowledge plus information and determine how what they know changes

11. First, have to understand that looking for cognitive “doing”; information utilization. Not “doing” the visible action but rather measure how that they thought about the world changed. Second, was begin the process of adding the information. Third, observe the changes. Observed them in terms of the PICTURE.

12. The perceived behavior of the information seekers Get a COMPLETE picture Get a CHANGED picture Get a CLEARER picture Get a VERIFIED picture Get a POSITION in the picture The process is one of construction then de-construction and then re-construction. Very fluid.

13. The PICTURE perceived effects of exposure to information

14. Get a COMPLETE Picture Rounding out existing data, elaborating with more detail, linking various bits of information, triggered remembrance and recalling of existing ideas. REVISED KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES were more most often elaborative, then inclusive and lastly, integrative in nature. Integrative seemed more directly related to elaborative. Having more details seemed to lead to insertion and an actual integrative of the knowledge. Comfort and confidence in the info was built.

15. Get a CHANGED picture When the new information exposed to moved them to determine existing was incorrect and removal of some idea occurred. Deletion was result after appending and most often, insertion took place.

16. Get a CLEARER picture More information exposure led to further appends and inserts. Expansion on existing led to clarification, again inclusive and elaborative structures.

17. Get a VERIFIED picture More appending to solidify the information, not as much insertion. This stage is more about providing certainty, not adding. The inclusion to existing occurs building confidence in the knowledge.

18. Get a POSITION in a Picture All about forming an opinion or state of mind in how thought about the topic. This stage is more “active”: reactive, formative and predictive.

19. Conclusions Affirmed the information utilization constructs already touched on in knowledge utilization studies. Supported Dervin’s progression of information seeking: get, got, change, get, got, new. Supported that quantity of information is not as effective to adolescents as quality and the approach so that membership to the information is established.

20. The HOOK Frames of reference were necessary to “trigger” the hooking of information. Existing knowledge is the basis that gathering, interpreting, sorting , grouping, organizing and integrating are built on. The process is fluid and different for each depending on the foundation building on

21. How to APPLY Utilizing streams of information that acknowledge the information seekers cognitive process would encourage information providers to not rely on the authorities or compelling nature of the information for transfer to occur but rather use ways that include the seeker in the information gathering process. More facts do not equal more knowledge for this group.

22. Further research Rolinson, “Health information for the teenage years: what do they want to know?” (1998) Again, understanding what the existing information base and what the need is rather then presenting the perceived set of desired facts Meyers, Nathan, Saxton, “Barriers to information seeking in school libraries: conflicts in perceptions and practice” Expands on Kuhlthau'smodel of intermediation, the barriers for adolescents