- Email: [email protected]
Reflections on Information Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning: The Meaning of the Shift from Library Instruction to Information Literacy
REFLECTIONS ON INFORMATION CONFUSION IN CHEMISTRY INFORMATION LEARNING: The Meaning of the Shift from Library Instruction to Information Literacy VERONICA CALDERHEAD John Cotton Dana Library, Newark, NJ, USA ABSTRACT: Library instruction in chemistry is typically organized around CAS Online. The advent of the Web, the increased access to networked indexes, and what appears to be a confusion surrounding the Web, should give reason to reconsider library instruction methodology. An apparent confusion surrounding print and electronic, Web versus traditional indexes, and CAS Online versus other indexes prompted the re-tooling of the basic bibliographic instruction for chemistry at the John Cotton Dana Library at Rutgers University. Our sessions were revised to ensure that students would develop concrete critical thinking strategies that would serve them in their future studies or in the workplace. This article presents a case study of chemistry senior seminar library sessions, the factors that led to a ``less is more'' approach, the time investment required, and the results of the remodeled sessions.
BACKGROUND AND THEORY Electronic information literacy instruction in chemistry has remained relatively constant over the past 2 decades. The mainstay of instruction has been the teaching of Chemical Abstracts and its on-line version, CAS Online. A student's ability to prepare and perform a CAS Online search has long been the goal of most graduate and upper undergraduate library instruction programs in chemistry at the university level.
Direct all correspondence to: Veronica Calderhead, John Cotton Dana Library, University Heights, 185 University Avenue, Newark, NJ 07102, USA; E-mail: [email protected] RESEARCH STRATEGIES, Volume 16, Number 4, pages 285 ± 299. Copyright D 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0734 ± 3310
286
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
Over the past decade, however, much has changed. Universities have been mounting networked electronic databases in all disciplines. Numerous general and advanced science indexes, many of which provide some electronic material related to chemistry, are now available on networked systems to all registered students and faculty. The Web has also become part of every student's computer experience. Instructors involved in information and library literacy must now deal with new electronic material in addition to CAS and must address what appears to be an overwhelming confusion in the minds of students. Many students feel that the Web is a replacement for all of the library's electronic resources. Perhaps the newest and most aggravating issue that librarian educators face is the students' apparent confusion over what is Web-grown material, what is Web-based but externally produced, how to distinguish between the two kinds of sources, and, finally, how to evaluate any material regardless of its origins. Part of our job as librarians is to show our users what is different about searching the Web and what it has in common with searching earlier on-line systems and print indexes for chemistry material. Chemistry, because of its terminology and advanced search techniques, adds to the already complicated issue of distinguishing between the medium (i.e., the networked electronic indexes, print format, and Web-produced material) and the message (i.e., chemistry information). A remodeling of the basic library instruction in chemistry has become imperative. The need to understand and effectively address this confusion caused by the increase in electronic access has prompted many of us to take a very careful look at the content of our instructional programs. Teaching the print material, electronic resources, and the Web-based chemistry material is virtually impossible in the typical 90-minute library instruction class. The shift from bibliographic instruction to information literacy, with its emphasis on critical evaluation, is one of the best responses to the increased demands faced in library instruction. Instructors now need to focus on what it means to be information literate. The evaluation skills needed to determine into what category the information falls, followed by the determination of the value of the content, are now more important than ever. As this paper shows, information literacy can be successfully incorporated into a senior chemistry class, exposing the students to upwards of 10 hours of information material without jeopardizing other class material. The key, of course, is the committed cooperation of faculty and librarians.
THE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR CHEMISTRY UNDERGRADUATES: HISTORY AND CHANGE In the past, the chemistry senior seminars were taught with an eye toward preparing students for eventual graduate studies in chemistry or research in the chemical industry. These sessions were carried out in the absence of the students having a long-term project, and searches were carried out in relative isolation from any project relevant to the students' own areas of interest. (Appendix A describes both past and present information literacy sessions.) Over time, both the faculty and librarians realized that this type of instruction did little to develop a comprehensive understanding in students of what it was they were really doing. The librarians came to realize what Carol Kuhlthau's research on the information search process in science education has shown empirically.1 Kuhlthau has demonstrated that
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
287
science students, with the use of an assignment, follow a predictable pattern of decreasing their confusion as they progress towards the completion of the assignment's requirements. Coincidentally, the Chemistry Department decided to modify the course in order to make it more relevant to the students. This was the opportune moment for the library to realize its own ideas, namely, to make the shift from ``rote'' instruction to information literacy, emphasizing evaluation and analysis of the various tools and resources available in academic libraries today. In brief, the librarian and the chemistry faculty member came to realize that a new method and process for teaching the senior chemistry seminar was needed. The ideal method for teaching this course would be to teach cooperatively, providing the librarian with more time to deal with the complexity of factors now surrounding chemical information literacy. As part of the restructured program, the term project assigned to the students was the preparation and mounting of a conference-quality poster session that included the review of material on a variety of chemistry topics. The poster session encapsulated all that was important. More specifically, this meant that the information literacy component combined the very focused aspects of assignment completion (see Appendix A) as developed by Kuhlthau with that of the practicing scientist's typical methodology of keeping abreast of the literature. This combination of models was not accidental. Undergraduates are chronologically between the two, i.e., between the high school science project and academic research. Preparatory tasks in research were all topics that the library has taught and managed, but this poster session project allowed the library to prepare and present the material in a timely manner for the students. The new focus would be on the retrieval and evaluation of material relevant to the students' schoolwork. The course curriculum and the information literacy instruction modules were a flexible mix of Kuhlthau's seven-stage model of the research process and the directed/un-directed research methods of scientists.2
The Appropriateness of Chemical Abstracts: When Should This Be Taught? There is no lack of literature dealing with bibliographic instruction and chemistry. There are excellent articles on how to search CAS Online and how to deal effectively with terminology in Chemical Abstracts.3 However, there is very little information available on the appropriateness of teaching CAS Online to undergraduates, especially to a generation of undergraduates sitting uncomfortably between electronic and print material in the library. While the appropriateness of this particular index was not as significant a concern in the past, primarily because CAS Online was, and is, the single best resource available to students of chemistry, the confusion surrounding all the issues mentioned above now makes CAS Online less appealing as an undergraduate resource. CAS Online has become one more variable to consider in an already complicated issue. It is important to mention that there was never any intention to disregard the single most comprehensive source in chemistry, i.e., Chemical Abstracts. It is, nevertheless, important to see this powerful resource within the context of a term-long course. CAS Online would be taught later in the term.4 The general consensus among instructors and faculty was that all the lessons learned about searching for and finding material would be quickly applied to Chemical Abstracts.
288
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
This decision to re-tool the teaching of information literacy would allow the instructors to minimize the confusion, while maximizing the use of databases already available in our university system's network. Emphasis would not be placed on teaching advanced search techniques; rather, it would be placed on the students' ability to understand the purpose of electronic retrieval, how best to achieve good results, which databases to use, the evaluation of the material retrieved, and equally important, when electronic retrieval is not necessary.
Information LiteracyÐA Life Skill The demographics of the campusÐurban, ethnically diverse, average undergraduate age of 26 years, varied educational experiencesÐled to the realization that this course on information literacy may be the last formal chance of teaching the mechanics of a library and its resources. It was imperative that it be done properly. The experiences of Robert Waldman and Lynn Westbrook at the University of Michigan reflected our particular situation: ``As current trends continue, however, academic library users are increasingly likely to be people of color, part-time or commuting . . . they still need information-finding skills and knowledge to meet the requirements of their course curricula, to gain a greater understanding of their readings and lectures, and to explore areas of personal interest. . . . Developing programs capable of introducing new information technologies to increasingly diverse user populations requires careful assessment of user needs and responsive implementation of `nonstandard' library services.''5 A more recent study by Cathy Moore-Jansen demonstrates that a student's background has less impact on his or her success in grasping BI concepts than does his or her interest in the topic being researched in the BI session.6 This chemical literacy and poster session project concurs with this study. In fact, it was the varied backgrounds of the students that instigated the use of relevant topics for each one to research. Chemistry, perhaps more than most disciplines, lends itself to finding relevancy at the individual level.
