and for

The Journal of

Organizing the Library to Suit theUndergraduates’ Information Gathering Behaviorat the Tel-Hai Academic College in Israel

by Iris Chai

Available online 2 May 2007

The study examined the factors influencinginformation gathering behavior of

undergraduates at Tel-Hai Academic College, sothat library services can cope effectively with

this behavior. Related to the findings,we changed our circulation desk to become a

‘‘one stop shop’’ for directions to alllibrary information.

Iris Chai is Library Director,Oranim Academic College of Education of the

Kibbutz Movement, Tivon, Israel,mer Library Director of Tel-Hai Academic College

bchai@oranim.ac.ilN.

Academic Librarianship, Volume 33, Number 4, pages 485–491

INTRODUCTION

This study examined four aspects of undergraduate informationgathering behavior (IGB): needs, use, users, and satisfaction,thus following previous research in this sphere. We assumedfive hypotheses: (1) The students will not make full use of allthe information sources available to them, either in terms ofquality or quantity. The argument arises from the fact thatstudents encounter problems with English-language sourcesthat constitute a stumbling block. (2) Students who frequentlyuse InterSyl (online learning environment) will not use some ofthe additional information sources available to them at thecollege. This argument is based on a fact that they are generallypressed for time. (3) A correlation will be found between theamount of information sources used by the students, subject ofstudy, and year. This is based on the differences between thenature and complexity of their study assignments. (4) Acorrelation will be found between students’ satisfaction withthe library and their efficacy in using it, and how much theyknow about using library resources. (5) A correlation will befound between students’ achievements (grades) and theirinformation gathering patterns.

We intend to use the findings to facilitate the planning ofdatabases and the effective maintenance of information.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A number of studies have focused on the factors influencingundergraduates’ information gathering behavior. Barbara Val-entine examined levels of skill, in a library setting, at gatheringinformation needed for a student paper among library sciencestudents at Linfield College, Oregon. Findings indicate thatthese college students looked for the easiest solutions, becausethey were short of time.1 Robert K. Baker carried out a study atPima Community College in Tucson, AZ, investigating thecorrelation between howmuch students use library services, andfaculty perception of student library use. The results showed agap between librarian and faculty expectations; whereaslibrarians expect to ‘‘educate students in information literacy,’’the faculty send their students to do library work for reasons suchas: ‘‘to get an introduction to what material the library has on thesubject.’’2 How Internet skills affected students’ IGB was thesubject of a study by Debbie Orr, Margaret Appleton and TrishAndrews at Queensland University, Australia. The study tried to

July 2007 485

pinpoint the factors that enable students to gather informationsuccessfully. They found that the skills needed for successfulIGB could be developed through a course of this kind.3

Other studies focused on the student’s reported perception ofthe library’s effectiveness as a key to predict student IGB: CherylAnn McCarthy examined the overall level of efficiency in theuse of the library among undergraduates at Rhode IslandUniversity. 40 percent of the students in her study expresseddissatisfaction with their search for information and with theretrieval of relevant information. They also pointed to problemsin the organization of the materials in the library, the need formore books and journals, more guidance and practice, a largerteam providing more assistance, and the need to expand thecomputer equipment in the library.4 Wen-Hua Ren examined therelationship between library orientation instruction by librariansand independent search for information by students participatingin an English composition course at Rutgers University. Renused the students’ grades to predict the relationship between thefinal grade and their effectiveness in using the library before theyreceived guidance, but did not find them related.5

Other researchers have focused on users’ cognitive aspectsof their IGB: Carol Collier Kuhlthau investigated cognitive andaffective aspects of the information search process in a library.She tested 26 high-school pupils about to go to college, drawnfrom two parallel classes of a large school in suburban NewJersey. She found that there were six stages in the searchprocess: definition of the assignment; choice of topic;unfocused search; focused search; collecting information; andclosing the search.6 Barbara Fister examined the link betweenthe process of writing a paper among undergraduates ofGustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota and the informationsearch strategies they learned in the library. The findingsindicated that the stage at which the topic was settled on wasthe longest and most crucial stage in the students’ research.7

Debora Swain examined the process of searching for informa-tion for an essay assignment of undergraduate students in anEnglish class at the University of North Carolina. The studyfound that students did not necessarily progress one stage at atime and some of them combined stages in a repetitive way.8

Ethlene Whitmire studied differences in IGB amongst studentsat the University of Wisconsin-Madison with respect to theirepistemological development. A significant correlation bet-ween epistemological development and IGB was found.9

