Research Project

Transforming Information into Knowledge:

Measuring the Changes in Learning of Undergraduate Students in an Inquiry-Based Subject

1 Purpose of the Study

This study sought to measure the different aspects of undergraduate students’ learning including their growth of: knowledge of research topic; interest; feelings; and, experiences during the inquiry process, as well as their reflections on their learning.

 

2 Information Learning Activity (ILA)

This ILA focused on students designing a research project and writing a research proposal. This involved students’ locating and critiquing current literature on their topic; identifying a research problem; deriving a question or questions from that problem; choosing an appropriate theoretical framework to underpin their research approach; recognising potential ethical issues of their study; and, justifying their research methods and data collection tools. Over the thirteen-week semester, the course material (see Figure 1) provided students with an overview of the knowledge and skills needed to design and defend their research project. The course material was presented in weekly lectures and tutorial discussion groups. Students were guided through the course material by the subject-coordinator/lecturer and also participated in a session on locating and organising literature with the faculty librarian during Week 4. Once students had chosen a particular research topic or topic area, they were partnered with a faculty mentor who would support them throughout the semester and into their final year.  
 

Figure 1: Timeline of the students’ university subject and the administration of the ILA.

Adapted from the University’s subject guide, 2012.

3 Literature Review: Research and Inquiry in Undergraduate Education (Information Synthesis from Stage 1)

“… universities should treat learning as not yet wholly solved problems and hence always in research mode.”

(von Humboldt, 1970, as cited in Elton, 2005, p.110)

 

This relatively short essay presents a sophisticated analysis and critique of the literature that frames the topic I have chosen for my Information Learning Activity (ILA). It intends to contribute, in a professional and academic manner, to the conversation on inquiry learning in undergraduate education. My particular ILA involves third-year undergraduate students in an inquiry-based subject who are investigating and deciding upon a research topic for their final-year thesis. In order to critically evaluate this ILA from an observer, not designer, standpoint, I need to have a thorough understanding of the context and issues that potentially influenced the design and implementation of the ILA. Firstly however, it is important to recognise that the terms ‘inquiry’ and ‘research’ are subject to differing interpretations in educational literature, and that this often complicates defining ‘inquiry-based learning’, ‘undergraduate research’ and the relationship between the two (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Levy & Petrulis, 2012). In this essay, I will use the terms inquiry and research interchangeably or in combination to “refer inclusively to all forms of scholarly exploration and investigation carried out by students as part of their studies” (Levy and Petrulis, 2012, p.86).

All undergraduate students in all higher education institutions should experience learning through, and about, research and inquiry (Healey & Jenkins, 2009). There are a number of differing interpretations as to what constitutes Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) in higher education. Sandhu and McDonald (2007) described it as an approach to teaching and learning that is active and problem-driven, rather than primarily passive and lecture-based. It is a method of learning that works to “integrate research and teaching by reconceptualising students and instructors as compatriots in the search for knowledge” (Justice et al, 2007, p.202).Generally, it focuses on the use of questioning, critical thinking and problem-solving to deepen students learning. Due to its dynamic nature and use as an umbrella term for a variety of related approaches, IBL is a contested term and the phrase itself is not widely used throughout educational literature (Levy & Nibbs, 2010; Spronken-Smith et al, 2008). As such, a search for studies on IBL in higher education must include similar and alternative terms such as: ‘inquiry’ (or enquiry); guided-inquiry; project-based learning; active learning; undergraduate research; research-based teaching; research-led; research-informed; discovery learning; teaching research links/nexus; and, inductive teaching and learning (Spronken-Smith et al, 2008).