COMPONENTS OF OUR CASE STUDY Working Toward Information Literacy: Preparation and Methodology Appendix A outlines the actual scheduling and topics discussed in the sessions. As noted earlier, it was determined in the early stages of the literacy instruction sessions that ``less is more,'' and the amount of information to be presented to the undergraduates was scaled down. It is a very difficult decision to provide less rather than more information to students. The implications of teaching less would only affect the students; it has to be clear that any changes affect the students for the better. Readers will be able to decide for themselves if their chemistry undergraduates' situation warrants similar or distinct treatment from that described here. The findings of our case study on chemistry undergraduates and information literacy deal with the students' behavior and thought processes. Many of the findings were unexpected and, in some cases, surprising. These findings are based on the test results and answers provided by the students to an open-ended questionnaire that was given after the first 3-hour session. These findings pointed most assuredly to a confusion exhibited to
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
289
varying degrees by all the students. Even the most adept were confused by the links made during a complete electronic retrieval, i.e., electronic database search through to the electronic display and printing of the full-text version of the article. FINDINGS AFTER SESSION I The following analysis details the most apparent areas of confusion as evidenced in the students' test results, questionnaires, and actual poster sessions. Experienced Web Browsers but Unskilled Users of the Material. Students had far more experience browsing the Web than they had conducting electronic retrieval searches; however, they were unable to do anything thoughtful with the resources. The ease with which the students found the electronic resources, other than the index and abstract databases, is not surprising. It demonstrates their knowledge of maneuvering through the Web and their extensive use of software in general. It also demonstrates that many students were more comfortable with Web browsers than with the University's electronic indexes. Related to this is the discovery that students were very skillful in transmitting their findings. Few students, if any, had much difficulty in collecting, queuing, and transmitting their references via e-mail. Less time will be spent in future sessions demonstrating the transmission of data, especially since much of this is covered throughout the term as part of the seminar curriculum. The students use the Internet for pre-laboratory tests, for grade and mark retrieval, for registration, and for many other class-related assignments. Most students have little difficulty in this area; those who do have difficulty could be directed to library or computer services-based sessions on e-mail. Problems with Online Chemistry Terminology. The students were not ready for CAS Online and Beilstein. The students were experiencing terminology problems. Comprehensive and pertinent searches require a good grasp of terminology and search definition. Both the librarian and the chemistry faculty member were very clear that query definition was to be understood before progressing further. Cross-database search mechanisms can also inhibit the students' creative use of terminology. Students did not alter the terminology from database to database. One of the examples used in the class was related to art preservation and chemistry. Students were urged to use different terms in the Art Index than the terminology used in Current Contents or General Science Abstracts. It was stressed that the terminology used by art historians may differ from the terms used by chemists. It was also pointed out that this varied and diverse terminology for the same concept would apply to most topics, not just to the art history query. The students seemed to understand the reasoning in the classroom but did not apply this rationale to the searches. Inability to Choose Appropriate Databases. Related to terminology is the choice of what database to use and what language to use in that database. The test results demonstrate that the majority of respondents chose an incorrect or inappropriate database as their initial resource. Session I spent more time on the content of the different databases than on any other section of the curricula. Clearly, more time stressing the content of the databases or finding a more compelling way to teach the content component of the different databases was imperative. Most students found four references after Session I.
290
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
However, in analyzing their search strategies and database choices, it is evident that the success rate was primarily the result of myriad science databases combined with the University search system's robustness rather than the students' skills at searching. The system allows one strategy to be used in all available indexes. Confusion Regarding the Pursuit of the Article: No Connection between a Reference and the Actual Article. The current lack of uniformity in the electronic arena, combined with the flux period of print to electronic, fosters confusion. It came as no surprise that students were confused about what steps to take in order to find the material. In some cases, students believed that their work was complete once they had retrieved four relevant references, having not yet retrieved the actual articles. In other cases, links to the journals that provide full-text from their references left students wondering ``now what?'' One student's response was, ``I have all this information; why do I still have to go find the article in the stacks?'' After receiving the explanation that full-text was just that, and that there was no need, once the full-text had been retrieved, to pursue a particular reference any further, students then became fixed on the idea of full-text and would only pursue those articles that could be found in full-text form. Explaining that some databases have some full-text, while others only have a reference without an abstract, only added to the confusion. Assumption that Electronic Retrieval Is Always Better than Print. The students believed that electronic retrieval was best no matter what. Almost two-thirds of the students felt it would be easier to find physical properties in the electronic bibliographic indexes or on the Web than it would be to find them in the print material available in the library or in their laboratories.7 This problem was addressed in Session II. Open Learning. The e-mail postings of the test results and the questionnaires (used for instruction session evaluation and, subsequently, for this article) were displayed on the overhead projector during the class session. These results were projected as they arrived in the instructor's e-mail. The test results were displayed while the individual student defended his or her choice of database and search strategy. The class provided criticism and suggestions where appropriate. The test results were for public use; however, the questionnaire results were not displayed. The excitement of immediate results projected for all the classmates to see encouraged a more open and ultimately better learning experience. TOPICS AND FINDINGS FROM SESSION II As mentioned earlier, Session II had to be modified by both the librarian and chemistry professor in order to ensure full comprehension and minimize confusion. The modified session included a 1-hour review period. It also included discussions of reference and database evaluation, plagiarism, and terminology, full-text retrieval, and Web browsing versus the use of traditional bibliographic indexes. Both the librarian and the chemistry faculty member met with unanticipated results in some areas. Exposure to Web browsing had changed students' mind-sets about on-line searching. In earlier years of the library instruction, students from the pre-Web era were somewhat in awe of on-line database retrieval. The Web and its browsers have certainly preempted that initial excitement. The Web browser has provided students with experience
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
291
at searching. The experience, however, has usually been self-taught; students have not been instructed on how to do a search, nor have they been mindful of evaluating the material retrieved. In short, the results have been disappointing. Some of our students felt they did not need the networked indexes because they thought they could do better and faster searches on the Web. The materials they forwarded were disappointing. The only exception to the poor quality of Web-based submissions were reports from government laboratories whose Web sites are excellent and often provide full-text government reports. The findings after Session II are detailed below. Plagiarism and Evaluation. An unfortunate consequence of the students' confusion regarding new electronic resources has been the unintended path toward plagiarism. Students using Web-grown material do not seem to realize that the same rules of citing and attributing materials to their true sources apply regardless of the medium. For example, students' use of the government laboratory reports mentioned above gave us pause. A student had used material from the Web site introduction in addition to large sections taken from government technical reports. Upon questioning, he had absolutely no sense of having used something that was not his own. In fact, this same student's poster session had no references listed; he explained the absence of references by saying that he had used the ``Web,'' not journals or indexes. Students see information held between two covers as being distinctly different from the material that is provided or based on the Web. The students were asked to prepare their own abstracts for each of four articles retrieved. Many students forwarded pages of ``fluff'' from the Web. Clearly, they had read neither the abstracts nor the articles themselves. They seemed to think that the keyword matches were enough to satisfy us and that several pages of information were better than a succinct paragraph. In addition to providing the ``how-to'' information on abstract writing, we had also detailed electronic citation and other style manuals in Session I.8 Some students, just over 35 percent, submitted the abstract prepared by the original author verbatim as they had found it either in the index or heading of the article in question. The students who were guilty of this transgression admitted that they did not think that using an abstract from a database would be considered plagiarism. A recent study on the topic of direct plagiarism, though not looking at the same medium (electronic text), squarely supports our contention that undergraduates are confused when faced with other written works.9 There are indications that this confusion is compounded by media other than print. We were relieved that this problem arose sooner, rather than later; the classroom setting provided the ideal forum for correcting most of the unintentional misuse of another author's work. Plagiarism and how it relates to report and essay writing was discussed. Interestingly, a parallel session dealing with fraudulent data practices and other unethical laboratory practices was given to the students during one of their regularly scheduled chemistry seminars. This was another example of how both the librarian and chemistry professor were focusing on chemistry research, its relevance to the individual student's work, and the application of life skills outside the classroom. Confusion Surrounding All Aspects of Medium and Content: Citation-to Full-text Electronic, Print Full-text versus Electronic Full-text, Web Article versus Journal Article. Related to plagiarism resulting from confusion is the inability to recognize a scholarly article from Web-grown piece (not traditionally
292
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
