Search Process

A Critical Reflection of my Search Process

This reflection serves to relate my own process of searching for relevant information for my Information Learning Activity (ILA) through the theoretical and conceptual lens of: a) Brunner’s Inquiry Process model; b) Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s (1990) Big Six information literacy process; and c) Kuhlthau’s (1991) Information Search Process (ISP) model. Each of these models will be described and discussed in reference to my own experience of information seeking in order to evaluate the influence and relevance of these models to 21^st century students in today’s information-rich society.

Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) is a term that I am familiar with, more so from my university studies than from the experience I have had in the classroom. The term was used habitually in my primary teaching pedagogical and curriculum subjects and thought of highly as a pedagogical method of learning in the primary school context. However, I did not hear the term used often in relation to higher education learning as a teaching method that lecturers or tutors use with university students. Therefore, when the opportunity presented itself in CLN650 to observe an inquiry-based ILA in a tertiary education context, I jumped at the chance.

My understanding of the nature of IBL is one that aligns with Kuhlthau, Maniotes and Caspari (2007) description of a pedagogical approach that encourages students to “find and use a variety of sources of information and ideas to increase their understanding of a problem, topic or issue” (p. 2). This approach to learning places emphasis on students actively searching for and constructing knowledge and meaning through a variety of research methods and resources. Integral to IBL is the use of student-generated questions to prompt the inquiry. This ensures that the learning experience is authentic and relevant to the student.

Brunner’s Inquiry Process model (see Figure 1), breaks down the steps of IBL into a four-part process that centred on posing a number of useful and thoughtful questions to students. The arrows circling each of the four stages indicate a “back and forth process whereby sometimes a bump or obstacle is encountered and requires learners to backtrack to an earlier step for re-evaluation” (Wurdinger & Carlson, 2010, p. 40). While this planning framework was designed for use with primary and secondary students, I as a postgraduate student, found Brunner’s questions to be thought-provoking and a highly relevant diagram of reference during my information search process. The simplistic but structured format allowed me to see how my ISP could be broken-down into manageable parts, while also allowing me to view the ‘big picture’ so I knew the direction I was heading. While I tended to self-reflect on each of the questions before moving on to the next stage, I can see how the cyclical nature of the framework can enable students to go back and forth to revisit questions during the inquiry process. Specifically, I paid particular attention to the third and fourth question in the Find Resources stage which prompted me to assess the validity of my resources. These are key questions to any information search, particularly in the current digital age where users are overloaded with misinformation. These questions highlight how important it is for 21^st century learners to know how to evaluate sources critically and have the information literacy skills necessary to discern biased and misused information. Information literacy skills will be discussed in the following section from the perspective of Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s (1990) Big6 information process.  

 

Figure 1: Brunner’s Inquiry Process Model. Reprinted from Youth Learn, How to: Inquiry, C. Brunner, n.d., Retrieved September 1, 2012, from http://www.youthlearn.org/learning/planning/lesson-planning/how-inquiry/how-inquiry.

According to the Australian School Library Association (ASLA) and the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) (2009) information literacy is a process that requires students to access, process, organise, create and present information in a range of ways and for a variety of purposes. This information process requires a “staged methodology that is cyclical in nature” (Wall & Ryan, 2010, p. 32) where students can move backwards and forwards between the steps according to the requirements of the information task. A well-known approach to teaching information literacy is by scaffolding Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s (1990) Big6 information problem-solving model. The model defines information problem-solving in terms of a systematic six-step research process, comprised of: task definition, information seeking strategies, location and access, use of information, synthesis, and evaluation (see Figure 2). Each of these steps has two subskills that define the key aspects of that phase (see Figure 3).



Figure 2: The Big6 information literacy model. Reprinted from Parse How Design, J. & K. Visocky O’Grady, 2012, Retrieved September 2, 2012, from http://parse.howdesign.com/professional_development/process-this/.



In comparison to Kuhlthau’s (2004) ISP model (see below) which presents the information search process from the viewpoint of the searcher, the Big6 model is a more generalised view  of the information process. It can be used by students to guide their actions and develop their critical thinking skills. I found this to be the case during my ISP, where I used the model as a reference to map my information process. The six-step cycle proved to be an effective metacognition scaffold that prompted me to evaluate the information I gathered in relation to the questions I generated in the task definition stage. It also encouraged me to think about the strengths and weaknesses of my information-seeking strategies and summarising skills. As a postgraduate student and novice researcher, I found the steps in the framework to be very logical and transferable. This is due to the fact that the Big6 model was designed to develop the information literacy of primary and secondary students. Hence, the model would seem like common-sense to those who have had experience conducting research before.



Figure 3: The steps and subskills of the Big6 information literacy model. Adapted from Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990.