Since the high-profile Boyer Commission Report (1998) more than a decade ago, higher education institutes on an international scale have been challenged to develop a more research and inquiry-based model of undergraduate education as a means to improve student learning outcomes and strengthening the teaching-research nexus for both students and teachers (Spronken-Smith et al, 2008; Drew, 2009). Boyer’s (1998) blueprint for change led advocates of the inquiry approach to argue for a greater emphasis on inquiry and research in all undergraduate universities (see Badley 2002; Brew, 2003; Healey 2005; Jenkins, Breen, Lindsay & Brew, 2003 ; Kreber, 2006; Spronken-Smith et al., 2008). They felt that all undergraduate students would benefit from such a research-active curriculum not just those students in elite research institutes. Neary and Winn (2009) claimed that this application of inquiry-based learning in undergraduate education would not only broaden and enhance the student learning experience, but potentially challenge “the very organising principles upon which academic knowledge is currently being transmitted and produced” (p. 209). It was also argued that this inquiry approach to undergraduate education should be mainstreamed and accessible to all students, not just those considered ‘high achievers’ (Brew, 2003, 2009; Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Jenkins & Healey, 2010).

An increasing body of evidence makes clear the benefits of inquiry-based learning in undergraduate courses. These include the enhancement of student engagement, academic achievement and higher order learning outcomes (Blackmore & Cousin, 2003; Brew, 2009; Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Krause, 2010; Levy & Petrulis, 2007). Justice et al’s (2007) five year experiment with teaching and evaluating a first year IBL course showed improved student grades and the development of a range of metacognitive and critical thinking skills. This led them to claim IBL as “a potent pedagogical tool in higher education” that can encourage students to become self-directed in their learning. A number of other single case studies across different disciplines, particularly with first-year students, indicated enhanced engagement and development of academic skills as a result of IBL initiatives (Cox, Levy, Stordy, Webber, 2008; Sambell, 2008). Brew (2009) claimed that engaging undergraduate students in research and inquiry “develops important graduate attributes… and prepares them for a twenty-first century world of work in which knowing how to inquire and critically evaluate knowledge is of increasing importance” (p.19).

In addition, a number of studies have been done to understand and describe undergraduate students’ experiences of research and inquiry. Studies on students’ perceptions and attitudes towards research and the teaching-research nexus have received considerable attention over recent decades (Brew, 2001; Healey, 2005; Healey, Jordan, Pell & Short, 2010; Lee, Myatt & Joughin, 2012; Spronken-Smith & Walker, 2010). Investigation into student anxiety related to undergraduate research has also been a main topic of interest (Kracker, 2002; Kracker & Wang, 2002; Mech & Brooks, 1995; Papanastasiou & Zembylas, 2008; Valentine, 1993). Healey and Jenkins (2005; 2009; 2010) have made substantial contributions to the field of undergraduate’s engagement in research and inquiry. Figure 1 depicts their adapted model of the four different ways that universities introduce students to research and inquiry. The authors acknowledged that while all four ways are valid and valuable, too much of higher education teaching and learning are based on the methods in the bottom half of the model. For many students, being inducted into the field of research has typically involved fairly passive experiences where they are “predominantly lectured about the latest research or instructed about research methods and techniques” (Healey & Jenkins, 2009, p. 9). The authors argued that for students to be seen as active stakeholders in a research community, instead of a “passive audience for the research output of individual academics” (p. 2), students need to experience more of the methods in the top half of the model (Figure 1).

Campisi & Finn (2011), both Associate Professors at two different American universities, described how in their study they redesigned their undergraduate research methods subject to incorporate an active, collaborative-based learning approach as opposed to the standard lecture-based format. They also made the decision to offer the subject to first-year students as opposed to the custom of offering it to advance-year students. This was done with the intent of “stimulating interest in research at the beginner baccalaureate level” (p.39) so that students could build on their knowledge base in subsequent courses and look favourably on returning to research later on in their degree.

 



Figure 2: The nature of undergraduate research and inquiry (Healey & Jenkins, 2009, p.7).

