1. Getting to Know Today’s College Students The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester Presenter: Vicki Burns University of Rochester June 6, 2008

2. University of Rochester Private, research institution (RU/VH) Located in upstate New York in an urban area of about 900,000 people Enrollment Fall 2007 – Undergraduates6359 – Graduates/Medical Students4318 66 Professional staff; 49 Support staff Residential campus

5. Project Background IMLS grant 2003-2004 to study faculty work practices Libraries hired an anthropologist Used ethnographic methods Results made us want to learn more

6. What do undergraduates REALLY do when they write research papers?

7. Research begun Fall 2004 Led by Anthropologist Nancy Fried Foster Used ethnographic research techniques Pre-study: faculty interviews Objectives broadened to gain broad insight into student lives More than 100 students participated More than 1/3 of library staff involved

9. Methodologies used – Retrospective interviews – Photo Surveys – Mapping diaries – Reference desk survey – Interviews in student union – Design workshops for web page – Design Charettes – Late night dorm visits

10. Faculty Interviews Assume we are teaching research methods Expect their students know how to find research materials Students lack critical thinking skills Unable to develop a thesis for papers Lack good writing skills

11. Faculty commented more extensively on the problems of writing and critical thinking than on those related to locating appropriate sources

12. Retrospective Interviews

13. Recently completed research paper Described what they did from the assignment to turning it in Each step was illustrated on a post Interviews video-recorded and transcribed Most interviews done by Nancy Fried Foster

16. Next Steps Research team and librarians co-viewed videos, transcripts and drawings Co-viewing –Created shared experiences for discussion and brainstorming –Engendered widespread staff participation

17. Photo Survey

19. Something you couldn’t live without

23. Reference Desk Survey

24. Carlson Library Rush Rhees Library

25. Evening Interviews in Student Union

26. “To participate, you must: Be an undergraduate AND Working on a paper that requires you to find books and/or articles OR Working on a project that requires you to find data”

28. Mapping Diary

31. Late Night Dorm Visits

34. Design Workshop for Web Page

36. Design Charette

37. Walk-in participation Imagine the library has a big, new, empty space... Ideas carried into actual design for collaborative space

39. Mahogany bookshelves, Old style lamps Nice cozy feel Computer Lounge with 802.11g WiFi With Nintendo WiFi Connection Movies and video games on big projection screen

40. We asked…we listened…we changed…

45. What did we learn?

46. Students... Worked on papers in chunks, with days or weeks in between Asked family and friends for help choosing a topic or editing their papers Assumed Google searches included the library Did evaluate resources – just not all the ways that librarians recommend Didn’t remember who gave their library session

47. Design Charette Flexibility to meet a variety of needs Comfort with “family room” feel and attention to environment Technology - computers, printers, scanners, whiteboards, “mini Kinko’s”, chargers, etc. Staff support for checking things out, tech help, food, reference, writing Resources – books, magazines, DVDs, reference books and popular reading

48. Dorm Observations Stimulating - lots of distractions – music – video games – people My room is your room Freshman vs. Upperclassman

49. Retrospective Interviews  Most had had a library instruction session  Expected to do well  Found articles and books fairly easily, simply changed topics if did not find enough  Consulted with parents  Found developing a thesis, organizing, and writing difficult  Several had consulted a librarian

50. Students are on the go for hours at a time They do more than just attend classes They eat quick meals, at odd times, sometimes just snacking wherever they are They carry their belongings with th em They use technology everywhere They need a variety of facilities and services Every day is different

51. Reference Desk Interviews  Students did not come to desk “cold”  All had tried to find information on his/her own  Most students knew names of databases and had used 1-2 of the them  All students reported reference assistance had helped them  Save time  Learned about resources, the library, and how to search

52. Dissatisfaction with the technique  Interviewed students immediately after assistance  Librarians uncomfortable with asking questions and often to busy to adequately follow-up at the desk

53. What They Said Most cared about their papers and felt they had sufficient time to complete them Considered professors and TAs the subject experts Some problems organizing and writing – knew about the College Writing Center Most used library catalog and databases, but equated librarians with books All expected to do well, or as well as needed

54. In summary, we found students:  Confident about their ability to find information  Heavy users of libraries’ catalog and databases  Do not take the first hits from a Google search  Divide their research and writing into chunks

55. For reference/subject librarians some sobering results:  Lack of clarity about role of librarian or even what library staff had come to their class  Equate librarians with books  See faculty or teaching assistants as subject experts  Consulted with a librarian on faculty recommendation

56. Brief look at library instruction at UR  No formal information literacy program  Integrated into courses with assignments requiring library research  Library instruction in just about all first year writing classes  Mixed success in other classes, depends on assignments, subject librarians, and interested faculty

57. So what have we done ?

58. Strength our subject librarian/department liaison program  For some, faculty interviews opened communication  Embedded Librarians  Course Pages  Include faculty in decisions when feasible  Offer more options to faculty

59. Collaboration with College Writing Center  Built on a strong foundation of good will  Reflects the synergy between research and writing  Development of librarian tutors  Working with the writing fellows  Conducting research and presenting  Increased presence in the pedagogy training of instructors

60. Critical Evaluation of teaching methods  Meetings to focus on teaching  Led by Suzanne Bell, ACRL, Institute for Information Literacy: “The Intentional Teacher: renewal through informed reflection.” (2006)  Review and trade teaching techniques; develop unique materials

61. Emphasis  Develop clear goals with instructor  Less lecturing and fewer demos; active involvement of students  Refine and limit amount of information presented  Get the students started; make certain they know how to get further assistance  Creative ways to teach the basics

62. Developed theme “every class has a librarian”  Course pages  Parents Breakfast  Scare Fair  Appointments/ business cards at desk

65. We asked…we listened…we changed… http://www.santafeopera.org/2008/2008seaso noverview.php

66. Web Page Development Many students want to be able to access library resources just as they use Google---no directions or assistance Students’ days follow a different schedule than that of library staff Want to have all their “stuff” in one place

67. Web Redesign Early Concepts

70. And we have a new Dean and Vice Provost of the Libraries: Vice Provost Susan Gibbons

71. Long-term Benefits Understand how our undergraduates live and work on campus Understand their use of the library High staff participation and engagement Greater comfort and lower overhead for trying new ideas Continuing this type of research

72. Would we do it all again? Would we change what we did? Has it made a difference in our libraries?

73. Staff participation  Development of interview and workshop procedures  Video recorded and transcribing of interviews  Co-viewing interviews  Interviewed faculty and students  Developed new programs: Night Owl librarians, Orientation Breakfast

74. Quotes from Library Staff The study “engendered a shared understanding” that made “things I knew in an intellectual way … more real.” The study “fostered innovation in small grassroots ways... with a new exploratory openness to trying things.”

75. http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/downloadables/Foster- Gibbons_cmpd.pdf

76. Our Students Are Not Yours Try doing your own research With or without an anthropologist or sociologist Campus not required Start small to develop staff expertise and confidence Encourage widespread staff participation

77. Slides available at: http://tiny.cc/vburns