published). Many students did not make the connection between citation and full-text where full-text was an option. They had been shown four full-text American Chemical Society journals: Biochemistry, Environmental Science and Technology, Journal of Physical Chemistry, and Chemical & Engineering News. They did not make the connection that the full-text was indeed the result of the reference they had retrieved the previous week. Most saw the full-text journal as being ``the Web.'' They thought they had just done a good Web search and been lucky with their results; they were not aware that the article was indeed a chemist's or team of chemists' end-product after long and careful research, refereed readings, and finally, publication in a scholarly society journal. This non-connection is in part due to the quickness and seamlessness of an electronic link. Where the citation was found in a non-American Chemical Society database, the students were still able to ``click'' their way to the full-text version of one of these extremely well-produced American Chemical Society journals. The speed with which a student can go from a bibliographic index to the electronic version of, for example, Environmental Science & Technology, does not provide the contextual connections made by the student who walks from the computer terminal with a print-out or notes in hand to the stacks to find the correct title and then volume. It could be argued that print indexes, with their abbreviated titles spelled out in full somewhere in the index volume, followed by a trip to the library catalog, and finally a journey to the stacks ensured better comprehension of the entire process. The process took longer and required some demonstrable links executed by the user. For example, the title abbreviation alone ensured that the student would refer to the section on ``periodicals indexed in this volume.'' The science undergraduates' questions and behavior demonstrated to us that something was being lost in their easy access to materials through these ``links.'' It is difficult to make a connection in the abstract. Many of the students had not yet used a scholarly journal in any of their undergraduate research papers. They did not really know what a journal was, much less what the electronic version was. It is part of the educational process to ensure that students know what the print and electronic versions are. This is a distinction that probably will not exist in the future. But, for this interim period, we are faced with this extra step in the teaching process. The issue of print versus electronic journals was discussed among the librarians. It was agreed that for now we would introduce the print version before the electronic. The rationale is that when anyone of us opens a journal for the first time, we can use the title page, editorial information, publisher reputation, and information as cues to what lies in the pages ahead. Articles that discuss the evaluation of Web pages strongly suggest using a print resource in order to demonstrate the different units used in evaluation.10 These visual cues are not immediately visible to the electronic user who is clicking between links; in poorer quality full-text versions, the cues are not visible anywhere in the article. How the introductory material in a monograph or a journal affects the behavior of a user, i.e., how he or she consciously or unconsciously uses that early in the evaluation process, is an issue outside the purview of this paper, but one that should be considered by those who teach library instruction. Continued Cooperation between Library and Teaching Faculty. Cooperation between librarians and teaching faculty was responsible for the success of this course. The librarian and the chemistry faculty member worked together to restructure the information
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
293
instruction program. These changes may result in permanent changes in both the chemistry program and in the information literacy classes in the library. This was an unexpected result for the library. The chemistry faculty member was in constant communication with the librarian and was prepared to alter project time frames and course content based on the librarian's recommendations. The best example of the cooperative element was the inclusion of another library session (in week 10) in order to demonstrate CAS Online and answer questions that may have come up during the preparation of the poster sessions. It was also agreed jointly that Beilstein and Gmellin, i.e., CrossFire, would not be taught in future basic sessions. Clearly, the students were confused already. Teaching the use of an additional electronic resource would only contribute further to the confusion. The chemistry instructor shared the students' development throughout the term with the librarian. This had the added benefit of allowing the librarian to offer unsolicited help to students whose work may have been behind schedule or less than par. Benefits like this are unquantifiable, but clearly strengthen cooperative ventures between the library and teaching faculty. The test results after Session I were instrumental in altering the course plan. The confusion apparent in the students' open-ended answers was discussed by the chemistry professor and the librarian. The test results were poor, although at the time the causes were not clear. It would have been irresponsible to continue according to the initial class plan. Diving into CAS Online knowing that students were unable to make either contextual (choice of database) or content evaluations (preference of article) was no longer an option, except in the cases of zero retrieval. This did not occur, but the CAS Online option was left open for students. These decisions were all made jointly by the librarian and the instructor.
THE COMPONENTS OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION LITERACY SESSION FOR SENIORS The re-tooling of these chemical information literacy sessions for chemistry seniors involved a significant investment of time and resources. A summary of and rationale for the infrastructure components of the sessions follow.
Time Investment As stated earlier, the library saw this chemistry class as the ideal project to realize our own changing ideas of information literacy. The Physical Sciences Librarian was often frustrated in the past by the limited time available. This being the case, preparation time for the new chemistry information seminars would be extremely important; choosing the correct material, ensuring a smooth and logical flow between topics, correct placement of hands-on time, combining the theoretical concept of evaluation with the practical application and so on, would all have to be planned over two to three sessions. After a careful review of the activities of the sessions, it was concluded that an additional 13 hours had been spent preparing and teaching this senior seminar class above the amount of time spent preparing and teaching sessions for the same level in prior years. It should be noted that approximately 75 percent of these hours were one-time-only time expenditures.
294
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
The most significant time investment made was in the area of finding new materials, e.g., how to prepare a poster session, how to write a scientific abstract, or how to give an oral presentation in the sciences, and in finding these kinds of articles. Care was taken not to over-burden the students with handouts; consequently, several hours were dedicated to finding the best examples of ``how-to'' articles. The librarian did literature searches in many different databases in order to identify and obtain these articles before reading them and then choosing those most appropriate for chemistry undergraduates.11 All of this took 3 to 4 additional hours of preparatory time. The materials used in this initial class will be available in the futureÐat least until they are no longer pertinent. Of course, there were 6 additional hours of information literacy instruction in the classroom. This does not include the time spent in the reference area helping students from the class pursue their research. It was estimated that this time did not vary substantially from the past, when semi-private CAS Online sessions were provided. In fact, the literacy sessions seemed to reduce the time students needed help in the reference area. As a gesture toward further cooperation with the chemistry faculty, as well as out of genuine interest, it was decided that the students' posters would be displayed in the library's exhibit area for several months after the completion of the spring semester. This was only done once the actual poster session presentations had taken place in the Chemistry Department. Collecting and mounting the exhibits took several additional hours. This time could be reduced by having the students deliver their own posters to the library or by having the poster session presentations take place in the library only.
Meetings The librarian and faculty member met formally six times throughout the session: one meeting preceded the term; two meetings took place during the sessions; one meeting followed each session; a final meeting was held to discuss the entirety of the term. There were numerous telephone calls, e-mail correspondences, and informal visits throughout the term. Meetings are essential during the early phases in order to keep the information literacy in step with the course philosophy and outline. These planning sessions will not be necessary in the future. E-mail and phone correspondence will suffice.
Scheduling of Literacy Sessions The most effective sessions are those that are wrapped around course content. We chose to provide the information literacy session in weeks three and four, with week 10 tentatively scheduled for an advanced session. The scheduling of the sessions in weeks three and four allows the professor to set the tone for the course and to gain important information about the students' capabilities and interests before the library sessions. For students' searches to be effective, it is essential that the students come to the first session with a topic in mind.
Tests and Questionnaire: Assessing Student Learning and Library Presentation Initially, only one brief test was planned to be administered at the end of Session II with a questionnaire of open-ended questions following the test. Typical of the evolving nature
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
295
of this senior seminar course, it was deemed necessary to include a test following the first session. The distinction between the tests and questionnaire is that the tests were designed to assess how well the students were grasping the material; the questionnaire was designed to see how well the librarian was presenting the material. (See Appendix B.) This feedback was very important for the library, giving us insight into how well students were grasping the vague concepts such as the Web versus electronic indexes available via the Web and full-text articles versus traditional articles versus citations and abstracts. These insights helped us determine the content of upcoming sessions. We wanted to see how well the medium and message were being deciphered as part of an ongoing review of our information literacy sessions.
Class Outlines The scope of each library instruction session was based upon the requirements for the students' term project, i.e., the poster session. The scope of the senior seminar course curriculum was developed before the first class of term by the chemistry professor with input from the librarian regarding the scheduling and content of the library sessions. It was important for the librarian to incorporate the senior seminar curriculum into the planning of the sessions; relevancy of material, and timing of the sessions dictated what to teach and when to teach it. Our information literacy philosophy was to provide transferable skillsÐ skills that would be used long after graduation, regardless of career paths. Though the goals of the sessions were modest, the expectations of the librarian and chemistry faculty member were very high. The students were to understand thoroughly all components of a search, including why to conduct a literature search, when not to do a search, and, of course, how to find the material identified through a search. We were not as concerned that the students get the right answers as we were to see some development in the students' abilities to make decisions about database choice, terminology, citation choice, and when to search the Web. There were no ``trick'' questions.