 

Healey and Jenkins (2009) stated that some universities will see the strength in a more inclusive undergraduate research-active curriculum for all students, while others will draw key distinctions between ‘undergraduate research’ and ‘inquiry’, and implement undergraduate research programmes for selected students. This latter approach is evident at the Australian university where my ILA took place, where high-achieving third year undergraduates are selected to complete a final-year thesis for an Honours level degree. These students are required to take on an introductory research subject to develop the inquiry skills and techniques necessary to complete and individual research project. Such a project is considered by Levy and Petrulis (2012) to be the highest level of undergraduate research and inquiry, where students are framing open-ended questions, building new knowledge and contributing to the improvement of ideas in an area of study. This initial period of research training is considered pivotal by Fitzsimmons, Anderson, McKenzie, Chen & Turbill (2003) because it carries with it the potential to act as “a catalyst for those choosing the transition to ongoing and advanced levels of postgraduate inquiry” (p.2). This can be an extremely daunting and uncertain time for undergraduate students as they begin to transition from being a consumer of knowledge to that of a producer.

In summary, it is clear that there continues to be considerable debate and investigations into strengthening the role of inquiry and research in the undergraduate experience. Such an analysis of the literature has served to contextualise my ILA and provide me with an understanding of the role of research and inquiry-based learning in undergraduate education. This small-scale literature review will be highly informative in the coming stages of my research project.

4 Methodology

4.1 Context and Participants

The participants for this ILA were a small group (4) of third-year undergraduate Bachelor of Education students from a regional university. Students were three weeks into their Research Methodologies subject when the first questionnaire was conducted (see Figure 1). This subject is offered to students as an introduction to the Honours program. Its principal aim is to help students develop a proposal for conducting an independent research project which they will execute in their final-year Honours thesis.

 

 

4.2 Data Collection

Data were collected using the Student Learning through Inquiry Measure (SLIM) assessment toolkit. Students were surveyed at three points during the ILA to elicit reflections of their learning. Students were emailed the questionnaires in two-week interval from Weeks 5-10 in the university semester (see Figure 1). The SLIM toolkit was considered to be an appropriate instrument to chart the changes in students’ knowledge and experiences without being “intrusive or distracting” to the inquiry process (Kuhlthau, Maniotes & Caspari, 2007, p. 127). The toolkit, which is designed to capture both responses to open-ended questions and categorical responses, was developed by Todd, Kuhlthau and Heinstrom (2005) as a way to infuse an assessment tool that would reflect students’ progress.

 

 

4.3 Data Analysis

Data analysis consisted of coding students’ survey responses according to the schemes of the SLIM toolkit. Using these guidelines I was able to classify open-ended responses, that is, topic statements, as fact, explanation, and conclusion. Similar to Todd’s (2006) method of analysis, I followed Graesser and Clark’s (1985) classification of statements which described content regardless of discipline or statement accuracy. Facts were statements that described characteristics, processes, styles, actions, and class inclusion. Explanations were considered as statements that explained how and why, provided end results, and articulated some causality. Conclusion statements were classified as those that showed predictive relations, inference, implied meaning or statements presenting personal opinions, positions or evaluations. Once classified, the statements for each category were counted.

 

 

 

5 Standards

The standards used to code and categorise Question 4 (When you do research, what do you generally find easy to do?), Question 5 (When you do research, what do you generally find difficult to do?) and Question 6 in Survey 3 (What did you learn in doing this research project?) were derived from the generic graduate attributes (specifically ‘Information Literacy’ and ‘Critical Thinking and Problems Solving’ skills) that guided undergraduate teaching at this particular regional university (see Figure 3).

 



Figure 3: Screenshot of the University’s graduate attributes for undergraduates.

 

 

These attributes were adapted along with the learning outcomes of the Research Methodologies subject to produce 12 standards applicable to measuring students responses (Figure 4). These standards were similar to the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning (1998) which was recommended by Todd, Kuhlthau and Heinstrom (2005) to quantify students’ responses. The standards listed below are a combination of the attributes and outcomes specific to the university where the ILA took place.
 



Figure 4: Standards for Coding and Categorising. Adapted from the University’s graduate attributes and subject learning outcomes, 2012.

 

Some of these standards are double-barrelled; that is, they have more than one standard embedded within them. Therefore when I tallied students’ responses to these questions, I gave each aspect of a standard one mark. For example, one student commented that she had difficulty in organising her information (Standard 3). She also wrote that she often found it hard to communicate information clearly (Standard 3). These different aspects of Standard 3 were allocated one mark each.

