Overwhelming Information: using discovery layers to refine for relevance and readability.

Abstract Overwhelming Information: using discovery layers to refine for relevance and readability. Heidi Ing, Science & Engineering Liaison Librarian, Flinders University Masha Smallhorn, Jeanne Young, Karen Burke da Silva, Kate Deller-Evans, Faculty of Science & Engineering, Flinders University. Web-based search tools called discovery layers have been implemented in almost all of Australia and New Zealand s universities. Students enrolled in first year Biology and Engineering subjects at Flinders University are expected to use the university discovery layer to conduct independent literature searches. A study, conducted collaboratively between academics from the Faculty of Science and Engineering and their subject librarian, demonstrated that information literacy programs in place successfully overcame Googlitis, with a majority of students preferring to use the university discovery layer to locate scholarly information by week eight of their first semester. This study also identified a need to guide students towards information written at a reading level suitable for first years and relevant to their research needs. This session will invite audience interaction with a variety of discovery layers and encourage use of personal mobile devices to trial strategies to identify and access recent, relevant and readable search results. Implementation of discovery layers Before the implementation of the long-awaited next-generation catalogues (Yang & Wagner, 2010), university students searched a complex and disjointed system of information databases to access scholarly articles. The introduction of the discovery layer brought in one search box to rule them all (Rapp, 2012). By November 2013, 98% of Australia and New Zealand s universities had introduced a discovery layer to allow staff and students to access information for their teaching and research. 1 Discovery layers meet the expectations of users familiar with the convenience of Google, and are now able to access a university s scholarly resources through a single search (Jarrett, 2012; Burke, 2010). A 2009 US study found that the greatest challenge students have when conducting research in the digital age is related to their perceived inability to find desired materials, that findability was often the most intimidating part of course-related research and students were overwhelmed by all the choices (Head & Eisenberg, 2009). The introduction of discovery layers has increased the number of search results, but introduced search refinements, or facets, to limit those results. Participants in Fagan et al. (2012) found the discovery layer confusing or overwhelming due to the high number of search results, a finding that was supported by the 2013 study by Fyn, Lux & Snyder. Overcoming Googlitis According to a student research behaviour study conducted by ProQuest in 2007 (Burke, 2010), 60% of students considered Google the easiest place to start research, compared to just 1 Number of universities in Australia and New Zealand based on the thirty-nine Universities listed on the Australian Education Network s website <www.australianuniversities.com.au/list/> and the eight universities listed on the Universities New Zealand website < www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/nz-university-system>. 1

20% who used library databases. In contrast, 80% of students surveyed considered the library a superior source for quality, credible content and nearly 100% preferred the library for academic research and course assignments. This study found that users want to use the library, but they seek simplicity. It is important that information literacy programs overcome Googlitis in first year university students, as Google encourages, keyword searching at the expense of more powerful subject searching, it only accesses the Surface Web and primarily serves the advertisers rather than searchers (Leibiger, 2011). Google Scholar was launched as a beta service in November 2004 and provides are comparable service to academic literature databases (Badia, 2010; Tober, 2011; Beckmann, 2012) but lacks the search refinements available through discovery layers or specialist databases. Discovery layers respond to user expectations for a search tool similar to Google Scholar in terms of user experience and covering only authoritative resources from the libraries (Zhang, 2013). High quality scientific information Accessing and understanding peer-reviewed literature is at the very heart of the sciences (Pall, 2000). In the Faculty of Science and Engineering at Flinders University, first year students are encouraged to find peer-reviewed literature to support their experimental findings and for inexperienced students this can be a daunting task. Not only does this require them to search the literature, but they also have to be able to recognise high quality references, assess validity and be able to interpret them (Berzonsky & Richardson, 2008). In the School of Biological Sciences, we aim to show first year students how to support their results with appropriate references. We provide students with references as starting points for their research projects and equip them with the necessary information literacy skills to search databases. This exercise not only provides them with essential skills for first year, but also begins the process of embedding graduate qualities that students take away with them at the end of their degree. Independent learning, gaining and applying knowledge and team work are all graduate qualities that are easily obtained through a variety of university assessment tasks, such as exams and practical reports. The two most difficult graduate qualities to both assess or to determine whether students have acquired are crossing boundaries and ethical behaviour. The embedded information literacy program in first year Science and Engineering focuses on these two essential areas. Students need to understand the relevance of the articles that they obtain, cross into new areas of research and knowledge in order to fully appreciate the literature and they are taught explicitly about ethical behaviour with respect to citations and the avoidance of plagiarism. Contemporary computer science and engineering courses may offer meaningful activities for students to undertake (Loden & Biswas, 2010) that incorporate not only technical solutions, but an understanding of social, cultural, global and environmental responsibilities of professionals. All first year Flinders University students in the School of Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematics, are required to undertake the Engineers Without Borders (EWB) Challenge through the topic of Professional Skills. This involves them in the authentic task of creating low-cost solutions to a range of actual third-world needs, finding solutions to contaminated drinking water, inadequate shelter, or poor transportation. The topic aims to develop transferable skills and knowledge including project planning, feasibility and design, oral and written communication skills, meeting procedures, and working in a team. In order to complete their project report, the students must face the daunting task of accessing academic literature and applying it to real world problems. The quality and complexity of the material they must use is unlike anything they encountered in their secondary education. They must account for environmental and social issues and the human 2