Other studies tried to find the connection between IGB andthe reasons behind these behaviors among various groups ofstudents: Mary Beth Allen examined the place of the library inthe educational process of international students at the Depart-ment for International Programs and Studies of the Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,10 Carol Hammond studiedthe opinions, preferences, and behavior of traditional and non-traditional students at the University of Phoenix Arizona withregard to library use.11 Patience L Simmonds investigated theneeds and IGB of adult learners at Penn State University’sBehrend College,12 Joseph D Atkinson and Miguel Figueroacarried out a study of information gathering patterns amongeconomics students at California State University, San Mar-cos.13 Mengxiong Liu and Bernice Redfern’s study of infor-mation gathering patterns was conducted among undergraduatestudents of different ethnic origins at San Jose State University.The findings showed that students whose native language wasEnglish were more successful than non-native speakers inusing the library.14

486 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

The current study focuses on the factors influencing the IGBof undergraduates at Tel-Hai Academic College (Tel-Hai) sothat library services will cope effectively with their informationneeds.

RESEARCH OF INFORMATION GATHERING BEHAVIOR

BY ISRAELI STUDENTS

In the past twelve years, the number of students studying forvarious academic degrees in Israel has grown from 80,000 in1991 to 227,500 in 2003. Simultaneously, there has been adrop in the proportion of students studying for their first degreeat universities as compared to those studying at academiccolleges and institutions other than universities.

The policy of the Planning and Budgeting Committee of theCouncil for Higher Education, promotes the tendency to turnuniversities into research centers, and increase the number ofstudents studying for higher degrees there, while increasing thenumber of students studying for their first degree at thecolleges, in order to boost the education of the populationliving in the periphery. This policy directs the colleges tocommit themselves primarily to teaching and to focus on thestudents and their progress. In fact, as Shlomo Grossmanpointed out, in 2002 the number of students registering for afirst degree at universities equaled the number of thoseregistering at colleges, and in 2003, as Rally Sa’ar reported,53 percent of B.A. students were registered for studies atcolleges and only 47 percent at universities out of a total of142,000 students, while the open university served 38,000students.15,16

It should be pointed out that in the United States studies forthe first degree take four years, whereas in Israel studentsreceive their B.A. degree after three years of study. Therefore,we may presume that the factor of the time devoted by thestudents to information gathering is even more significant inthis country than in the United States. Moreover, the languageof study in Israel is Hebrew, while most of the academicknowledge available to the students is in English. Mastery ofEnglish is crucial, and insufficient mastery may be a seriousobstacle to the student. The abovementioned factors reinforcethe need to examine, analyze, and take into account the specificpatterns of information gathering by students in colleges.

In Israel, a few studies of information gathering behavior ofbachelor degree students appeared in the past few years: ShifraBaruchson-Arbib and Frida Shor examined use of ElectronicInformation Sources (EIS) by Israeli students.17 It was foundthat those with prior computer knowledge tended to use EISsignificantly more than those with minimal prior computerknowledge and that those who had received library instructionused EIS more than those who had not. Diane Mizrachi andSnunith Shoham (2004) examined the factors influencingundergraduate information gathering behavior and needs bylooking at the apprehension that undergraduates express whenstarting to use the library, and the relationship between their‘‘library anxiety’’ and their attitude towards computers atteachers’ colleges in Israel.18 Findings revealed that the ‘‘fearof the use of English’’ for information retrieval was the mostsignificant component of their library anxiety.

RESEARCH POPULATION

The current study of Iris Chai (2003) comprised all 875students registered for B.A. studies in 2003 at Tel-Hai, inNorthern Galilee of Israel.19 These students were in their 2nd

Table 1Library Visits for Different Information

Needs—Factor Analysis by Items

FactorLibrary VisitNeeded For

FactorWeight

% ExplainedVariance

General infor-

mation needs

Internet surfing 0.83 32

Writing a paper 0.79

Use of Microsoft

Office

0.77

Use of a printer 0.75

InterSyl-online

courses

0.71

Photocopier 0.70

E-mail 0.69

Viewing a videotape 0.58

Circulation Extending due date 0.87 16.5

Book loan/return 0.80

Reserving a book 0.79

Study needs Use of data base 0.31 16.2

Study session with

friends

0.50

Use of catalog 0.74

Use of periodicals 0.68

Studying in the library 0.57

or 3rd year of studies. First year students were not included,since their information gathering behavior as related to theirsuccess in their studies at the college could be ascertained, andbecause they differed from the research group through havingto participate in library guidance at the beginning of theirstudies. The mandatory program of library orientation for firstyear students was only introduced in 2003 and might havedistorted the results of this study.

