Fostering Self-Regulated Learning at the Reference Desk

According to Nahl-Jacobovits and Jacobovits, students need assistance in breaking the research process up into steps, each with a specific motivation, that build upon each other to lead students toward the ultimate goal of completing the research project.⁴¹ It is up to the librarian, as one of Pintrich and Zusho’s “contextual factors,” to provide this modular instruction, teaching students how to maintain the motivation that will keep them on track toward completing their research.⁴² The reference librarian can mitigate student frustration and teach a more realistic view of the research process by mentioning (or even demonstrating) common errors as well as by providing strategies to correct those errors.⁴³

Until a student develops this metacognitive ability to monitor his or her search activities and provide feedback to him or her self, the librarian can do this within the reference interaction. Reference librarians can, and frequently do, use such tutoring techniques as pumping, splicing, prompting, and summarizing to encourage students to verbally elaborate their search process.⁴⁴ When students have trouble recognizing successful searches or lists of relevant citations, librarians provide confirmation of these positive outcomes. This is the nature of tutor scaffolding in the context of the reference interaction; the scaffolding remains in place as the student practices self-regulated learning within the library. The true value of the instructional reference interaction is that it can, in the words of Kuhlthau, “offer intervention that matches the user’s actual level of information need.”⁴⁵

Limits to the Self-Regulated Learning Approach

Needless to say, it is not realistic to expect that self-regulated learning can be incorporated into every interaction at the academic reference desk. As mentioned earlier, the librarian must pay attention to student verbal and nonverbal cues and feedback, including asking the student directly whether he or she desires this type of in-depth assistance.⁴⁶ Rettig breaks down patron reference needs into three main types: information extracted from an information source, instruction in the use of the source, and provision of the source itself.⁴⁷ It is up to the librarian to figure out, at the moment of need, which of these the patron prefers.

One also should not discount the role of motivation as a factor in how effective instruction in self-regulated learning will be at the reference desk. Pintrich and Zusho found that student self-regulation was frequently tied to a feeling of connection to or personal investment in a task.⁴⁸ Narciss found that the benefits of informative tutoring feedback on student motivation and achievement were negligible if students were free to disengage from their tasks.⁴⁹ Given that undergraduate research frequently involves required assignments rather than self-directed exploration, it is likely that the motivation of the student will play a major factor in the efficacy of any reference instruction.

Finally, perhaps due to the ubiquity of Google and similar Internet search engines, today’s undergraduates often settle for the first sources they retrieve in a search, whether in an online catalog, database, or search engine, regardless of the level of quality or relevance, rather than take the time and effort to refine keyword search strategies or read past the first page of retrievals. Both at the reference desk and in the classroom, this tendency toward settling for the most results for the least effort is extremely difficult to change.⁵⁰ Furthermore, Young and Von Seggern have noted that undergraduates in the Millennial generation (and even graduate students and faculty) are very conscious of the amount of time their research takes, leading them to cut corners whenever possible.⁵¹ Carver and Scheier have discussed how tasks students have little desire to do become even more time-dependent as students seek to minimize the time spent completing them.⁵² The reference librarian would do well to keep in mind this and other limits to undergraduate patience.

Conclusion

All research to date suggests that, whether or not instruction is considered to be appropriate at the reference desk, it does take place. What has not been discussed at length in the literature is the form that this instruction takes. Even when reference librarians feel they are not overtly instructing, their interpersonal interactions with students indicate otherwise. This article argues that this librarian-supplied feedback and reinforcement is an essential part of the research process of undergraduates. Furthermore, the self-regulated learning context outlined here not only provides support for the tutorial aspect of reference service, but also ties it much more closely to classroom information literacy instruction.

Eadie has stated that “the problem with user education is that it provides the answer before the question has arisen.”⁵³ On a related level, it may be contended that the question-answering approach to reference services frequently presumes to provide an answer before the student has had a chance to formulate the question(s). As Graesser, Person, and Magliano have stated, “the process of constructing a question is iteratively distributed over time.”⁵⁴ Taylor further argues that “it is through [question] negotiation that an inquirer presumably resolves his problem [and] begins to understand what he means.”⁵⁵ Therefore, insofar as the reference interview is a collaborative process of clarifying and focusing student questions, it should be treated as an educational process.⁵⁶ By being more aware of their instructional role at the reference desk, librarians can, in turn, consciously tailor their feedback to students to more effectively encourage self-regulation, and hence information literacy.

