Presentation by Sheila Webber, Nigel Ford, Mary Crowder and Andrew Madden. Presented at the LILAC conference, 26 March 2013.

1. Sheila Webber
Nigel Ford
Mary Crowder
Andrew Madden
Collaborating
for deep
critical
information
behaviour

2. Funded by the Arts and Humanities Research
Council, 2010-12 (15 months)
Mary Crowder -
Researcher
Professor Nigel
Ford - Principal
Dr Andrew
Investigator Madden -
Researcher
Sheffield University, Information School, Centre for Information Literacy Research

3. “Information Behavior is the totality of human behavior in
relation to sources and channels of information, including
both active and passive information seeking, and
information use. Thus, it includes face-to-face
communication with others, as well as the passive reception
of information as in, for example, watching TV
advertisements, without any intention to act on the
information given.” Wilson, 2000

4. Research Questions
1. How prevalent are relatively surface and deep
critical levels of information behaviour (IB)
amongst school and university students in the UK?
2. What are differences in the IB of students at
different points in their development through
school and university – particularly in transition
from school to university?
3. What are the drivers and inhibitors of such
behaviour?

5. Theoretical frameworks
• Research into approaches to learning (e.g. Marton
et al. 1984)
• IB and Information Literacy (IL) research which
focuses on motivation/ study approaches/ personal
characteristics (e.g. Ford et al, 2003)
• Model developed by Crowder & Pupynin (1993) into
motivation for training

6. Methods
• Qualitative
– 72 one-to-one interviews
– 86 people in focus groups
– of these 158, 105 were students and 53 were staff (mostly
teachers/lecturers)
– Thematic analysis
• Quantitative.
– Testing elements in the model of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation
and effort, mostly 5 point Likert scales
– Minor differences in questionnaires for schools, 6th form
colleges/FE and universities Administered online and in print
– Used SPSS for analysis; ANOVAs, correlation and
regression analysis.

7. Samples: Questionnaires analysed
School children University students
• Key stage 3 (ages 12-14) - 240 • Y1 - 234
• Key stage 4 (15-16) - 119 • Y2 - 144
• Key stage 5 (16-18) - 341 • Y3 - 112
• Total - 700 • Total - 490
From 8 secondary schools and From 4 universities in South
3 sixth form colleges in South Yorkshire and the Midlands
Yorkshire
Notes: original sample size was 802 school + 948 university students: data was cleaned by removing those educated
previously outside the UK, and by stratified random deselection of female participants in order to control for the effect of
gender, to enable comparison across study level

8. Samples: focus groups / interview
Schools & FE/6th form colleges University
• Key stage 3 (Year 7, 11-12 yrs) - 27 • 1st year
• Key stage 3 (Year 8) - 7 undergraduate - 9
• Key stage 3 (Year 9) - 8 • 2nd year UG - 5
• Key stage 4 (Year 10) - 2 • 3rd year UG - 13
• Key stage 5 (Year 12/Level 3 (1st year) - 33 • 4th year UG - 1
• Schools - 6 teachers, 6 librarians, 3 other
staff • Academics - 8
• FE/6th form - 21 teachers, 2 librarians, 4 • Librarians - 3
other staff
Numbers = individuals

9. Note that …
analysis is not complete and these are
some selected findings!

10. Motivation - effort

11. Intrinsic rewards “involved with the human need for being self-determining” (Deci, 1975)
Expectation that Intrinsic
effort will result reward is
in intrinsic valued
reward
Perception Confidence in
Effort
that the being able to
expended on
activity perform the
the activity
requires effort activity
Expectation that Note that
effort will result in Extrinsic rewards are
extrinsic reward reward is
valued
not always
valued, and
thus do not
always
Extrinsic rewards are ones mediated by external agents (e.g. teachers, managers)
motivate
Model being tested – based on Crowder & Pupynin (1993)

12. Biggest motivations were extrinsic
• 92% school students and 94% UGs motivated all or
most of the time to get the best marks they could
• 89% school students and 89% UGs motivated by
wanting to get good qualifications
• 60% school students and 45% UGs motivated
all/most of the time by wanting to please other
people