CONCLUSION The findings from all three sessions (including the final session devoted to CAS Online) demonstrated that the traditional library instruction sessions offered in the past were no longer effective teaching models. Intrinsic variables of the chemical information instruction process had changed Ðthe demographics of the student population, the shift from graduate studies in the pure sciences toward the applied and professional science programs, the technology of the university infrastructure, the ever-radiating Web, and the like. The students and the instructional team were working on shifting ground. Our chemical information literacy sessions of the future would follow a process based on all of the aforementioned findings. It was also clear that chemical information would change and grow every few months. Consequently, the sessions would have to remain flexible in order to re-examine and address new technology and new sites while adhering to strict codes of evaluation. Many of the problems encountered were unrelated to new advances in computer technology. Problems such as terminology, choice of index, and the effective use of an automated catalog are longstanding and continue to be the focus of most library instruction
296
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
sessions. Terminology is a especially detailed problem in the area of chemistry. This should not be minimized. It is tempting to agree with the students and believe that the pervasiveness of material will undoubtedly result in some relevant references being retrieved. But comprehensiveness and evaluation will necessarily be lost in the mix. As most librarians are aware, it is very difficult to get class time for library instruction in any field. The limited time available must now be divided into ever smaller pieces; where once we concentrated on Chemical Abstracts or CAS Online and the catalog, we must now deal with multitudes of periodical indexes and the ever growing Web. Many of the problems encountered in this senior chemistry seminar are the result of the flux period in which most academic libraries are finding themselves. The confusion factor is a real pedagogical issue when dealing with the electronic library. It is quite probable that in 5 to 10 years, perhaps less, students will not be grappling with issues of Web-based, externally produced versus Web-grown information. It is probable that the distinction itself will mean less with more advanced Web search interfaces. As physical property databases become more and more prevalent and, it is hoped, less expensive, perhaps the concept of using a handbook as a faster and easier way of searching for this information will no longer be accurate. Certainly, the full-text electronic version will be the norm, thus eliminating the need to explain how it relates to its print equivalent. Students plagiarizing from electronic-based information will be doing so at their own risk, rather than as a result of their own ignorance. It was also concluded that librarians are fighting against the power of our own electronic resources. As was pointed out, students found their material, but they found it as a result of the power of the cross-database search mechanism of the search software. Unfortunately, it was rarely the most appropriate material. The students were unable to explain how or why they found the references; they only knew that they did. It is our belief that fully electronic and virtual libraries are still some time away. It may be two full cycles of graduates away. This means that instructors and information literacy experts must spend more time than ever before explaining the distinctions between print and electronic sources. We must also include evaluation as one of the main components of our instruction. Evaluation of material has always been part of library instruction, but in the new information environment students are not even able to see the visual cues of which their predecessors could take advantage. A student is able to deduce a fair amount of qualitative information just by glancing at a monograph or journal's title page, imprint, preface, editorial board, and so on. Even the heavily stamped circulation record at the back of a monograph tells a student that a book is heavily used. While much of this information is available in electronic editions, links, not to mention the unevenness of the links between Web resources, make these important details unnoticeable to all but the most discerning.12 These students were followed throughout the term, from their first week of class to the poster session display. The librarian and chemistry instructor together offered library sessions that had a very positive impact on the students' research methods. It is hoped that the impact will be relevant long after they have left this senior seminar class in chemistry. This class provided librarians with heretofore-unnoticed insights about the confusion surrounding the library and its virtual shadow. How much of the confusion is related to unfamiliarity with the library and how much can possibly be attributed to the transition to electronic access and material is only now being determined.
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
297
Unquestionably, the confusion factor is yet another issue to be aware of during the traditional 50-minute library instruction session. To ignore this factor would be to encourage ignorance at best and misuse of the material at worst. Neither option is an acceptable compromise in our effort to advance the partnership concept in higher education.
APPENDIX A Outline and Scheduling of Chemistry Information Literacy Sessions A.1 TOPICS DISCUSSED IN SESSION I (WEEK 3 OF SEMESTER) The following topics were discussed in the initial session: . . . . . . . . . . .
Demonstration and description of the library's electronic resources; catalog and indexes What is a literature search? Why do a literature search? Style manuals How to write an abstract and how to develop a poster session (articles and discussion) When is a search not appropriate or less appropriate than other forms of research? Parts of a search: defining a question (problems), choosing the appropriate database, analyzing the terminology, revising and expanding the terminology, and running a test search System-wide communication instruction (transferring data via e-mail) and accessing databases from a remote location Finding the material, including inter-library loan procedures Test period Questionnaire
A.2 TOPICS DISCUSSED IN SESSION II (WEEK 4 OF SEMESTER) After reviewing the results from the test and questionnaire, the remaining instructional sessions were modified, including the postponement of CAS Online and CrossFire until much later in the term. Historically, this second session was dedicated to CAS Online and Beilstein. . . . .
Review of answers from Session I Discussion of evaluation, plagiarism, and terminology Discussion of format and electronic delivery: full-text retrieval versus reference/ abstract retrieval Web browsing versus traditional bibliographic indexes
A.3 TOPICS DISCUSSED IN SESSION III (WEEK 10 OF SEMESTER) In earlier years, the third session did not exist. Session III is an abbreviated CAS Online session. Students receive another 5 hours of CAS Online in the next semester. The students
298
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
receive enough CAS Online instruction to add depth and/or timeliness to the topics assigned earlier in the term. It also serves as a foundation to their in-depth training the following semester.
APPENDIX B Test (Following Session I) Use the index you feel is the most appropriate to answer the following questions. Find at least one reference that uses all the information presented in the question. In the case of many answers being available in your answer set, use the evaluation criteria taught in today's session to choose an article that you think best fits your overall aim, i.e., titles that could best serve as a review of the literature or articles that could best serve to outline the issue(s). . . . . . .
arson and analytical chemistry the chemistry used in art preservation quinolines and synthesis; find an article in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1996 antifungal agents; find an article in the Journal of Organic Chemistry, 1995 radioactive waste disposal and Yucca Mountain (any article from 1994) the analysis of groundwater. Environmental Science and Technology, 1994
QUESTIONNAIRE The open-ended questionnaire included the following questions: . . . .
What would be the best way of finding a physical property for any given compound? Would you consider doing an on-line search for a property needed in a lab report? When would you use IRIS (the OPAC) in your research in Chemistry? How would you use IRIS for you Humanities or Social Science courses? Would you use a Web browser for chemistry research? Would you use one of the electronic indexes available on the university system? Would you use both? What would you expect the difference in retrieval results to be? Did this session teach you anything you could use for other courses, especially the non-science courses?
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Carol Collier Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1993), iv ± vi. 2. Mary Jane McNally and Carol C. Kuhlthau, ``Information Search Process in Science Education,'' in School Library Reference Services in the 90's: Where We are, Where We're Heading, edited by Carol Truett (The Haworth Press, 1994), 56. 3. Howard Dess, ``Coping with Chemical Nomenclature in the Age of Computers,'' Research Strategies 6 (Spring 1988): 65 ± 76.
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
299
4. The students were given CAS Online search time in week 10 of the term. The search time was used to determine whether they had missed valuable material in the searches done on other databases. 5. Lynn Westbrook and Robert Waldman, ``Outreach in Academic Libraries: Principle Into Practice,'' Research Strategies 11 (Spring 1993): 60 ± 65. 6. Cathy Moore-Jansen, ``What Difference Does It Make? One Study of Student Background and the Evaluation of Library Instruction,'' Research Strategies 15 (Winter 1997): 26 ± 38. 7. It should be mentioned that retrieval of physical properties and other basic data was demonstrated. It was demonstrated specifically for students who worked from remote sites, without access to the traditional reference sources. It was generally agreed that, although it was helpful to know how to retrieve this data, the use of a traditional print references source, such as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, was much faster and easier to use. 8. At the time of this writing there was one style manual dealing exclusively with electronic citationsÐXia Li and Nancy B. Crane, Electronic Style: A Guide to Citing Electronic Information (Westport: Meckler, 1993). The students were also referred to sections on ``other media'' in the main style manuals used at the university level. 9. Miguel Roig, ``Can Undergraduate Students Determine whether Text has been Plagiarized?'' Psychological Record 47 (Winter 1997): 113 ± 122. 10. Marsha Tate and Jan Alexander, ``Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for World Wide Web Resources,'' Computers in Libraries 16 (Nov. 1, 1996): 49 ± 55. 11. CINAHL, the nursing literature database, provided the best results for these practical articles on abstract writing and poster session preparation. This is an excellent source for educational and education mentor articles. 12. Tate, ``Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for World Wide Web Resources.''