FigureGroups of Information Needs and Averag

METHOD

The data were derived from a questionnaire administered ina systematic, rigorous, and controlled way to each of thestudents taking a compulsory course in each of the twoyears. They filled out the questionnaire independently, undersupervision. The questionnaire also included demographicdata. The total number of respondents was 512, approx-imately 58 percent of the research population (approximately20 percent were absent at the time, 5 percent declared thatthey did not consider the questionnaire as a mediumenabling them to provide accurate information, and 10percent refused to fill out such a long questionnaire). Thesupervisor chosen to collect the data was experienced in thefield of human resources and in the gathering of data forresearch purposes. Her part in the research was closelycontrolled.

STATISTICAL PROCESSING OF THE DATA

Chi square tests were carried out to examine the relationshipbetween the degree of use of the resources and the personalvariables from by the questionnaire. Pearson correlationcoefficients were used to examine the relationship betweenthe students’ knowledge regarding the use of libraryresources, their level of satisfaction with their efficiency ingathering information, their achievements in their studies, andtheir use of the resources provided by the library. TheSpearman rank correlation coefficient (r) was used toexamine the relationship between two variables on an ordinalscale (i.e., to determine if there was a relationship betweenthe ranking of the research subjects in two different areas).The ‘‘r’’ expresses the strength of the relationship andindicates its trend. The strength of the relationship wasgraded as follows: 0–0.3 indicates a weak relationship; 0.31–0.5 indicates a moderate relationship; 0.5–0.6 indicates amoderately strong relationship; over 0.61 indicates a strongrelationship. Negative values were similarly graded. Thestatistical significance of the correlation ( p) was reportedby marking with one to three asterisks: p b0.001***,p b0.01**, p b0.05*. We only related to the value on thescale when the Spearman value was marked by an asterisk.

1es of the 3 Groups, by Departments

July 2007 487

Table 2Measure of Information Use and Measure of Shortfall in English, Segmented by Department,

Averages, and Standard Deviations

ANOVA differential analyses were carried out to examinedifferences between various groups of students (e.g., year ofstudy, faculty) with respect to quantitative dependent varia-

Table 3Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Use of InterSyl and other Information Sources: Total Population

Use of InterSyl

Use of Other Sources

ConsultInterSylfor Info.

How OftenDo You UseInterSyl

How Much Do YouVisit the Libraryto Use InterSyl

How Much InterSyMeets CourseRequirements

How often do you visit the library to consult the

catalog

�0.069 �0.088 0.189*** �0.069

Extent of searches in abstracts data bases for material

on a specific topic

0.142* 0.052 0.201** 0.004

To what extent do you use the library’s e-journals 0.016 0.025 0.203*** �0.056To what extent do you consult the catalog for

material on a specific topic

�0.003 �0.059 0.196*** �0.048

Reasons for visiting the library—use of data bases 0.026 �0.019 0.221*** 0.057

Where do you search for material on a specific

topic—full-text data bases

0.132* 0.082 0.242*** �0.003

To what extent do you use the library’s online

data bases

0.053 0.067 0.291*** 0.017

To what extent do you visit the library to consult

periodicals

�0.054 �0.195*** 0.114* �0.156**

Do not know enough about how to use information 0.057 �0.075 �0.056 �0.054How much use do you make of data base thesauri 0.113* 0.100 0.171** 0.137*

*p b0.05; **p b0.001; ***p =0.000.

488 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

bles, such as comprehensive grading of the use of informationresources, level of knowledge of their use, and the level ofsatisfaction expressed. Analyses of variance compared the

l

Table 4Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Satisfaction with Library Services and Personal Skill in Using

Library Resources: All Respondents

InsufficientKnowledge of

Information Use

InsufficientKnowledge ofInformationAssessment

InsufficientKnowledgeof DescriptorTerminology

Library LayoutNot ClearlyUnderstood

Satisfaction with library services �0.034 �0.024 0.039 �0.046Satisfaction with library’s holdings 0.006 �0.040 �0.022 �0.037Satisfaction with own level of skill

in use of college library resources

�0.164** �0.090 �0.102* �0.134*

*p b0.05; **p b0.001.

grading of the abovementioned dependent variables, accord-ing to the year and field of study.