Correspondence concerning this column should be addressed to: Lori Arp, Assistant to the University Librarian, Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Dr., Evanston, IL 60208; L-arp@northwestern.edu.

Beth S. Woodard is Staff Development and Training Coordinator and Reference Librarian Head at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 300 Library, 1408 W. Gregory Dr., Urbana, IL 61801; bswoodar@uiuc.edu. Edward J. Eckel is Assistant Professor, University Libraries, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

References and Notes

1. American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, Final Report, 1989 (accessed Sept. 5, 2006).
2. Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, 2000 (accessed Apr. 19, 2006).
3. P. R. Pintrich and A. Zusho, “The Development of Academic Self-Regulation: The Role of Cognitive and Motivational Factors,” in Development of Achievement Motivation, eds. A. Wigfield and J. Eccles (San Diego, Calif.: Academic Pr., 2002), 250.
4. Anita Schiller, “Reference Service: Instruction or Information,” Library Quarterly 35 (Jan. 1965): 52-60.
5. Ibid., 57. “The instructional aspect has persisted, diminishing the effectiveness of information service to the extent that it serves as a substitute for it, offering less service instead of more, and leaving the library clientele unsure of just what kind of service is being offered” (54).
6. Ibid., 60.
7. Nicholas J. Belkin, “Anomalous State of Knowledge As a Basis for Information Retrieval,” The Canadian Journal of Information Science 5 (May 1980): 133-43; Carol C. Kuhlthau, “Inside the Search Process: Information Seeking from the User’s Perspective,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42 (June 1991): 361-71; Carol C. Kuhlthau, “Developing a Model of the Library Search Process: Cognitive and Affective Aspects,” RQ 28 (Winter 1988), 232-42.
8. William A. Katz, Introduction to Reference Work (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997), 224.
9. Pauline Wilson, “Librarians As Teachers: The Study of an Organization Fiction,” Library Quarterly 49 (Apr. 1979): 147.
10. Constance R. Miller and James R. Rettig, “Reference Obsolescence,” RQ 25 (Fall 1985): 52-58.
11. Brian Nielsen, “Teacher or Intermediary: Alternative Professional Models in the Information Age,” College & Research Libraries 43 (May 1982): 183-91.
12. Robert Wagers, “American Reference Theory and the Information Dogma,” Journal of Library History 13 (Summer 1978): 279.
13. William A. Katz, Introduction to Reference Work (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002); James Rettig, “A Theoretical Model and Definition of the Reference Process,” RQ 18 (Fall 1978): 19-29; James Rice, “Library-Use Instruction with Individual Users: Should Instruction Be Included in the Reference Interview,” Reference Librarian 10 (Spring/Summer 1984): 75-84.
14. Rice, “Library-Use Instruction with Individual Users.”
15. Benita J. Howell, Edward B. Reeves, and John Van Willigen, “Fleeting Encounters –A Role Analysis of Reference Librarian-Patron Interaction,” RQ 16 (Winter 1976): 124-29.
16. Ibid.
17. Gillian Michell and Roma M. Harris, “Evaluating the Reference Interview: Some Factors Influencing Patrons and Professionals,” RQ 27 (Fall 1987): 96.
18. Ibid.
19. Vanette M. Schwartz, “The Reference Interview: Including Instruction?” Illinois Libraries 73 (Nov. 1991): 536.
20. Virginia Witucke and C. J. Schumaker, “Analyzing Reference Activities: The Affordable Solution,” RQ 31 (Fall 1991): 63.
21. Miller and Rettig, “Reference Obsolescence.”
22. Belkin, “Anomalous State of Knowledge”; Kuhlthau, “Inside the Search Process”; Kuhlthau, “Developing a Model of the Library Search Process.”
23. Lynn Kennedy, Charles Cole, and Susan Carter, “The False Focus in Online Searching: The Particular Case of Undergraduates Seeking Information for Course Assignments in the Humanities and Social Sciences,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 38 (Spring 1999): 267-73.