 

 

6 Limitations of the Study

Of the 14 students enrolled in the subject, five students volunteered to take part in the study. One participant withdrew from the study after the first questionnaire due to personal reasons. While more participants would have increased the validity of the results, this sample size was adequate for this particular small-scale study. Due to a number of factors, I was only able to conduct the surveys and gather data within an eight-week timeframe. This was due to: the delay in finalising my ILA; other course commitments of both the participants and myself; the timeframe of the ILA subject; and, the cut-off date for collecting data. Given the significance of the research proposal to the participants’ final grade, and the impact this grade had in determining whether students would progress to their final-year thesis, I did not want to impose further on students’ time in the final weeks leading up to the proposal submission. With this in mind, I organised a cut-off date for data collection that suited both the participants and myself (Week 10 of the participant’s university semester). Ideally, it would have been better to capture the whole ILA and administer the questionnaires at the beginning, middle and end of the project proposal, however due to the restricted timeframe this was not feasible.  

 

 

7 Results and Discussion

 

 

7.1 Students Knowledge of Topic

The analysis of responses from Question 1 showed a decrease of factual statements made by students throughout the three stages. This trend suggested that students’ knowledge of their topics progressively increased at each point during the ILA. It is worth noting here that the first survey was not administered at the very beginning of the ILA (three weeks after students had commenced the subject) which could indicate that some students had a good grasp of their topic prior to completing the first survey.

 

Interestingly, Student C did not make any factual statements about her topic in any of the surveys, which indicates that she could have had a clear and structured understanding of her topic prior to commencing the ILA. Her topic focused on the potential of an arts-based curriculum to foster motivation, engagement, and achievement in Indigenous schools. In response to what she knew of her topic, she wrote about how the Arts KLA is “currently marginalised in many schools because of overcrowded curriculum and emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills”. This response was coded as an explanation statement as it articulated causality and explained why the Arts are ‘marginalised’ in schools. Another statement that Student C made in the first survey, was that the “low teacher confidence in teaching all strands at the high level of expectation of the national curriculum means that many teachers may not attempt in great depth to teach areas such as dance, drama and music”. This was coded as a conclusion statement, as it indicated “predictive relations, inference or implied meaning” (Todd, 2006).

 

Student A experienced a slight change in direction of her research topic after the first questionnaire. Initially, Student A’s topic was concerned with the “social power that indigenous female learners have”, which was refocused in the subsequent survey as the research question “What do successful female indigenous learners attribute their success to?” After engaging more with the literature, Student A realised how “Westernised my concept of self-esteem is” and how the information search process began to broaden her narrowed view of the topic. The focusing of the research topic is an essential part to the Information Search Process (ISP), as described by Kuhlthau (2007) and is often accompanied with feelings of confusion, frustration and doubt. This renewed focus however, led to a more specific and synthesised set of conclusion statements in the third survey.

 

Student B’s responses contained a number of fact, explanation and conclusion statements throughout the first two surveys, but only conclusion statements by the last survey. Her research topic explored how achievement motivation is perceived by teachers in Queensland schools. As expected, factual statements that she made in the first survey, such as “achievement motivation is the desire to accomplish tasks and be recognised for it” developed into more explanatory and conclusion statements by the end of the ILA, e.g. “teachers’ subjective definition of achievement motivation impacts on students leaning and motivation” and  “I have a deeper understanding of the influence of culture on achievement motivation (collectivism vs. individualism, different achieving styles, sociocultural theories of motivation)”.

 

Of the combined 57 statements made in Question 1 by the four participants over the three surveys, 30 of these were conclusion statements, 19 were explanatory and eight were factual statements. This tendency to reflect and synthesis information, (i.e., put information together, develop arguments, make conclusions), rather than just accumulate facts, indicated that these students were able to engage in higher-order information processing to gain deeper knowledge and understanding about their topic.