13. Effort expended (ee) on … was predicted by
ee on finding information ee on evaluating trustworthiness
• Being female • Being motivated intrinsically
• Being motivated intrinsically – Learning as much as I can
– Learning as much as I can – Being satisfied I‟ve done my best
– Being satisfied I‟ve done my best • Being motivated extrinsically
• Being motivated extrinsically – Getting the best marks I can
– Getting the best marks I can
• Expecting extrinsic reward
• Perception that a lot of effort
required • Expecting intrinsic reward
• Expecting extrinsic reward • Confidence in being able to
• Expecting intrinsic reward perform the activity

14. Effort expended (ee) on …was predicted by
ee on understanding information used in coursework
• Being female
• Being in an older study year
• Being motivated intrinsically
– Learning as much as I can
– Being satisfied I‟ve done my best
• Perception that a lot of effort required
• Expecting intrinsic reward
• Confidence in being able to perform the activity

15. Confidence
• In interviews, learners‟ lack of confidence identified by a
number of teachers and lecturers as a factor that
impacts on student information behaviour; possible
reasons include
– Lack of literacy skills
– Lack of confidence in own thinking
– Low self esteem
• Can lead to copy-paste, feeling that one is ill-fitted to
question/evaluate etc.
• There is research linking anxiety and fear of failure with
surface approaches to learning and poor performance

16. Implications could include …
• Confidence building important for evaluating and
understanding information
• For crucial stage of “understanding” information,
applying extrinsic motivations less important than
aiming to foster intrinsic motivation (interest in the
subject, satisfaction with having understood etc.)
• Stressing to learners that effort is required for
finding and understanding information … though …

17. Feeling overwhelmed by information was
predicted by
• Perceiving that a lot of effort is required
• Being a lower school year of study
• NOT being motivated intrinsically to “learn as much as I
can”
• Being motivated extrinsically in terms of pleasing others
• NOT finding it easy to keep up with work
• Struggling to understand what is required for a good
piece of work

18. Notable that …
more guidance wanted from teachers
• 62% of school students and 54% of UGs wanted it
in relation to finding information
• 65% of school students and 52% of undergraduates
wanted it in relation to evaluating information
• 60% of school students and 58% of UGs wanted it
in relation to selecting relevant information
• 54%) and 44% UGs wanted it in relation to making
use of the information they found

19. Guidance
• Identifies importance of supporting development of
each aspect (e.g. not just the “finding” stage)
• In interviews, staff noted balance required between
support and spoon-feeding
• Does provide evidence that might be used to show
that explicit support in all these areas is wanted by
learners

20. Levels of study
Picking out just one group of findings …

21. Transition: example
• 94% of school students and 98% of UGs reported they
had to find information for themselves in order to do
work at least some of the time
• The proportion of responses indicating all or most of the
time increased from school (43%) to university (75%)
• However, 45% UGs felt that they were not even
adequately prepared by their former study to know how
to find information for their assignments
• 29% of UGs felt that they were poorly or very poorly
prepared for evaluating information sources

22. • Adds further, specific evidence about where the
transition to university is problematic
• Interview data gives further insight into changed
requirements for finding information, once learners
reach university

23. Deep, critical IB?

24. Approaches to study
Surface Strategic Deep
• Memorising • Identifying what is • Meaning making,
• Skim reading required by connecting
• Atomistic marker/examiner and • Looking at whole
approach (finding focusing on that texts to understand
bits to put • May or may not involve the author‟s
together) understanding intention
• Selecting from (depends on what the • Selecting within
the material task is) the material
• Intention to • Intention to
• Intention to succeed understand
reproduce or excel (in an
assignment, exam)
e.g. Marton et al. 1984; Newble and Entwistle, 1986