24. James Elmborg, “Teaching at the Desk: Toward a Reference Pedagogy,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 2 (July 2002): 459. Elmborg also argues very strongly for the teaching role of the reference desk by relating reference interactions to the one-on-one interactions that take place in writing conferences (for undergraduates). He makes particular reference to the following book: Muriel Harris, Teaching One-to-One: The Writing Conference (Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1986). On page 458 of his article, he quotes Harris: “The job of the writing teacher, and, I would argue, the reference librarian, ‘is to encourage … exploration, to help students move through the process of discovery by talking with them, asking questions, and generally keeping up the momentum of exploration.’”
25. Kuhlthau, “Inside the Search Process.”
26. Pintrich and Zusho, “The Development of Academic Self-Regulation,” 250.
27. Deborah L. Butler and Philip H. Winne, “Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis,” Review of Educational Research 65 (Fall 1995): 245-81.
28. Stellan Ohlsson, “Learning from Performance Errors,” Psychological Review 103 (Apr.1996): 241-62.
29. Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.
30. Ibid., 1.3.c.
31. Ibid., 2.4.a.
32. Ibid., 2.4.b-c.
33. Ibid., 2.5.
34. Butler and Winne, “Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning.”
35. Pintrich and Zusho, “The Development of Academic Self-Regulation,” 258.
36. Ibid., 279.
37. Douglas C. Merrill et al., “Tutoring: Guided Learning by Doing,” Cognition and Instruction 13, no. 3 (1995): 340.
38. A. C. Graesser, N. K. Person, and J. P. Magliano, “Collaborative Dialogue Patterns in Naturalistic One-to-One Tutoring,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 9 (Dec. 1995): 509.
39. Merrill et al., “Tutoring: Guided Learning by Doing,” 353.
40. James Rettig, “Self-Determining Information Seekers,” RQ 32 (Winter 1992): 161.
41. Diane Nahl-Jakobovits and Leon A. Jakobovits, “Learning Principles and the Library Environment,” Research Strategies 8 (Spring 1990): 74-81.
42. Pintrich and Zusho, “The Development of Academic Self-Regulation,” 279.
43. Nahl-Jakobovits and Jakobovits, “Learning Principles and the Library Environment.,
44. Graesser et al., “Collaborative Dialogue Patterns.” Pumping refers to the way in which a tutor, through head nods and affirmations, encourages a student to expand upon his or her answers. A tutor can also prompt a student with unfinished questions or incomplete statements to which the student supplies the missing word or phrase. Splicing occurs whenever an instructor gives a correction by verbally “splicing” the correct idea or concept into the student’s proffered answer. Finally, the tutor can summarize a student’s response, so that the student can evaluate its “rightness” or “wrongness,” thereby practicing metacognition.
45. Kuhlthau, “Developing a Model of the Library Search Process,” 241.
46. Marilyn Domas White, “The Dimensions of the Reference Interview,” RQ 20 (Summer 1981): 373-81; Rice, “Library-Use Instruction with Individual Users,” 75-84.
47. Rettig, “A Theoretical Model and Definition of the Reference Process.”
48. Pintrich and Zusho, “The Development of Academic Self-Regulation,” 250-84.
49. Susanne Narciss, “The Impact of Informative Tutoring Feedback and Self-Efficacy on Motivation and Achievement in Concept Learning,” Experimental Psychology 51, no. 3 (2004): 214-28.
50. Thomas Mann, Library Research Models: A Guide to Classification, Cataloging, and Computers (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1993). See all of chapter 8 “The Principle of Least Effort,” 91-102, for a comprehensive discussion of this concept; George Kingsley Zipf, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1949).
51. Nancy J. Young and Marilyn Von Seggern, “General Information Seeking in Changing Times: A Focus Group Study,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 41 (Winter 2001): 159-69.
52. Charles S. Carver and Michael F. Scheier, “Origins and Functions of Positive and Negative Affect: A Control-Process View,” Psychological Review 97 (Jan.1990): 19-35.
53. Tom Eadie, “Immodest Proposals: User Instruction for Students Does Not Work,” Library Journal 115 (Oct. 15, 1990): 45.
54. Graesser et al., “Collaborative Dialogue Patterns,” 506.
55. Robert S. Taylor, “Question Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 29 (May 1968): 194.
56. Jeffrey Pomerantz, “Collaboration As the Norm in Reference Work,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 46 (Fall 2006): 45-55.

Pages: 1 2