BACKGROUND AND THEORY Electronic information literacy instruction in chemistry has remained relatively constant over the past 2 decades. The mainstay of instruction has been the teaching of Chemical Abstracts and its on-line version, CAS Online. A student's ability to prepare and perform a CAS Online search has long been the goal of most graduate and upper undergraduate library instruction programs in chemistry at the university level.
Direct all correspondence to: Veronica Calderhead, John Cotton Dana Library, University Heights, 185 University Avenue, Newark, NJ 07102, USA; E-mail: [email protected] RESEARCH STRATEGIES, Volume 16, Number 4, pages 285 ± 299. Copyright D 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0734 ± 3310
286
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
Over the past decade, however, much has changed. Universities have been mounting networked electronic databases in all disciplines. Numerous general and advanced science indexes, many of which provide some electronic material related to chemistry, are now available on networked systems to all registered students and faculty. The Web has also become part of every student's computer experience. Instructors involved in information and library literacy must now deal with new electronic material in addition to CAS and must address what appears to be an overwhelming confusion in the minds of students. Many students feel that the Web is a replacement for all of the library's electronic resources. Perhaps the newest and most aggravating issue that librarian educators face is the students' apparent confusion over what is Web-grown material, what is Web-based but externally produced, how to distinguish between the two kinds of sources, and, finally, how to evaluate any material regardless of its origins. Part of our job as librarians is to show our users what is different about searching the Web and what it has in common with searching earlier on-line systems and print indexes for chemistry material. Chemistry, because of its terminology and advanced search techniques, adds to the already complicated issue of distinguishing between the medium (i.e., the networked electronic indexes, print format, and Web-produced material) and the message (i.e., chemistry information). A remodeling of the basic library instruction in chemistry has become imperative. The need to understand and effectively address this confusion caused by the increase in electronic access has prompted many of us to take a very careful look at the content of our instructional programs. Teaching the print material, electronic resources, and the Web-based chemistry material is virtually impossible in the typical 90-minute library instruction class. The shift from bibliographic instruction to information literacy, with its emphasis on critical evaluation, is one of the best responses to the increased demands faced in library instruction. Instructors now need to focus on what it means to be information literate. The evaluation skills needed to determine into what category the information falls, followed by the determination of the value of the content, are now more important than ever. As this paper shows, information literacy can be successfully incorporated into a senior chemistry class, exposing the students to upwards of 10 hours of information material without jeopardizing other class material. The key, of course, is the committed cooperation of faculty and librarians.
THE LIBRARY INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR CHEMISTRY UNDERGRADUATES: HISTORY AND CHANGE In the past, the chemistry senior seminars were taught with an eye toward preparing students for eventual graduate studies in chemistry or research in the chemical industry. These sessions were carried out in the absence of the students having a long-term project, and searches were carried out in relative isolation from any project relevant to the students' own areas of interest. (Appendix A describes both past and present information literacy sessions.) Over time, both the faculty and librarians realized that this type of instruction did little to develop a comprehensive understanding in students of what it was they were really doing. The librarians came to realize what Carol Kuhlthau's research on the information search process in science education has shown empirically.1 Kuhlthau has demonstrated that
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
287
science students, with the use of an assignment, follow a predictable pattern of decreasing their confusion as they progress towards the completion of the assignment's requirements. Coincidentally, the Chemistry Department decided to modify the course in order to make it more relevant to the students. This was the opportune moment for the library to realize its own ideas, namely, to make the shift from ``rote'' instruction to information literacy, emphasizing evaluation and analysis of the various tools and resources available in academic libraries today. In brief, the librarian and the chemistry faculty member came to realize that a new method and process for teaching the senior chemistry seminar was needed. The ideal method for teaching this course would be to teach cooperatively, providing the librarian with more time to deal with the complexity of factors now surrounding chemical information literacy. As part of the restructured program, the term project assigned to the students was the preparation and mounting of a conference-quality poster session that included the review of material on a variety of chemistry topics. The poster session encapsulated all that was important. More specifically, this meant that the information literacy component combined the very focused aspects of assignment completion (see Appendix A) as developed by Kuhlthau with that of the practicing scientist's typical methodology of keeping abreast of the literature. This combination of models was not accidental. Undergraduates are chronologically between the two, i.e., between the high school science project and academic research. Preparatory tasks in research were all topics that the library has taught and managed, but this poster session project allowed the library to prepare and present the material in a timely manner for the students. The new focus would be on the retrieval and evaluation of material relevant to the students' schoolwork. The course curriculum and the information literacy instruction modules were a flexible mix of Kuhlthau's seven-stage model of the research process and the directed/un-directed research methods of scientists.2
The Appropriateness of Chemical Abstracts: When Should This Be Taught? There is no lack of literature dealing with bibliographic instruction and chemistry. There are excellent articles on how to search CAS Online and how to deal effectively with terminology in Chemical Abstracts.3 However, there is very little information available on the appropriateness of teaching CAS Online to undergraduates, especially to a generation of undergraduates sitting uncomfortably between electronic and print material in the library. While the appropriateness of this particular index was not as significant a concern in the past, primarily because CAS Online was, and is, the single best resource available to students of chemistry, the confusion surrounding all the issues mentioned above now makes CAS Online less appealing as an undergraduate resource. CAS Online has become one more variable to consider in an already complicated issue. It is important to mention that there was never any intention to disregard the single most comprehensive source in chemistry, i.e., Chemical Abstracts. It is, nevertheless, important to see this powerful resource within the context of a term-long course. CAS Online would be taught later in the term.4 The general consensus among instructors and faculty was that all the lessons learned about searching for and finding material would be quickly applied to Chemical Abstracts.
288
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
This decision to re-tool the teaching of information literacy would allow the instructors to minimize the confusion, while maximizing the use of databases already available in our university system's network. Emphasis would not be placed on teaching advanced search techniques; rather, it would be placed on the students' ability to understand the purpose of electronic retrieval, how best to achieve good results, which databases to use, the evaluation of the material retrieved, and equally important, when electronic retrieval is not necessary.
Information LiteracyÐA Life Skill The demographics of the campusÐurban, ethnically diverse, average undergraduate age of 26 years, varied educational experiencesÐled to the realization that this course on information literacy may be the last formal chance of teaching the mechanics of a library and its resources. It was imperative that it be done properly. The experiences of Robert Waldman and Lynn Westbrook at the University of Michigan reflected our particular situation: ``As current trends continue, however, academic library users are increasingly likely to be people of color, part-time or commuting . . . they still need information-finding skills and knowledge to meet the requirements of their course curricula, to gain a greater understanding of their readings and lectures, and to explore areas of personal interest. . . . Developing programs capable of introducing new information technologies to increasingly diverse user populations requires careful assessment of user needs and responsive implementation of `nonstandard' library services.''5 A more recent study by Cathy Moore-Jansen demonstrates that a student's background has less impact on his or her success in grasping BI concepts than does his or her interest in the topic being researched in the BI session.6 This chemical literacy and poster session project concurs with this study. In fact, it was the varied backgrounds of the students that instigated the use of relevant topics for each one to research. Chemistry, perhaps more than most disciplines, lends itself to finding relevancy at the individual level.