 

7.2 Students’ Interest in their Topic

An Honours thesis is usually the first major piece of independent research that a student will undertake in undergraduate education. One of the appeals of doing such a project is being able to decide on your own research topic and the question/s that you wish to investigate. Choosing a research topic is the first, and one of the most important stages of the research process and, it can feel both liberating and overwhelming at the same time (I’Anson & Smith, 2004). The responsibility that comes with being able to choose one’s inquiry topic often increases students’ motivation to learn and provide a sense of ownership about the project (Cantwell, 2011). The participants in this study expressed high levels of interest in their topic that continued throughout the ILA. Student B and C’s level of interest was consistently high from the beginning to the end of the ILA. Student D’s interest level went from being ‘quite a bit’ in the first survey to ‘a great deal’ for the remaining two surveys. Student A’s experienced a slight interest dip at the time of the second survey which could be attributed to the uncertainty she felt about the change in focus for her ILA topic. This slight decrease in interest during the exploration stage is in line with the stages of Kuhlthau’s ISP. In the weeks leading up to the ILA, students underwent the process of deciding on their research topic. Students had to choose a topic that was: of personal interest; in need of research; doable in the timeframe; and, in an area where an academic supervisor could effectively guide them.

 

 

 

7.3 Students’ Level of Knowledge

There was some difference between the students' estimates of their knowledge between the stages. By the second survey in Week 7 (roughly half-way through the university semester), all participants felt that they knew “quite a bit” about their research topic. From here, Student B, Student C and Student D’s self-perception of their knowledge of their topic progressed to knowing “a great deal” by the end of the ILA. Student A felt that she knew “quite a bit”’ about her particular topic throughout the ILA. Having to refocus her topic during the middle of the ILA could explain why she did not feel that she progressed to knowing a “great deal” about her topic. It was clear that students’ came to know more about their research topics as time went on, as indicated by their self-reflections and statements about their topic.

 

 

7.4 Easy Aspects of Researching

At all three stages of the ILA, participants found they were able to think critically and analyse and evaluate sources for their research topic (Standard 4) with ease. They also felt competent in using a variety of methods to retrieve, analyse, evaluate, organise and present their information (Standard 1) and communicate that information clearly (Standard 3). These three particular aspects of the information search process were the dominant responses to what students found easy to do when researching at each of the three ILA stages. Student A and C both mentioned “critical reading and note taking” as something they found easy to do when they researched. In addition, Student D found it “easy locating literature” on her topic and Student C mentioned that she felt comfortable “extracting and summarising important information from texts”. This could have been influenced by the time spent with the faculty librarian in Week 4, where students were explicitly shown how to conduct expert search strategies and to navigate various databases to locate and retrieve relevant literature on their topic. Student C also noted that she felt at ease “discussing the topic with [her] supervisor”. This statement was coded as a Standard 3 response, i.e., able to communicate information clearly. It is also interesting to note that two participants felt comfortable in being able to “plan a research proposal” mid-way through the ILA (by Survey 2).  

 

 

 

 

7.5 Difficult Aspects of Researching

At the initial stage of the ILA some students found articulating research questions (i.e., “narrowing my research down to specific research questions”, Student B) and planning a research proposal to be a challenge (Standard 10 & Standard 11). During the middle stage of the ILA, particular students had difficulty planning and writing their research proposal (Standard 11 & Standard 12). Two students also remarked that they found it difficult to understand and “get their head around” the ethical issues involved in the use of information, and how it “applies to their research methods” (Standard 2). By the final stage of the ILA some students still found “writing a research proposal” difficult (Standard 12). This could be a reflection of students’ feelings of self-doubt and uncertainty as they approached the presentation and assessment stage of the ILA. Interestingly, the same two aspects that some students found easy to do when they researched proved to be areas of difficulty for other students; that is, using various methods to evaluate and present information on their topic (Standard 1) and selecting and organising information in a clear and structure mannered (Standard 3).

 

 

 

 

 

7.6 Students; Feelings about their Research (Stage 2)

By the middle stage of the ILA, all four students felt “confident” about their research and the direction in which it was heading. Such confidence could have stemmed from students’ knowing “quite a bit” about their topic at this stage of the ILA, as indicated by their responses to Question 3 (see Section 7.3).

