An Exploratory Survey of Reference Source Instruction in LIS Courses

The two most frequently used methods of presenting electronic sources were (1) modeling online searching in the classroom, and (2) discussing searching electronic sources in general terms, with the assumption that students would conduct their own searches at a later time. As shown in table 4, on a scale of one to five, search modeling had the highest average frequency of use in general courses (4.67), subject-specific courses (3.93), and online courses (3.63). However, respondents reported using this method more in general courses than in subject-specific courses. The most prevalently used method for online courses was the discussion method. Responding in the “Other” category, two instructors noted that they demonstrated the search process, which students immediately replicated at their own workstations. Additional teaching methods included having students deliver class presentations of databases, creating scripts to walk students through searching, using workbooks for products such as the Dialog search product, and focusing on static database features such as “help,” “how to,” and “about” features.

Table 4. Methods for Teaching about Electronic Sources

Two of the open-ended survey questions asked about methods used for comparing reference sources. The question about comparison of print resources was answered by thirty-four respondents. The two main categories identified by 38 percent of respondents (thirteen each), were:

• assigning students to complete exercises that require use of multiple sources (“A practice reference question will ask them [students] to find the answer to a question and compare either two sources given or one given and then to chose another on their own.”); and
• using the professionally established criteria for reference source evaluation as a base for comparison. (“I use standard evaluation criteria [scope, treatment, format, arrangement, authority, cost, relation to similar works, special features] as a starting point.”)

In-class comparison of physical sources and use of source representations (slides, handouts, and transparencies) were reported by only two respondents each. Three respondents shared that comparison of print sources is not what they typically focus on in their reference courses.

The open-ended question about methods used to compare electronic sources was answered by thirty-six respondents. For fifteen (42 percent) respondents, methods for comparison of electronic and print sources were identical. Many instructors (thirteen, 36 percent) also reported using specific evaluation criteria that are similar to criteria applied to print sources (for example, access, content, cost, and organization). Some evaluation criteria were unique only to electronic sources, specifically, comparison of search processes, interface design, and usability issues; these criteria were mentioned by eleven respondents (31 percent). Similar to comparison of print sources, a number of respondents (nine, 25 percent) relied on students to perform exercises on their own and to give presentations. Six instructors (17 percent) mentioned in-class demonstrations and class discussions as a tool of comparison. Two respondents made a specific point that they compare electronic sources with print sources. Finally, for four instructors, comparison of electronic sources was not an important instructional method.

Most Effective and Most Challenging Aspects about Teaching Reference Sources

Responding to an open-ended question, thirty-five instructors identified methods that they considered particularly effective for teaching about print sources. The majority of respondents (twenty-eight, 80 percent) used hands-on assignments, often combining them with in-class presentations by students. Here is an illustrative
example:

Teaching them in context. I make it a major function of the fieldwork. I don’t think it’s effective to hand books around to discuss reference “genres” like index, bibliography, biography, etc. You need to really use these sources [emphasis added] to understand them. Handling the book isn’t enough.

In-class discussion of print sources was reported as the most effective method by six respondents (17 percent), and organized site visits to a library by only three (9 percent).

For the majority of respondents to the open-ended questions (twenty-two, 61 percent), students’ hands-on assignments and follow-up presentations were the most effective teaching methods for electronic reference sources. In-class search demonstrations performed by instructors or vendor representatives were a distant second (ten, 28 percent). Seven respondents (19 percent) commented that the same methods that are effective for print sources also work well for electronic sources. Additional teaching methods, identified by only one or two instructors, included: in-class guided exercises; integration of discussion on print and electronic sources; students’ group work; and fieldwork with observation of librarians at work. Two respondents reported that they have not yet found an effective method for teaching electronic reference, as illustrated by the following answer:

I consider this still to be an open issue for me and for my students. Electronic-resource selection is an ongoing problem. This is an area in which I am always looking for new ways to facilitate learning.

In addition, two open-ended questions asked reference instructors to identify the main challenges they face about teaching reference sources in print and electronic formats. These were answered by thirty-five and thirty-six instructors respectively.

Table 5 provides the complete list of categories for print resources and their frequency distribution in respondents’ answers. Most respondents (thirteen, 36 percent) reported challenges associated with some type of access to the sources themselves. The most prominent problem was access to print sources in courses that are completely Web-based:

• “Getting student access. Web-based courses for distance learning students make it impossible to ensure they have access to print resources.”
• “Since my class is almost entirely online I hope all students have access to titles I refer to here in their home library. Access to standard titles is usually not a problem, but I cannot assume all students have seen a more unusual title.”

Table 5. Challenges in Presenting Print Sources

Another prevalent category (ten, 28 percent) was the efforts instructors need to invest in making students realize the value of print sources. As one of the respondents explained it, “Nobody wants to deal with paper anymore.” Of the responses coded in this category, eight focused on the challenges that instructors face in convincing students that “paper-based reference sources are still valuable; that going to the Web may not be the best strategy.” For the remaining five respondents in this category, the key challenge was how to reach the students and keep their interest in developing deeper knowledge of the content:

Deciding what analogies/examples to use to make the points I wish to make alive and stick in students’ minds. Knocking down superficial understanding and “layperson” misperceptions to be able to tackle more sophisticated knowledge.

Additional challenges included selection of which sources to cover in the class (four, 11 percent) and development of sample reference questions (two, 6 percent). Three reference instructors reported that there were no major unique challenges in teaching print sources.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5