COMPONENTS OF OUR CASE STUDY Working Toward Information Literacy: Preparation and Methodology Appendix A outlines the actual scheduling and topics discussed in the sessions. As noted earlier, it was determined in the early stages of the literacy instruction sessions that ``less is more,'' and the amount of information to be presented to the undergraduates was scaled down. It is a very difficult decision to provide less rather than more information to students. The implications of teaching less would only affect the students; it has to be clear that any changes affect the students for the better. Readers will be able to decide for themselves if their chemistry undergraduates' situation warrants similar or distinct treatment from that described here. The findings of our case study on chemistry undergraduates and information literacy deal with the students' behavior and thought processes. Many of the findings were unexpected and, in some cases, surprising. These findings are based on the test results and answers provided by the students to an open-ended questionnaire that was given after the first 3-hour session. These findings pointed most assuredly to a confusion exhibited to
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
289
varying degrees by all the students. Even the most adept were confused by the links made during a complete electronic retrieval, i.e., electronic database search through to the electronic display and printing of the full-text version of the article. FINDINGS AFTER SESSION I The following analysis details the most apparent areas of confusion as evidenced in the students' test results, questionnaires, and actual poster sessions. Experienced Web Browsers but Unskilled Users of the Material. Students had far more experience browsing the Web than they had conducting electronic retrieval searches; however, they were unable to do anything thoughtful with the resources. The ease with which the students found the electronic resources, other than the index and abstract databases, is not surprising. It demonstrates their knowledge of maneuvering through the Web and their extensive use of software in general. It also demonstrates that many students were more comfortable with Web browsers than with the University's electronic indexes. Related to this is the discovery that students were very skillful in transmitting their findings. Few students, if any, had much difficulty in collecting, queuing, and transmitting their references via e-mail. Less time will be spent in future sessions demonstrating the transmission of data, especially since much of this is covered throughout the term as part of the seminar curriculum. The students use the Internet for pre-laboratory tests, for grade and mark retrieval, for registration, and for many other class-related assignments. Most students have little difficulty in this area; those who do have difficulty could be directed to library or computer services-based sessions on e-mail. Problems with Online Chemistry Terminology. The students were not ready for CAS Online and Beilstein. The students were experiencing terminology problems. Comprehensive and pertinent searches require a good grasp of terminology and search definition. Both the librarian and the chemistry faculty member were very clear that query definition was to be understood before progressing further. Cross-database search mechanisms can also inhibit the students' creative use of terminology. Students did not alter the terminology from database to database. One of the examples used in the class was related to art preservation and chemistry. Students were urged to use different terms in the Art Index than the terminology used in Current Contents or General Science Abstracts. It was stressed that the terminology used by art historians may differ from the terms used by chemists. It was also pointed out that this varied and diverse terminology for the same concept would apply to most topics, not just to the art history query. The students seemed to understand the reasoning in the classroom but did not apply this rationale to the searches. Inability to Choose Appropriate Databases. Related to terminology is the choice of what database to use and what language to use in that database. The test results demonstrate that the majority of respondents chose an incorrect or inappropriate database as their initial resource. Session I spent more time on the content of the different databases than on any other section of the curricula. Clearly, more time stressing the content of the databases or finding a more compelling way to teach the content component of the different databases was imperative. Most students found four references after Session I.
290
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
However, in analyzing their search strategies and database choices, it is evident that the success rate was primarily the result of myriad science databases combined with the University search system's robustness rather than the students' skills at searching. The system allows one strategy to be used in all available indexes. Confusion Regarding the Pursuit of the Article: No Connection between a Reference and the Actual Article. The current lack of uniformity in the electronic arena, combined with the flux period of print to electronic, fosters confusion. It came as no surprise that students were confused about what steps to take in order to find the material. In some cases, students believed that their work was complete once they had retrieved four relevant references, having not yet retrieved the actual articles. In other cases, links to the journals that provide full-text from their references left students wondering ``now what?'' One student's response was, ``I have all this information; why do I still have to go find the article in the stacks?'' After receiving the explanation that full-text was just that, and that there was no need, once the full-text had been retrieved, to pursue a particular reference any further, students then became fixed on the idea of full-text and would only pursue those articles that could be found in full-text form. Explaining that some databases have some full-text, while others only have a reference without an abstract, only added to the confusion. Assumption that Electronic Retrieval Is Always Better than Print. The students believed that electronic retrieval was best no matter what. Almost two-thirds of the students felt it would be easier to find physical properties in the electronic bibliographic indexes or on the Web than it would be to find them in the print material available in the library or in their laboratories.7 This problem was addressed in Session II. Open Learning. The e-mail postings of the test results and the questionnaires (used for instruction session evaluation and, subsequently, for this article) were displayed on the overhead projector during the class session. These results were projected as they arrived in the instructor's e-mail. The test results were displayed while the individual student defended his or her choice of database and search strategy. The class provided criticism and suggestions where appropriate. The test results were for public use; however, the questionnaire results were not displayed. The excitement of immediate results projected for all the classmates to see encouraged a more open and ultimately better learning experience. TOPICS AND FINDINGS FROM SESSION II As mentioned earlier, Session II had to be modified by both the librarian and chemistry professor in order to ensure full comprehension and minimize confusion. The modified session included a 1-hour review period. It also included discussions of reference and database evaluation, plagiarism, and terminology, full-text retrieval, and Web browsing versus the use of traditional bibliographic indexes. Both the librarian and the chemistry faculty member met with unanticipated results in some areas. Exposure to Web browsing had changed students' mind-sets about on-line searching. In earlier years of the library instruction, students from the pre-Web era were somewhat in awe of on-line database retrieval. The Web and its browsers have certainly preempted that initial excitement. The Web browser has provided students with experience
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
291
at searching. The experience, however, has usually been self-taught; students have not been instructed on how to do a search, nor have they been mindful of evaluating the material retrieved. In short, the results have been disappointing. Some of our students felt they did not need the networked indexes because they thought they could do better and faster searches on the Web. The materials they forwarded were disappointing. The only exception to the poor quality of Web-based submissions were reports from government laboratories whose Web sites are excellent and often provide full-text government reports. The findings after Session II are detailed below. Plagiarism and Evaluation. An unfortunate consequence of the students' confusion regarding new electronic resources has been the unintended path toward plagiarism. Students using Web-grown material do not seem to realize that the same rules of citing and attributing materials to their true sources apply regardless of the medium. For example, students' use of the government laboratory reports mentioned above gave us pause. A student had used material from the Web site introduction in addition to large sections taken from government technical reports. Upon questioning, he had absolutely no sense of having used something that was not his own. In fact, this same student's poster session had no references listed; he explained the absence of references by saying that he had used the ``Web,'' not journals or indexes. Students see information held between two covers as being distinctly different from the material that is provided or based on the Web. The students were asked to prepare their own abstracts for each of four articles retrieved. Many students forwarded pages of ``fluff'' from the Web. Clearly, they had read neither the abstracts nor the articles themselves. They seemed to think that the keyword matches were enough to satisfy us and that several pages of information were better than a succinct paragraph. In addition to providing the ``how-to'' information on abstract writing, we had also detailed electronic citation and other style manuals in Session I.8 Some students, just over 35 percent, submitted the abstract prepared by the original author verbatim as they had found it either in the index or heading of the article in question. The students who were guilty of this transgression admitted that they did not think that using an abstract from a database would be considered plagiarism. A recent study on the topic of direct plagiarism, though not looking at the same medium (electronic text), squarely supports our contention that undergraduates are confused when faced with other written works.9 There are indications that this confusion is compounded by media other than print. We were relieved that this problem arose sooner, rather than later; the classroom setting provided the ideal forum for correcting most of the unintentional misuse of another author's work. Plagiarism and how it relates to report and essay writing was discussed. Interestingly, a parallel session dealing with fraudulent data practices and other unethical laboratory practices was given to the students during one of their regularly scheduled chemistry seminars. This was another example of how both the librarian and chemistry professor were focusing on chemistry research, its relevance to the individual student's work, and the application of life skills outside the classroom. Confusion Surrounding All Aspects of Medium and Content: Citation-to Full-text Electronic, Print Full-text versus Electronic Full-text, Web Article versus Journal Article. Related to plagiarism resulting from confusion is the inability to recognize a scholarly article from Web-grown piece (not traditionally
292
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