 

 

 

                This final section will explore Kuhlthau’s ISP model with respect to my information search journey thus far.

Kuhlthau’s (1991) Information Search Process model (see Figure 3) was the result of a number of empirical research studies (1988a; 1988b; 1988c) that sought to provide insight into the perspective of information searchers. This seven-stage model describes a person’s holistic experience in the process of information seeking. After the model was first posited by Kuhlthau in 1991, further research studies (1999; 2001) were conducted to refine the model and establish its credibility. Its framework is still considered to present a useful, relevant and insightful explanation of information seeking behaviour even in today’s rapidly advancing technological society. The model illustrates information seeking as a process of construction, one which involves the “whole experience of the person, feelings as well as thoughts and actions” (Kuhlthau, 1991, p. 362). This idea, that we actively construct our view of the world by assimilating and accommodating new information with our prior knowledge and experience is based on personal construct theory, as characterised by Kelly (1963).



Figure 4: Kuhlthau's (2004) Model of the Information Search Process.

 

The feelings, thoughts and actions that I experienced during my information seeking process, had a number of elements in common with the descriptions in Kuhlthau’s (2004) ISP framework. These stages, as shown in Figure 3 include the initiation stage, followed by selection, exploration, formulation, collection, presentation and lastly, the assessment stage. According to Kuhlthau (2004), a person begins the information searching process with feelings of uncertainty and doubt that become more confident and certain as they progress through the task. Initially, my ISP presented some feelings of uncertainty and anxiety; however my prior research experience and information literacy skills balanced out my uncertainty about the project and gave rise to feelings of enthusiasm and eagerness to begin. I suspect that if I embarked on my ISP without possessing this background knowledge, my feelings of uncertainty would have been more acute.

 

Once I had selected my ILA I felt more assured of where this process was heading, like everything was going to turn out alright. Becoming involved with the course material and exploring the current literature on the topic did present moments of confusion and doubt as to the scope and direction of my project. The searching and selecting of relevant articles and information concerning my ILA was the stage where I experienced a moment of hesitancy and doubt. I had anticipated that the variety and volume of literature on the topic would cause me to second-guess my strategies. Was I using the proper search terms? Should I have used different databases? Are my searches broad enough to include germane articles, yet narrow enough to not have to wade through a whole lot of useless material? These concerns, as Kuhlthau (2004) described in the exploration stage, are common to all researchers, and did give me moments of self-doubt. I also have a tendency to pay too much attention to a particular aspect of a project which at times, makes me lose my sense of purpose. I tend to get caught up in the reading of articles on the same topic and the methodologies they’ve used, that I often forget that I am reading for a specific purpose and not for recreation. My next step was to re-evaluate my perspective and to put the focus back on my ISP, to which things became clearer (formulation stage). Upon reflection, this has been a key point in my search process thus far. I have yet to embark on the last three stages in Kuhlthau’s (2004) ISP framework – collection, presentation and assessment - however, my thoughts are focused and I anticipate a successful conclusion to my ISP.

References

Australian School Library Association (ASLA) & Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2009). Policy on information literacy in Australian schools. Retrieved August 21, 2012, from http://www.alia.org.au/policies/info.literacy.schools.html

Brunner, C. (n.d). How to: Inquiry. Youth Learn: Technology, media & project-based learning to inspire young minds [website]. Retrieved September 1, 2012, from http://www.youthlearn.org/learning/planning/lesson-planning/how-inquiry/how-inquiry

Eisenberg, M., & Berkowitz, R. (1990). Information problem-solving: The big six skills approach to library and information skills instruction. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Kelly, G. (1963).Theory of Personality: The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.

Kuhlthau, C. (1988a). Developing a model of the library search process: Investigation of cognitive and affective aspects. Reference Quarterly, 28 (2), 232-242.

Kuhlthau, C. (1988b). Longitudinal case studies of the information search process of users in libraries. Library and Information Science Research, 10, 257-304.

Kuhlthau, C. (1988c). Perceptions of the Information Search Process in Libraries: A Study of Changes from High School through College. Information Processing & Management, 24(4), 419-427.

Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371.

Kuhlthau, C. (1999). The role of experience in the information search process of an early career information worker: Perceptions of uncertainty, complexity, construction and sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (5), 399-412.

Kuhlthau, C. (2001). Information Seeking for Learning: A Study of Librarians Perceptions of Learning in School Libraries.  New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 2, 31-46.

Kuhlthau, C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. London: Libraries Unlimited.

Kuhlthau, C.C., Maniotes, L.K., & Caspari, A.K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21^st century. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Wall, J., & Ryan, S. (2010). Resourcing for curriculum innovation: Learning in a changing world [series]. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press. 

Wurdinger, S., & Carlson, J. (2010). Teaching for experiential learning: Five approaches that work. Plymouth, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield Education.