25. Research has linked IB/IL and aspects of
study approach
• Use of approaches to study questionnaire:
– Ford et al. (2003) identified e.g. fear of failure associated
with intention to reproduce in searching
– Heinstrom (2005) identified (surface approach) fast surfers,
(deep approach) deep divers, broad scanners
• Qualitative research
– Ford (1986) identified sub-critical, surface-critical and deep-
critical information behaviour
– McDowell (2004) identified minimalist, gathering, pinpointing
and connecting pathways to information literacy

26. McDowell (2004): two perspectives on
“focus”
Internal perspective External perspective
• Process: Seeking meaning • Process: narrowing down
• Outcome: achieving • Outcome: coherent
understanding presentation
Raises issues of whether trying to extrinsically motivate students to
do specific targeted searches to get specific pieces of information
for assignments is really going to develop understanding (which
could be used in other, slightly different, circumstances) … this
could reinforce a strategic approach

27. Some evidence from interviews

28. Surface approach?
“mm, cos like ...that‟s like what I do as
well. I often just copy and paste the whole
thing onto word document, delete bits,
change bits, make it kind of my ..[own]”
(year 8 school student)

29. • “L: No, you format it in your own words
• “Do you take notes and ...?
• “L: You umm.. you usually write down quickly, generally
what it‟s saying and then
• “R: then you get a few pictures and stuff
• “L: then you‟ll get some pictures, then you‟ll go through
the writing and write it properly
• “R: put it in your own words”
(Year 8 school students)
But note that this process may require quite a lot of effort

30. • “Another problem is, I think, it‟s time that it takes to
research something. Yeah. Because, because they‟re
used to Googling it, coming up or whatever, they‟re
used to instant information, in the media, on the
internet, on their phone – everything is instant and
there, and I think that they expect studying to be like
that as well”. (Teacher of 6th form)
• [internet] “What is more convenient about it?
“It‟s because it‟s like instant and you don‟t have to go
through piles just to find one or two paragraphs that you
actually want and stuff like that.” (6th form science
student)

31. Strategic approach
• “On-line? Well first thing I would do is like if I am doing physics
and it‟s AQA I will go straight onto AQA website and look at the
syllabus for the subject I am doing then work on from that.
“Right so do they have links out from there or?
“No it‟s just I need to know what that is, it‟s just like basically
explains what you need to know, ad you can just like figure it
out from that what you need to learn.”
• Prefers the format that has the most explicit match with the task
“It‟s not always tailored to your exam board when you go on line
but then when you get the book it‟s exactly to your exam board.
So it‟s to exactly your specification.
“Is that the most important thing when you are looking for
information?
“Yes. “ (6th form school student)

32. Not just about the students
“Scores on such questionnaires as the Approaches
and Study Skills Inventory for Students … are most
usefully seen as outcomes of teaching rather than as
measuring student differences. Responses to the
questionnaires tell us something about the quality of
the teaching environment precisely because students‟
predilections tend to adapt to the expected
requirements of different teaching environments”
(Biggs and Tang, 2007: 26)

33. Approaches to teaching
Numerous research studies have identified
• Knowledge conveying categories (e.g. transferring
knowledge, explaining curriculum)
• Intermediate categories (e.g. focus on student-
teacher interaction)
• Facilitation of learning categories (e.g. facilitating
conceptual change & understanding)
e.g. Samuelowitz and Bain (2001)

34. • Many teachers in school and college suggested that
pressure to meet government targets has resulted
in students being spoon-fed towards exams, with
less emphasis on the development of skills to find
and use information in support of their own learning
• One sixth-form teacher said that when they teach
outside the curriculum the students question why
they are doing something that is not on the syllabus

35. Students spotting (poor) approaches to teaching
“L: But the teachers that don‟t care, they don‟t do it like that. They just do it the old,
sort of more old fashioned ..
“What’s the old fashioned way, tell me ..
“L: Just like information after information. Making you write it down
In a book? On a sheet?
“L: Yeah, just on a book
Taking notes?
“N: No
“L: Usually notes, that‟s a lot better cos you write it down the way you want it
“OK
“L: It‟s like copying ... just like go, go through a book and with like the questions in,
you just do that and work your way through.
“R: Yeah”
(Year 8 school students)