published). Many students did not make the connection between citation and full-text where full-text was an option. They had been shown four full-text American Chemical Society journals: Biochemistry, Environmental Science and Technology, Journal of Physical Chemistry, and Chemical & Engineering News. They did not make the connection that the full-text was indeed the result of the reference they had retrieved the previous week. Most saw the full-text journal as being ``the Web.'' They thought they had just done a good Web search and been lucky with their results; they were not aware that the article was indeed a chemist's or team of chemists' end-product after long and careful research, refereed readings, and finally, publication in a scholarly society journal. This non-connection is in part due to the quickness and seamlessness of an electronic link. Where the citation was found in a non-American Chemical Society database, the students were still able to ``click'' their way to the full-text version of one of these extremely well-produced American Chemical Society journals. The speed with which a student can go from a bibliographic index to the electronic version of, for example, Environmental Science & Technology, does not provide the contextual connections made by the student who walks from the computer terminal with a print-out or notes in hand to the stacks to find the correct title and then volume. It could be argued that print indexes, with their abbreviated titles spelled out in full somewhere in the index volume, followed by a trip to the library catalog, and finally a journey to the stacks ensured better comprehension of the entire process. The process took longer and required some demonstrable links executed by the user. For example, the title abbreviation alone ensured that the student would refer to the section on ``periodicals indexed in this volume.'' The science undergraduates' questions and behavior demonstrated to us that something was being lost in their easy access to materials through these ``links.'' It is difficult to make a connection in the abstract. Many of the students had not yet used a scholarly journal in any of their undergraduate research papers. They did not really know what a journal was, much less what the electronic version was. It is part of the educational process to ensure that students know what the print and electronic versions are. This is a distinction that probably will not exist in the future. But, for this interim period, we are faced with this extra step in the teaching process. The issue of print versus electronic journals was discussed among the librarians. It was agreed that for now we would introduce the print version before the electronic. The rationale is that when anyone of us opens a journal for the first time, we can use the title page, editorial information, publisher reputation, and information as cues to what lies in the pages ahead. Articles that discuss the evaluation of Web pages strongly suggest using a print resource in order to demonstrate the different units used in evaluation.10 These visual cues are not immediately visible to the electronic user who is clicking between links; in poorer quality full-text versions, the cues are not visible anywhere in the article. How the introductory material in a monograph or a journal affects the behavior of a user, i.e., how he or she consciously or unconsciously uses that early in the evaluation process, is an issue outside the purview of this paper, but one that should be considered by those who teach library instruction. Continued Cooperation between Library and Teaching Faculty. Cooperation between librarians and teaching faculty was responsible for the success of this course. The librarian and the chemistry faculty member worked together to restructure the information
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
293
instruction program. These changes may result in permanent changes in both the chemistry program and in the information literacy classes in the library. This was an unexpected result for the library. The chemistry faculty member was in constant communication with the librarian and was prepared to alter project time frames and course content based on the librarian's recommendations. The best example of the cooperative element was the inclusion of another library session (in week 10) in order to demonstrate CAS Online and answer questions that may have come up during the preparation of the poster sessions. It was also agreed jointly that Beilstein and Gmellin, i.e., CrossFire, would not be taught in future basic sessions. Clearly, the students were confused already. Teaching the use of an additional electronic resource would only contribute further to the confusion. The chemistry instructor shared the students' development throughout the term with the librarian. This had the added benefit of allowing the librarian to offer unsolicited help to students whose work may have been behind schedule or less than par. Benefits like this are unquantifiable, but clearly strengthen cooperative ventures between the library and teaching faculty. The test results after Session I were instrumental in altering the course plan. The confusion apparent in the students' open-ended answers was discussed by the chemistry professor and the librarian. The test results were poor, although at the time the causes were not clear. It would have been irresponsible to continue according to the initial class plan. Diving into CAS Online knowing that students were unable to make either contextual (choice of database) or content evaluations (preference of article) was no longer an option, except in the cases of zero retrieval. This did not occur, but the CAS Online option was left open for students. These decisions were all made jointly by the librarian and the instructor.
THE COMPONENTS OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION LITERACY SESSION FOR SENIORS The re-tooling of these chemical information literacy sessions for chemistry seniors involved a significant investment of time and resources. A summary of and rationale for the infrastructure components of the sessions follow.
Time Investment As stated earlier, the library saw this chemistry class as the ideal project to realize our own changing ideas of information literacy. The Physical Sciences Librarian was often frustrated in the past by the limited time available. This being the case, preparation time for the new chemistry information seminars would be extremely important; choosing the correct material, ensuring a smooth and logical flow between topics, correct placement of hands-on time, combining the theoretical concept of evaluation with the practical application and so on, would all have to be planned over two to three sessions. After a careful review of the activities of the sessions, it was concluded that an additional 13 hours had been spent preparing and teaching this senior seminar class above the amount of time spent preparing and teaching sessions for the same level in prior years. It should be noted that approximately 75 percent of these hours were one-time-only time expenditures.
294
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
The most significant time investment made was in the area of finding new materials, e.g., how to prepare a poster session, how to write a scientific abstract, or how to give an oral presentation in the sciences, and in finding these kinds of articles. Care was taken not to over-burden the students with handouts; consequently, several hours were dedicated to finding the best examples of ``how-to'' articles. The librarian did literature searches in many different databases in order to identify and obtain these articles before reading them and then choosing those most appropriate for chemistry undergraduates.11 All of this took 3 to 4 additional hours of preparatory time. The materials used in this initial class will be available in the futureÐat least until they are no longer pertinent. Of course, there were 6 additional hours of information literacy instruction in the classroom. This does not include the time spent in the reference area helping students from the class pursue their research. It was estimated that this time did not vary substantially from the past, when semi-private CAS Online sessions were provided. In fact, the literacy sessions seemed to reduce the time students needed help in the reference area. As a gesture toward further cooperation with the chemistry faculty, as well as out of genuine interest, it was decided that the students' posters would be displayed in the library's exhibit area for several months after the completion of the spring semester. This was only done once the actual poster session presentations had taken place in the Chemistry Department. Collecting and mounting the exhibits took several additional hours. This time could be reduced by having the students deliver their own posters to the library or by having the poster session presentations take place in the library only.
Meetings The librarian and faculty member met formally six times throughout the session: one meeting preceded the term; two meetings took place during the sessions; one meeting followed each session; a final meeting was held to discuss the entirety of the term. There were numerous telephone calls, e-mail correspondences, and informal visits throughout the term. Meetings are essential during the early phases in order to keep the information literacy in step with the course philosophy and outline. These planning sessions will not be necessary in the future. E-mail and phone correspondence will suffice.
Scheduling of Literacy Sessions The most effective sessions are those that are wrapped around course content. We chose to provide the information literacy session in weeks three and four, with week 10 tentatively scheduled for an advanced session. The scheduling of the sessions in weeks three and four allows the professor to set the tone for the course and to gain important information about the students' capabilities and interests before the library sessions. For students' searches to be effective, it is essential that the students come to the first session with a topic in mind.
Tests and Questionnaire: Assessing Student Learning and Library Presentation Initially, only one brief test was planned to be administered at the end of Session II with a questionnaire of open-ended questions following the test. Typical of the evolving nature
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
295
of this senior seminar course, it was deemed necessary to include a test following the first session. The distinction between the tests and questionnaire is that the tests were designed to assess how well the students were grasping the material; the questionnaire was designed to see how well the librarian was presenting the material. (See Appendix B.) This feedback was very important for the library, giving us insight into how well students were grasping the vague concepts such as the Web versus electronic indexes available via the Web and full-text articles versus traditional articles versus citations and abstracts. These insights helped us determine the content of upcoming sessions. We wanted to see how well the medium and message were being deciphered as part of an ongoing review of our information literacy sessions.
Class Outlines The scope of each library instruction session was based upon the requirements for the students' term project, i.e., the poster session. The scope of the senior seminar course curriculum was developed before the first class of term by the chemistry professor with input from the librarian regarding the scheduling and content of the library sessions. It was important for the librarian to incorporate the senior seminar curriculum into the planning of the sessions; relevancy of material, and timing of the sessions dictated what to teach and when to teach it. Our information literacy philosophy was to provide transferable skillsÐ skills that would be used long after graduation, regardless of career paths. Though the goals of the sessions were modest, the expectations of the librarian and chemistry faculty member were very high. The students were to understand thoroughly all components of a search, including why to conduct a literature search, when not to do a search, and, of course, how to find the material identified through a search. We were not as concerned that the students get the right answers as we were to see some development in the students' abilities to make decisions about database choice, terminology, citation choice, and when to search the Web. There were no ``trick'' questions.