factors in analysing and designing engineering or other complex systems; while acquiring competency in finding, citing and referencing material. Effective writing is a critical skill for undergraduate science students (Moore, 1994). To be able to write effectively, students need to be able to access and interpret the scientific literature. They need to be able to critically analyse the literature and discuss their own experimental results in the context of the relevant field of literature. It is assumed that students will acquire these skills at the undergraduate level so that when they progress to postgraduate studies or the work force they have developed strong writing and research skills (Venables & Summit 2003, Jerde & Taper 2004). At Flinders University first year Biology students develop their written communication skills through two scientific writing assignments and a research project, in which students are required to find relevant peerreviewed references. Key words for literature searching are discussed during laboratories and students conduct their own independent searches to find relevant articles. These articles help them to put their own results in the context of the wider field of literature. The information literacy training program for first year Science and Engineering students at Flinders University follows best practice: skills development is embedded into assessed curriculum and utilises a combination of online and face-to-face delivery (Yager, Salisbury & Kirkman, 2013). The use of video presentations and online quizzes allows students to work at their own pace and saves the librarian instruction time, while supplementary face-to-face sessions provide students with the opportunity, to ask questions and receive or provide feedback (Zhang, 2007). In 2013, academics from the Faculty of Science and Engineering and their subject librarian conducted a collaborative study, which investigated the information literacy awareness of first year university students in their first week and after eight weeks of study. A comparison of the paired survey responses pre- and post-information literacy training demonstrated an increase in student confidence in their ability to locate high quality scientific literature and to identify peer reviewed and high quality sources (Ing et al., 2013). There was also a significant decrease in the reported use of Google and an increase in the reported use of the discovery layer FindIt@Flinders and databases for accessing scientific literature. This switch in sources for accessing scientific literature demonstrates the effectiveness of the embedded information literacy program in stemming the tide of googlitis (Leibiger, 2011). The issue of readability was also highlighted from the survey responses, as 10% of students commented that it was difficult to find literature that they could understand (Ing et al., 2013). The academic level of the content retrieved by a discovery layer can be overwhelming to a first year university student. Google introduced a Reading Level refinement in December 2010 and Trove now has an Audience facet to refine article searches. As discovery layers and citation databases have not yet introduced a reading level facet, we need to develop strategies to assist those first year university students who are overwhelmed by information. Refining results for relevance and readability Search refinement through faceted browsing has become a key feature of internet and literature database searching, and now through discovery layers, it is a key feature of searching academic library collections (Niu et al., 2014). Efficient use of a discovery layer is reliant on use of search refinements through faceted browsing. Facets are used to narrow results; to reduce the information overload caused by the return of too many hits. Studies indicate that faceted navigation facilitates efficient retrieval, increases user speed in resource discovery, results in a higher resource discovery success rate, and increases user satisfaction (Ballard, 2011). A discovery layer, like Google, can produce an avalanche of search results to a simple keyword search, and it is librarians, through information literacy sessions, who teach 3