36. • “Of when you copy and paste, and some teachers
just...
“Student 1: Some teachers are just oh, that‟ll be alright
“Student 2: Yeah
“Student 1: I don‟t think Miss xxxx cares”
(Year7/Year9 group)
• “And when you get your homework back, do they write
... what sort of things do they write on it?
“Year 8 student: It depends who the teacher is. Some of
them don‟t care, they just tick”

37. • 6th former A: I think every teacher we‟ve got teaches differently,
don‟t they
• 6th former B : Yeah. It‟s like we‟ve got one – and I‟m not going to
mention names cos I don‟t want to get in to trouble
• No, well, it’s all ... I mean it’s completely confidential and I don’t
know them anyway, but, equally, you don’t need to mention the
name
• 6th former B : We‟ve got one teacher turns up, sets work, and
???? do evaluation of someone .. of a character someone‟ played
and then just ..
• 6th former A : walk out
• Julie: You turn round, you go „sir I don‟t ..‟ – gone! You go „oh miss‟
and they‟ve gone, they‟ve walked out of class cos they‟ve gone to
office to go and do some‟at. And they come back ...
• Right. So what’s the opposite of that? What’s the really good ... the
teachers that help you to learn the best?
• 6th former B : When they sit down with, right, talk you through it

38. Though it isn‟t all bad
“Year 8 student: I think teachers hadn‟t actually ...
teachers are learning a lot more about how to
engage people”

39. Collaboration
• Currently: May be collaboration to encourage
surface and strategic approaches? e.g.
– Mostly using extrinsic motivators, which may not
encourage learning for understanding
– Formulaic guidelines e.g. avoid Wikipedia! use
journals! follow these steps for good searching!
– Emphasis on finding and evaluating (rather than
relevance and understanding in application) may not
help learners develop beyond the atomistic approach

40. Concluding ideas
• Parents and peers part of the collaboration (in positive
and negative way) – could address this more explicitly
• Importance of how things are taught and assessed
• Students are observant, they will notice what matters
• Even if one has limited power in overall teaching
approach: focus on questioning, encouraging,
challenging (where appropriate), enthusing, giving and
facilitating informal feedback
• Differentiating strategies for supporting different stages
of the process of finding and using information – they
all contribute to (or are symptomatic of) the study
approach

41. Concluding ideas
• Not always using extrinsic motivators to encourage
engagement with IL – information is exciting!
• Let‟s collaborate on deep learning, for
understanding
• We hope evidence from the project will be helpful in
justifying support e.g. for supporting transition

42. Sheila Webber
s.webber@sheffield.ac.uk
http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @sheilayoshikawa
Nigel Ford
n.ford@sheffield.ac.uk

43. References
• Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for quality learning at university:
what the student does. 3rd ed. Maidenhead SRHE.
• Crowder, M. and Pupynin, K. (1993) The motivation to train: a review of
the literature and the development of a comprehensive model of
training motivation. Minds at Work, for the Department of Employment.
• Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Publishing.
• Ford, N. (1986) “Psychological determinants of information needs: a
small-scale study of higher education students.” Journal of librarianship
and information science, 18 (1), 47-62.
• Ford, N., Miller, D and Moss, N. (2003) “Web search strategies and
approaches to studying.” Journal of the American Society of
Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 473-489.

44. • Heinström, J. (2005) "Fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving: the
influence of personality and study approach on students' information-
seeking behavior." Journal of documentation, 61 (2), 228-247.
• Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (Eds.) (1984) The Experience of
learning: implications for teaching and studying in higher education.
Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
• McDowell, L. (2004) Negotiating information literacy pathways : learner
autonomy in higher education. Unpublished PhD. Newcastle Upon Tyne:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
• Newble, D.I. and Entwistle, N.J. (1986) “Learning styles and approaches:
implications for medical education.” Medical education, 20, 162-195.
• Samuelowicz, K. and Bain, J.D. (2001) “Revisiting academics‟ beliefs
about teaching and learning”. Higher education, 41, 299-325
• Wilson, T.D. (2000) “Human information behavior.” Informing science, 3
(2), 49-55.