FINDINGS

In order to reduce the number of variables and find a commoncontent factor that can express needs for the undergraduates’library visits in generalized terms, we performed a principalcomponents factor analysis (Varimax rotation). Three mainfactors emerged. Table 1 shows the results of the factoranalysis.

Table 1 shows that three reasons for the undergraduates’visiting the library were found: information needs in general,circulation procedures, and study needs. Heading the hierarchyof factors that account for use of library: 32 percent of thevariance in students’ responses to the question, ‘‘What do youvisit the library for?’’ is accounted for by general informationneeds, such as using photocopiers, printers, Internet, computers,etc. (Facilities). Circulation procedures, such as borrowing andreturning a book, or extending its due date (Loans) accounts for16.5 percent of the variance. Study needs, such as using thelibrary to study in or accessing information (Education), accountfor 16.2 percent.

A further variance analysis was performed to compare theextent to which library services, according to the three groupsof needs identified above, are used by students from differentdepartments (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 shows the difference between departments in theamount library services were used for information needs ingeneral, circulation, and study needs.

FigureUse of Information—Differences Between High/Ver

All Respon

Findings confirmed the study assumption that the greater theshortfall in their knowledge of English, the less the Tel-Haiundergraduates made use of information in English.

Table 2 shows that students of education, multidisciplinarystudies, and social work report a greater shortfall in their English(averages=3.18, 2.94, adjusted) than do students of computerscience (2.03), of economics and management (2.43), and ofbiotechnology and nutrition science (2.47). Students of educa-tion, multidisciplinary studies, and social work (3.14) use databases more frequently than students from the other departments.

Students of biotechnology (3.6) and computer science (3.31)are seen to use more English than the rest of the students. Asfor the meaning of the term ‘‘language block’’, a newassumption suggests itself here for future studies: linkinginadequate knowledge of English to inadequate skills in loca-ting, using, and assessing information, and use of professionalterminology as it appears on databases.

The study also revealed that students who go to the libraryto make use of online courses such as InterSyl, report a higherincidence of searching online databases, whether with abstractsor full-text articles, and using e-journals.

Table 3 shows a negative link between the extent towhich InterSyl meets course needs and library visits for thepurpose of consulting periodicals. While the online learningenvironment does help students focus on study requirementsand saves them from doing laborious searches, it also posesthe danger of missing out on material through browsing,which often happens when working with print periodicals.Findings also confirmed the study assumption that the

2y High Achievers and Medium/Low Achievers:dents

July 2007 489

Table 5Where Do You Go When You Need Help in the

Library: Question 14

Average Standard Deviation N

Reference desk 3.67 1.28 413

Any desk 3.47 1.41 294

Circulation desk 3.11 1.27 404

Other 2.82 1.63 28

smaller the deficiency in knowledge of information use, thegreater the undergraduates’ satisfaction with their own libraryskills.

Table 4 shows a negative correlation between insufficientknowledge of descriptor terminology and the library’s layout,and a negative correlation between insufficient knowledge ofinformation use and general satisfaction with personal libraryskills.

Findings confirmed the study assumption that there aredifferences between IGB of students with high to very highacademic achievement (grades) and students with low to verylow grades. Nevertheless, the desire to predict students’ gradesaccording to their IGB continues to preoccupy researchers inthis sphere.

Fig. 2 shows that students with high-to-very high academicachievements (grades) report more often on independent,efficient information gathering patterns, and tend to ask fellowstudents for help. Those with medium-to-low grades ask alibrarian for help in locating a book more often, and consult alibrarian or a lecturer more than a fellow student when seekinghelp with search terminology, and are more likely to godirectly to the stacks for a book without checking the catalogfirst.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The methodology used in this study and the large percentageof respondents involved have helped to collect fairlycomprehensive data about the factors influencing students’information gathering behavior, and suggest changes in theorganizational structure and the way the library teamfunctions.

The results in the current study revealed significantdifferences between information gathering behaviors ofundergraduates from various fields of study. The demandsof the departments and the complexity of the tasks involvedgreatly affected the need for information and its use, asperceived by the IGB of the students. From the institutionalpoint of view, the findings of the study direct the library torelate to the department as if it was the user. There is nodoubt that each student has his/her own way of retrievinginformation and seeks an optimal method of gatheringinformation for the fulfillment of specific task. However,to ensure that the student can derive maximum benefit fromthe information available in the library, we organized toserve the needs of the various groups, thus enabling eachstudent to begin his/her search from a suitably organizedbase.