CONCLUSION The findings from all three sessions (including the final session devoted to CAS Online) demonstrated that the traditional library instruction sessions offered in the past were no longer effective teaching models. Intrinsic variables of the chemical information instruction process had changed Ðthe demographics of the student population, the shift from graduate studies in the pure sciences toward the applied and professional science programs, the technology of the university infrastructure, the ever-radiating Web, and the like. The students and the instructional team were working on shifting ground. Our chemical information literacy sessions of the future would follow a process based on all of the aforementioned findings. It was also clear that chemical information would change and grow every few months. Consequently, the sessions would have to remain flexible in order to re-examine and address new technology and new sites while adhering to strict codes of evaluation. Many of the problems encountered were unrelated to new advances in computer technology. Problems such as terminology, choice of index, and the effective use of an automated catalog are longstanding and continue to be the focus of most library instruction
296
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
sessions. Terminology is a especially detailed problem in the area of chemistry. This should not be minimized. It is tempting to agree with the students and believe that the pervasiveness of material will undoubtedly result in some relevant references being retrieved. But comprehensiveness and evaluation will necessarily be lost in the mix. As most librarians are aware, it is very difficult to get class time for library instruction in any field. The limited time available must now be divided into ever smaller pieces; where once we concentrated on Chemical Abstracts or CAS Online and the catalog, we must now deal with multitudes of periodical indexes and the ever growing Web. Many of the problems encountered in this senior chemistry seminar are the result of the flux period in which most academic libraries are finding themselves. The confusion factor is a real pedagogical issue when dealing with the electronic library. It is quite probable that in 5 to 10 years, perhaps less, students will not be grappling with issues of Web-based, externally produced versus Web-grown information. It is probable that the distinction itself will mean less with more advanced Web search interfaces. As physical property databases become more and more prevalent and, it is hoped, less expensive, perhaps the concept of using a handbook as a faster and easier way of searching for this information will no longer be accurate. Certainly, the full-text electronic version will be the norm, thus eliminating the need to explain how it relates to its print equivalent. Students plagiarizing from electronic-based information will be doing so at their own risk, rather than as a result of their own ignorance. It was also concluded that librarians are fighting against the power of our own electronic resources. As was pointed out, students found their material, but they found it as a result of the power of the cross-database search mechanism of the search software. Unfortunately, it was rarely the most appropriate material. The students were unable to explain how or why they found the references; they only knew that they did. It is our belief that fully electronic and virtual libraries are still some time away. It may be two full cycles of graduates away. This means that instructors and information literacy experts must spend more time than ever before explaining the distinctions between print and electronic sources. We must also include evaluation as one of the main components of our instruction. Evaluation of material has always been part of library instruction, but in the new information environment students are not even able to see the visual cues of which their predecessors could take advantage. A student is able to deduce a fair amount of qualitative information just by glancing at a monograph or journal's title page, imprint, preface, editorial board, and so on. Even the heavily stamped circulation record at the back of a monograph tells a student that a book is heavily used. While much of this information is available in electronic editions, links, not to mention the unevenness of the links between Web resources, make these important details unnoticeable to all but the most discerning.12 These students were followed throughout the term, from their first week of class to the poster session display. The librarian and chemistry instructor together offered library sessions that had a very positive impact on the students' research methods. It is hoped that the impact will be relevant long after they have left this senior seminar class in chemistry. This class provided librarians with heretofore-unnoticed insights about the confusion surrounding the library and its virtual shadow. How much of the confusion is related to unfamiliarity with the library and how much can possibly be attributed to the transition to electronic access and material is only now being determined.
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
297
Unquestionably, the confusion factor is yet another issue to be aware of during the traditional 50-minute library instruction session. To ignore this factor would be to encourage ignorance at best and misuse of the material at worst. Neither option is an acceptable compromise in our effort to advance the partnership concept in higher education.
APPENDIX A Outline and Scheduling of Chemistry Information Literacy Sessions A.1 TOPICS DISCUSSED IN SESSION I (WEEK 3 OF SEMESTER) The following topics were discussed in the initial session: . . . . . . . . . . .
Demonstration and description of the library's electronic resources; catalog and indexes What is a literature search? Why do a literature search? Style manuals How to write an abstract and how to develop a poster session (articles and discussion) When is a search not appropriate or less appropriate than other forms of research? Parts of a search: defining a question (problems), choosing the appropriate database, analyzing the terminology, revising and expanding the terminology, and running a test search System-wide communication instruction (transferring data via e-mail) and accessing databases from a remote location Finding the material, including inter-library loan procedures Test period Questionnaire
A.2 TOPICS DISCUSSED IN SESSION II (WEEK 4 OF SEMESTER) After reviewing the results from the test and questionnaire, the remaining instructional sessions were modified, including the postponement of CAS Online and CrossFire until much later in the term. Historically, this second session was dedicated to CAS Online and Beilstein. . . . .
Review of answers from Session I Discussion of evaluation, plagiarism, and terminology Discussion of format and electronic delivery: full-text retrieval versus reference/ abstract retrieval Web browsing versus traditional bibliographic indexes
A.3 TOPICS DISCUSSED IN SESSION III (WEEK 10 OF SEMESTER) In earlier years, the third session did not exist. Session III is an abbreviated CAS Online session. Students receive another 5 hours of CAS Online in the next semester. The students
298
RESEARCH STRATEGIES
Vol. 16/No. 4/1998
receive enough CAS Online instruction to add depth and/or timeliness to the topics assigned earlier in the term. It also serves as a foundation to their in-depth training the following semester.
APPENDIX B Test (Following Session I) Use the index you feel is the most appropriate to answer the following questions. Find at least one reference that uses all the information presented in the question. In the case of many answers being available in your answer set, use the evaluation criteria taught in today's session to choose an article that you think best fits your overall aim, i.e., titles that could best serve as a review of the literature or articles that could best serve to outline the issue(s). . . . . . .
arson and analytical chemistry the chemistry used in art preservation quinolines and synthesis; find an article in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1996 antifungal agents; find an article in the Journal of Organic Chemistry, 1995 radioactive waste disposal and Yucca Mountain (any article from 1994) the analysis of groundwater. Environmental Science and Technology, 1994
QUESTIONNAIRE The open-ended questionnaire included the following questions: . . . .
What would be the best way of finding a physical property for any given compound? Would you consider doing an on-line search for a property needed in a lab report? When would you use IRIS (the OPAC) in your research in Chemistry? How would you use IRIS for you Humanities or Social Science courses? Would you use a Web browser for chemistry research? Would you use one of the electronic indexes available on the university system? Would you use both? What would you expect the difference in retrieval results to be? Did this session teach you anything you could use for other courses, especially the non-science courses?
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Carol Collier Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1993), iv ± vi. 2. Mary Jane McNally and Carol C. Kuhlthau, ``Information Search Process in Science Education,'' in School Library Reference Services in the 90's: Where We are, Where We're Heading, edited by Carol Truett (The Haworth Press, 1994), 56. 3. Howard Dess, ``Coping with Chemical Nomenclature in the Age of Computers,'' Research Strategies 6 (Spring 1988): 65 ± 76.
Reflections on Confusion in Chemistry Information Learning
299
4. The students were given CAS Online search time in week 10 of the term. The search time was used to determine whether they had missed valuable material in the searches done on other databases. 5. Lynn Westbrook and Robert Waldman, ``Outreach in Academic Libraries: Principle Into Practice,'' Research Strategies 11 (Spring 1993): 60 ± 65. 6. Cathy Moore-Jansen, ``What Difference Does It Make? One Study of Student Background and the Evaluation of Library Instruction,'' Research Strategies 15 (Winter 1997): 26 ± 38. 7. It should be mentioned that retrieval of physical properties and other basic data was demonstrated. It was demonstrated specifically for students who worked from remote sites, without access to the traditional reference sources. It was generally agreed that, although it was helpful to know how to retrieve this data, the use of a traditional print references source, such as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, was much faster and easier to use. 8. At the time of this writing there was one style manual dealing exclusively with electronic citationsÐXia Li and Nancy B. Crane, Electronic Style: A Guide to Citing Electronic Information (Westport: Meckler, 1993). The students were also referred to sections on ``other media'' in the main style manuals used at the university level. 9. Miguel Roig, ``Can Undergraduate Students Determine whether Text has been Plagiarized?'' Psychological Record 47 (Winter 1997): 113 ± 122. 10. Marsha Tate and Jan Alexander, ``Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for World Wide Web Resources,'' Computers in Libraries 16 (Nov. 1, 1996): 49 ± 55. 11. CINAHL, the nursing literature database, provided the best results for these practical articles on abstract writing and poster session preparation. This is an excellent source for educational and education mentor articles. 12. Tate, ``Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for World Wide Web Resources.''