 

 

 

 

7.7 Key Learnings that Resulted

When questioned as to what they had learnt from doing their research project, students responded with a mixture of specific knowledge statements concerning their topic as well as references to developing research and information literacy skills. All students noted that they learnt how to “write a research proposal”, and three (Students A, C, D) also noted that they learnt how to "plan a research proposal". They also commented on their skill development with respect to using a variety of methods and media to “search for literature” and “gather and analyse data”. Interestingly, this question obtained the most statements of all the questions in Survey 3, with the majority of students listing in dot-points what they had learnt from the whole ILA experience.

 

 

 

 

 

7.8 Students’ Feelings about their Research (Stage 3)

Of the four potential responses to this question, two students (Student B and Student C) agreed that they felt “happy” about their research and research proposal at this final stage of the ILA (Stage 3). Student A and D overall felt “confident” with their research and the development of their research proposal.

 

 

8 Recommendations and Conclusion

This study measured the different dimensions (knowledge, interest, feelings, and experiences) of four undergraduate students’ learning during an inquiry-based activity. Due to the nature of the context, it was not plausible for me (as an observer) to make any changes after the first two questionnaires. The findings of the study allowed me to evaluate the design and implementation of the ILA based on a various well-known Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) and Information Literacy (IL) models. I was then able to use this evaluation to suggest future changes to enrich this particular ILA. Such inquiry into pedagogy allows us, as educators, to reflect and consider current practices and envision new and innovative approaches to teaching and learning (Devick-Fry, Klages & Barnhill, 2010). Given that the ILA was directed by experienced university faculty staff with extensive knowledge in the field of educational research and conducting small and large scale research projects, I was not surprised by the high-level quality of the ILA design and its execution. Hence, I found it difficult to recognise aspects of the ILA that needed revision to make it a stronger inquiry experience for students, as it already engaged students in high-level inquiry learning. Therefore the recommendations that follow are based on responses given by the four participants and the areas of difficulty they reflect on. These findings cannot be generalised, but serve to highlight the experiences of four students participating in a particular ILA in a Research Methodology subject at a specific university.

 

 

 

Based on the results, the following recommendations are made for future undertakings of this information learning activity:

 

-       Additional sessions with information experts such as the faculty librarian, particularly in the earlier stages of the ILA to increase students’ confidence with selecting and organising information.

 

-       The structural order of the weekly topics is systematic, logical and effectively introduces students into the field of educational research. However more time could be spent discussing the ethical issues in educational research and the implications for students’ research projects, as this was a noted difficultly for some of the students.

 

-       The difficultly students experienced at the middle stage of the ILA with planning and writing a research proposal suggests some uncertainty about the process and expectations of the task. Students would benefit from seeing and critiquing exemplars of research proposals to gain a clear understanding of what they are expected to produce, as well as encountering the weekly topics which build students’ knowledge of the individual aspects of the proposal systematically.

 

-       Although the process of choosing a research topic is an inherent part of the inquiry process, students found it beneficial to have a topic area in mind before the commencement of the ILA.

 
 

Students who participated in this ILA were recognised prior to their acceptance into the subject, as possessing above-average levels of information literacy and, were capable of meeting the high expectations required to conduct independent inquiry research at this level of their undergraduate education. In designing a research proposal for their thesis topic, students were required to actively engage with diverse and often conflicting sources of information and ideas. Students then used this information to discover and build new knowledge and understanding and develop personal viewpoints and perspectives. At their own pace students worked through the stages of Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to aid in the creation of their research proposal. While the ILA was not based on any one information learning theory or approach, its methods did surpass the generic information learning models outlined by Brunner (2008) and Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1990). Aspects of Kuhlthau’s (1991) Model of the Information Search Process (ISP) did correspond with many of the research processes and feelings that students’ described in their surveys. By the time the first survey was administered students had already experienced the initiation and selection stage of Kuhlthau’s ISP and had begun to explore aspects of their research topic. The second survey captured both the exploration and formulation phases. The last survey reflected students’ experiences of collecting and synthesising pertinent information with respect to their topic. As data could not be collected at the very end of the ILA, I was unable to gather students’ reflections on their proposal presentation or assessment.