The study’s findings show that the respondents most oftenvisit the library to search for general information and for

490 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

circulation issues (Table 5). We decided to redesign theavailable library space to meet the students’ needs. Thereorganization created three different focal points: circulation-information desk, reference-research assistance desk, and aquiet area for self-study.

Findings also revealed misunderstanding about where tofind help for different needs in the library.

Using the study’s results, we changed our circulation desk tobecome the ‘‘one stop shop’’ for all library information.

In response to question 24, 475 students stated that theystudied alone to a great degree, while 447 responded that theystudy with friends to a moderate degree. Since there is aproblem with noise in the library (question no. 38), we re-organized available space for those studying on their own tohave a quiet place to do so.

The orientation and research assistance services wereadapted to meet the needs of the departments and thestudents, and in cooperation with the English Department,we focused on the students’ use of scientific databases inEnglish.

The organizational management structure was adapted fromthe new version of the library’s activities in two spheres ofservices: services for the library users (information andcirculation, as well as orientation and research assistance)and technical services (Cataloguing, Information-Technology,and Software).

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Barbara Valentine, ‘‘Undergraduate Research Behavior: UsingFocus Groups to Generate Theory,’’ The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship 19.5 (1993): 300–304.

2. Robert K. Baker, ‘‘Faculty Perceptions towards Student LibraryUse in a Large Urban Community College,’’ The Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 24 (3) (1997): 177–182.

3. Debbie Orr, Margaret Appleton & Trish Andrews, ‘‘TeachingInformation Literacy Skills to Remote Students through anTnteractive Workshop,’’ Research Strategies 14.4 (1996):224–233.

4. Cheryl Ann McCarthy, ‘‘Students Perceived Effectiveness Usingthe University Library,’’ College & Research Libraries 3.56(1995): 221–234.

5. Wen-Hua Ren, ‘‘Library Instruction and College Student Self-Efficacy in Electronic Information Searching,’’ The Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 26.5 (2000): 323–328.

6. Carol Collier Kuhlthau, ‘‘Developing a Model of the LibrarySearch Sources: Cognitive and Affective Aspects,’’ RQ (1988):232–242.

7. Barbara Fister, ‘‘The research processes of undergraduatestudents,’’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 18 (3)(1992): 163–169.

8. Debora Swain, ‘‘Information Search Process Model: How Fresh-men Begin Research,’’ Proceedings of the 33rd ASIS annualmeeting (1996): 95–99.

9. Ethlene Whitmire, ‘‘Interpreting undergraduates’ Information-seeking Behavior through Epistemological DevelopmentTheories,’’ Paper presented at the 63rd Annual meeting of theAmerican Society for Information Science (ASIS), (2000, 12–16November). Chicago, IL.

10. Mary Bath Allen, ‘‘International Students in Academic Libra-ries: A User Survey,’’ College & Research Libraries 54 (1993):323–333.

11. Carol Hammond, ‘‘Nontraditional Students and the Library:Opinions, Preferences, and Behaviors,’’ College & ResearchLibraries 55 (4) (1994): 323–341.

12. Patience L. Simmonds, ‘‘Providing Quality Library Service to theAdult Learner: Views of Students, Faculty, and Administrators,’’Reference Librarian 69/70 (2000): 395–406.

13. Joseph D. Atkinson & Miguel Figueroa, ‘‘Information SeekingBehavior of Business Students: A Research Study,’’ ReferenceLibrarian 58 (1997): 59–73.

14. Mengxiong Liu & Bernice Redfern, ‘‘Information-SeekingBehavior of Multicultural Students: A Case Study at San JoseState University,’’ College & Research Libraries 58 (4) (1997):348–354.

15. Shlomo Grossman, Michlalot 2002 (Tel-Aviv: InfoMeid TeldanInformation Systems Ltd 2002 (Hebrew).

16. Rali Sa’ar, ‘‘This Year the Number of Students in AcademicColleges has Grown by 11 Percent,’’ Ha’Aretz, Higher Education,10.13.2002 (Hebrew).

17. Shifra Baruchson-Arbib & Frida Shor, ‘‘The Use of ElectronicInformation Sources by Israeli College Students,’’ The Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 28 (2002): 255–257.

18. Diana Mizrachi & Snunith Shoham, ‘‘English-Use Anxiety inIsraeli College Libraries,’’ Academic Exchange Quarterly 8 (4)(2004): 186–189.

19. Iris Chai, ‘‘Information Gathering Behavior of the UndergraduateStudents at Tel-Hai Academic College,’’ Master’s Thesis(Jerusalem, Hebrew University, 2003).

July 2007 491