students to refine results and evaluate the sources they find (Little, 2012). A librarian s role in helping students develop search strategies and evaluate what is useful information has become even more important (Gross & Sheridan, 2011). Usability studies have demonstrated that the ability to refine results is appreciated, but training is required to ensure users make the most of these functions. A UNSW Library eyetracking usability study of Primo, found that students seemed not to notice the refine my results panel, a similar result found by a 2008 eye-tracking study by the British Library (Fletcher 2011). A QUT Library study showed that there was a tendency to view a set of results then change search terms instead of using the refinement facets (Slaven, Ewers & Vollmerhause, 2011). The Flinders University web discover product, Primo Central, was launched in mid-2010 (Vaughan, 2011) and in 2011 Flinders University Library conducted a usability study which aimed to uncover what University staff and students would like to see and use in a next-generation search interface (Jarrett, 2012). This study found that students appreciated the search refinement options; of 85 respondents, 72 indicated they had used the Show only or Refine my results facets, with Full text online and Subject being the most useful respectively. It was recommended that the use of facets to refine results should be emphasised in information literacy training. In this nuts-and-bolts session, we will encourage participants to use their personal mobile devices to analyse their institution s discovery layer from the perspective of first year university students. Session participant will trial strategies to identify and access recent, relevant and readable search results. We will use web-based audience participation tools to gather feedback and evaluate the success of these strategies. Questions for discussion: How does the discovery layer at your institution allow students to refine their search results? Are you able to refine your search results to find peer-reviewed articles that are recent, relevant and readable? References Badia, G. (2010). Google Scholar Out-Performs Many Subscription Databases when Keyword Searching. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5(3), 39-41. Ballard, T., & Blaine, A. (2011). User search-limiting behavior in online catalogs: Comparing classic catalog use to search behavior in next-generation catalogs. New Library World, 112(5/6), 261-273. Beckmann, M., & Wehrden, H. (2012). Where you search is what you get: literature mining Google Scholar versus Web of Science using a data set from a literature search in vegetation science. Journal of Vegetation Science, 23(6), 1197-1199. Berzonsky, WA and KD Richardson (2008). Referencing Science: Teaching Undergraduates to Identify, Validate, and Utilize Peer-Reviewed Online Literature. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 37: 8-13. Burke, J. 2010, 'Discovery versus Disintermediation: the new reality driven by today s end - user', paper presented to the VALA2010: connections, content, conversations. 15 th biennial conference and exhibition, Melbourne, Victoria Fagan, J.C., Mandernach, M., Nelson, C., Paulo, J. and Saunders, G. (2012), Usability test results for a discovery tool in an academic library, Information Technology & Libraries, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 83-112. Fyn, A. F., Lux, V and Synder, Robert J. (2013). Reflections on teaching and tweaking a discovery layer. Reference Services Review, 41(1), 113-124. 4

Gross, J., & Sheridan, L. (2011). Web scale discovery: The user experience. New Library World, 112(5), 236-247. Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2009). What today s college students say about conducting research in the digital age. Project information literacy progress report. available at: http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/pil_progressreport_2_2009.pdf Ing, H., Smallhorn, M., Young, J., Burke Da Silva, K. and Deller-Evans, K. (2013). Strengthening the information literacy skills of first year science and engineering students for 21st century learning. In Bricks to Bytes? Adelaide: University of Adelaide. 8th HERGA Conference. University of Adelaide. Sep 2013 Jarrett, K. (2012). FindIt@ Flinders: User Experiences of the Primo Discovery Search Solution. Australian Academic & Research Libraries. 43(4), 278-299 Jerde, C.L. &Taper M.L. (2004). Preparing Undergraduates for Professional Writing. Journal of College Science Teaching 33(7): 34-37. Leibiger, C. A. (2011). Google Reigns Triumphant?: Stemming the Tide of Googlitis via Collaborative, Situated Information Literacy Instruction. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian, 30(4), 187-222. Little, G. (2012). Thinking About Discovery Layers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 346-347. Moore, R. (1994). Writing as a tool for learning biology. Bioscience 44(9): 613-613. Niu, X., Zhang, T., & Chen, H. L. (2014). Study of User Search Activities with Two Discovery Tools at an Academic Library. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, (Accepted Manuscript). Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A. & Wrede, C. (2006). The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study. Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127-141. Pall, ML (2000). The value of scientific peer-reviewed literature in a general education science course. The American Biology Teacher 62(4): 256-258. Rapp, D. (2012). Discovery at Dartmouth: the Ivy League university was a beta partner for the Summon discovery service in 2008. LJ asked Dartmouth administrators about their experiences on the cutting edge. Library Journal, 137(3), 36. Shultz, M. (2007) Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 95(4), 442 445. Tober, M. (2011). PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus or Google Scholar Which is the best search engine for an effective literature research in laser medicine?. Medical Laser Application, 26(3), 139-144. Vaughan, J. (2011). "Ex Libris Primo Central." Library Technology Reports 47: 39-47. Venables, A. & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing Scientific Essay Writing Using Peer Assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 40(3): 281-290. Yang, S. Q., & Wagner, K. (2010). Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards next generation catalog?. Library Hi Tech, 28(4), 690-709. Yager, Z., Salisbury, F., & Kirkman, L. (2013). Assessment of information literacy skills among first year students. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 4(1). 59-71. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v4i1.140 Zhang, L., Watson, E. M., & Banfield, L. (2007). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction versus face-to-face instruction in academic libraries: a systematic review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 478-484. Zhang, T. (2013). User-centered evaluation of a discovery layer system with google scholar. In Design, User Experience, and Usability. Web, Mobile, and Product Design, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 313-322. 5