 

 

This inquiry-based ILA promoted the view of information literacy as being transformative, as opposed to generic or situated (Lupton & Bruce, 2010). In order to justify their research proposals, students needed view information through variety of different lenses in order to critique and question the author’s position and context and decide how it related to their own research topic. Students also had to defend their research questions as relevant and original to their field and justify how it would contribute to scholarly literature and social practice. This positioned students to regard information as transformative and their research as germane to educational practice. This research proposal was the first step in students’ journey of commencing their Honours research thesis. This thesis is considered by Levy and Petrulis (2012) to be the highest level of undergraduate research and inquiry, where students are framing open-ended questions, building new knowledge and contributing to the improvement of ideas in an area of study.

 

 

In summary, the measured increase in students’ knowledge of their topic and their ability to relay this knowledge in an abstract and synthesised manner suggests that this ILA was an effective inquiry-based learning activity. The design of the ILA research proposal required students to go beyond the simple gathering and accumulating of facts on their topic and be able to critique and manipulate these facts to build explanations and construct synthesised, positional conclusion statements about their topic (Todd, 2006). As a result, students found that their information literacy and critical thinking skills had developed significantly by the end of the ILA. Proficiency in these skills, as Kuhlthau, Maniotes and Caspari (2007) pointed out, is essential for navigating the rapidly changing information environment of the 21^st century.

 


References

Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Badley, G. (2002). A really useful link between teaching and research. Teaching in Higher Education 7, 443-455.

Blackmore, P., & Cousin, G. (2003). Linking teaching and research through research-based learning. Educational Developments, 4(4), 24-27.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook, New York: State University of New York at Stony Brook. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/engagedlearning/research/pdfs/Boyer_Report.pdf

Brew, A. (2001). The nature of research inquiry in academic contexts. London: Routledge Falmer.

Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 3-18.

Brew, A. (2009, November). Enhancing undergraduate engagement through research and inquiry. Keynote address presented at the URA First Australian Summit on the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning, Sydney. Retrieved from http://mq.edu.au/ltc/altc/ug_research/files/SummitBooklet.pdf

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

Campisi, J., & Finn, K. E. (2011).Does active learning improve students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward research methods? Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 38-45.  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/859115256/fulltextPDF?accountid=13380#

Cantwell, K. (2011). Resourcing an Inquiry Based Curriculum using ICLTs. Resource Link. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://resourcelinkbce.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/resourcing-inquiry-handout.pdf

Clark, M., Riley, M., Wood, R. C. and Wilkie, E. (1998). Researching and Writing Dissertations in Hospitality and Tourism. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Cox, A., Levy, P., Stordy, P., & Webber, S. (2008). Inquiry-based learning in the first-year information management curriculum. ITALICS [Online] 7(1), 3-21. Retrieved from http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol7iss1/pdf/Paper1.pdf

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

Elton, L. (2005). Scholarship and the research and teaching nexus. In R. Barnett (Ed.) Reshaping the university: new relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 108-118). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.

Fitzsimmons, P., Anderson, R., McKenzie, B., Chen, H., & Turbill, J. (2003). An eye on the prize: Fourth year honours students’ thesis writing and the group supervision process. Paper presented at the Defining the doctorate: Doctoral studies in education and the creative and performing arts, Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), Newcastle, Australia.

Graesser, A., & Clark, L. (1985). Structures and procedures of implicit knowledge. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: Exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed). Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 67–78). Open University Press.

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/Documents/research/DevelopingUndergraduateResearchandInquiry.pdf

Healey, M., Jordan, F., Pell, B., & Short, C. (2010). The research-teaching nexus: A case study of students’ awareness, experiences and perceptions of research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(2), 235-246.

I’Anson, R., & Smith, K. (2004). Undergraduate research projects and dissertations: Issues of topic selection, access and data collection amongst tourism management students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 3(1), 19-32.

Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R. and Brew, A. (2003). Re-shaping higher education: linking teaching and research. London: SEDA/Routledge Falmer.

Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2005) Institutional strategies to link teaching and research. York: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id585_institutional_strategies_to_link_teaching_and_research.pdf

Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2010). Undergraduate research and international initiatives to link teaching and research. CUR Quarterly, 30(3), 36-42.

Justice, C., Rice, J., Warry, W., Inglis, S., Miller, S., & Sammon, S. (2007). Inquiry in higher education: Reflections and directions on course design and teaching methods. Innovative Higher Education, 31(4), 201-214. DOI 10.1007/s10755-006-9021-9

Kracker, J. (2002). Research anxiety and students’ perceptions of research: An experiment. Part I. Effect of teaching Kuhlthau’s ISP Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(4), 282-294.  DOI: 10.1002/asi.10040

Kracker, J., Wang, P. (2002). Research anxiety and students’ perceptions of research: An experiment. Part II. Content analysis of their writings on two experiences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(4), 295-307. DOI: 10.1002/asi.10041

Krause, M.G. (2010). Undergraduate research and academic archives: Instruction, learning and assessment. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, Michigan. Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75841/1/mghetu_1.pdf

Kreber, C. (Ed.) Exploring Research-Based Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 107, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Lee, R., Myatt, P., & Joughin, G. (2012). Undergraduate students’ experiences of research: Findings from a cross-disciplinary analysis of students’ perceptions. In N. Brown, S.M Jones & A. Adam. (Eds.) Research and Development in Higher Education: Connections in Higher Education, 35 (pp. 129 – 138). Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2012/HERDSA_2012_Lee.pdf

Levy, P. and Nibbs, A. (2010, May). Technology-enhanced inquiry-based learning in higher education: what does the evidence-base tell us? Poster session presented at the International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg, Denmark.

Levy, P., & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year university students experience inquiry and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 85-101.

 

Lupton, M., & Bruce, C. (2010). Windows on information literacy worlds: Generic, situated and transformative perspectives. In A. Lloyd & S. Talja (Eds.), Practising Information Literacy: Bringing Theories of Learning, Practice and Information Literacy Together (pp. 4-27). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University.

Mech, T., & Brooks, C. (1995). Anxiety and confidence in using a library by college freshmen and seniors. Psychological Reports, 81(3), 929-930.

Neary, M., & Winn, J. (2009). The student as producer: Reinventing the student experience in higher education. In M. Neary, H. Stevenson, and L. Bell (Eds.), The future of higher education: Policy, pedagogy and the student experience (pp. 126–138). London: Continuum.

Papanastasiou, E. C., & Zembylas, M. (2008). Anxiety in undergraduate research methods courses: its nature and implications. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(2), 155-167. DOI 10.1080/17437270802124616

Sambell, K. (2008). The impact of enquiry-based learning on the first year experience of studentship: Student perspectives. In J. Pieterick, R. Ralph, and M. Lawton (Eds.), Proceedings of the European first year experience conference (pp. 184–188). Wolverhampton: University of Wolverhampton.

Sandhu, S. & McDonald, C. (2007, January). Engaging students in research. University Affairs, 48(1), 28-31. Retrieved from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/engaging-students-in-research.aspx

Spronken-Smith, R.A., Walker, R., O’Steen, W., Matthews, H., Batchelor, J. and Angelo, T. (2008). Reconceptualising inquiry-based learning: synthesis of findings. Wellington, NZ: Ako Aotearoa, The National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/project/inquiry-based-learning/resources/books/why-use-inquiry-based-learning-inquiry-based-learning

Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723–740.

Todd, R. (2006, July). From information to knowledge: Charting and measuring changes in students' knowledge of a curriculum topic. Information Research, 11(4).

Todd, R., Kuhlthau, C. & Heinström, J. (2005). School Library Impact Measure (SLIM): A toolkit and handbook for tracking and assessing student learning outcomes of guided inquiry through the school library. Available at: http://cissl.rutgers.edu/SLIM_toolkit%20Handbook.pdf

Valentine, B. (1993). Undergraduate research behavior: Using focus groups to generate theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship 19(5), 300–304.