Google in perspective: understanding and

enhancing student search skills

Nancy J. Becker
Associate Professor, Division of Library & Information Science, St. John’s
University, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, New York 11439, USA
e-mail: beckern@stjohns.edu; Tel: /1-718-990-1452; Fax: /1-718-990-2071

This paper describes a study of undergraduate student search behaviour, examines the results
through the lens of various disciplines, and provides new insights that will increase our
understanding and facilitate the development of more effective instructional programmes.
Perspectives and research results drawn from multiple disciplines are used to explore the role
of mental models, reference groups and habits, and intellectual development in the search
behaviour demonstrated by the undergraduate students. During interviews conducted as part
of the study, many students were able to articulate the importance of source evaluation and
describe electronically-appropriate methods for assessing the authority and reliability of Web-
based information resources. In practice, however, these students frequently abandoned source
evaluation altogether and, following the path of least resistance, relied exclusively on basic
Google searching. This approach both compromised the quality of their search results and
contributed to frustration with the research process. This may not be extraordinarily unusual
behaviour, but it is cause for considerable concern among information literacy programme
planners and instructors. Discussion of the study results and related research is followed by
pragmatic suggestions for modifying ineffective search behaviour through enhanced instruc-
tional programmes.

INTRODUCTION

D
espite instructional intervention, many college students continue to
assign unwarranted primacy and authority to information found
through Google and on the Web. This behaviour remains
entrenched despite a plethora of skill development programmes across
educational sectors. There is little question that information literacy is
considered important for success in formal education and across the
lifespan. In fact, many accreditation agencies now expect outcomes
assessment to include information literacy skills. Yet it is not clear that
students are able to transfer these skills beyond structured information
literacy environments or sustain them over time, a challenging and often
frustrating situation for many educators and librarians.

However, until we understand more fully the factors underpinning this

behaviour, it is unlikely that our instructional efforts will ever be more than
marginally effective. We need to look beyond descriptive reports and
become more attentive to the possible explanations for this behaviour. This

84 The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003

DOI: 10.1080/13614530410001692059
paper describes a study of undergraduate student search behaviour,
examines the results through the lens of various disciplines, and provides
new insights that will increase our understanding and facilitate the
development of more effective instructional programmes.

BACKGROUND
Much of the existing research on Web use is either large-scale surveys of
usage patterns or in-depth studies of small samples of Web users. The large
surveys are often Web-based and are intended to determine how frequently
and in what way a particular constituency uses the Web. These studies have
generated some useful data, particularly in terms of the diffusion of various
applications like email, and their resulting datasets support longitudinal
tracking of the extent of Web use (1).

The more in-depth studies use small samples and focus on the user’s
understanding of and ability to navigate the Website. The earliest studies in
this area used software engineering principles to study the design of Web
pages. The results of these studies revealed that the way in which
information is presented on a Web page, i.e. the arrangement, spacing,
fonts and labels, influences the accessibility of that information (2). As a
result of these findings, usability research assumed greater prominence and
the emphasis on user-centred design spread (3). A variety of research
techniques were developed to examine the usability of sites, including
observations of users in action and ‘think aloud’ protocols. In the latter, the
subject talks through the activity or test allowing the researcher to identify
stumbling blocks or misconceptions and then use that data to refine the
site’s design.

Because Web design and Web content are so closely linked, most usability
studies focus on specific constituencies. For example, the study of library
Web pages has generated a number of published articles and books (4
/6)
as well as numerous conference workshops and presentations. Most of
these studies have been conducted in academic libraries and are intended to
examine local student and/or faculty experiences with a Website. Library
Web pages can be complex portals to numerous types of resources,
including an ever-expanding array of databases. The challenge of providing
electronic access to the resources users need and want has been exacerbated
by the diversity of interfaces that these resources employ. Library jargon or
terminology further complicates access to library materials, making the
study of library Web pages an important component of information access
and the Web maintenance process.

The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003 85

Looking beyond the organisation of the site, researchers began focusing
more closely on how users adapt their search behaviour. This line of
research shifts the lens from the site itself to the user and seeks to
understand the role of user perceptions in the Web search process. These
studies also reveal the extensive gulf between the organisation of
information in libraries and user understanding of that organisation.
Confusion between what is accessible via a library catalogue and what is
contained in an index or database is commonplace (7). More difficult,
however, is the transition from using a physical library to navigating a
virtual site. Bruce (8) asked his subjects to complete the sentence, ‘Internet
is like a . . .’ and then analysed the metaphors that they employed to
describe their conceptualisation of the Internet. He identified two broad
categories: One emphasises the informational aspects (library) while the
other emphasises the connectivity and structure (superhighway) of the
Internet. He argues that these metaphors are important because users need
‘reality anchors based on non-digital models’ if they are going to learn to
use new systems effectively.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to examine student attitudes and Web
searching behaviour in order to generate a more detailed set of under-
standings that could be used to strengthen information literacy pro-
grammes. The study had three main objectives:

1. To explore student perceptions of the role of the Web in

information searching.
2. To collect quantitative and qualitative data on how students seek
information on the Web.
3. To identify skill gaps that might be addressed in information
literacy programmes.

Despite the difficulties that students encounter in using electronic and

digital resources, no published research has focused specifically on the
relationship between student perceptions of the Web and the design and
content of information literacy programmes. Although numerous anecdo-
tal accounts have been shared at conferences and on listservs, the need for
empirical research in this area is significant. With so much personal and
institutional effort being expended to develop the information literacy
skills of students, it makes sense to examine the connection between
perceptions of the Web and information literacy programme content.

86 The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003

STUDY SAMPLE
The subjects of the study were undergraduate students at St John’s
University in New York. Snowball sampling was used to obtain a sample
of students with different levels of Web searching experience. Initially,
undergraduates working in the University Library or the Division of
Library & Information Science (DLIS) were asked to participate. After this
first round of interviews was completed, snowball sampling was used to
expand the sample and ensure that it included a range of participants,
including males and females, with different majors and information literacy
course alumni, with different levels of search expertise. To accomplish this,
subjects in the first round were asked to suggest friends or classmates who
might also be interested in participating in the study. These students were
then contacted by e-mail and invited to participate.

PROCEDURES
A background questionnaire (see Appendix A) was used to gather current
demographic and biographical information on the subjects. The ques-
tionnaire included sixteen closed and open-ended questions that are
parallel to questions used in earlier studies, i.e. GVU’s WWW user surveys.
Semi-structured interviews were used to obtain fuller and more detailed
data than would be possible through sole reliance on a questionnaire. By
allowing the richness of individual perspectives to emerge, the interviews
provided insight into the context of student Web searching. Subjects were
asked to describe in detail a successful and unsuccessful search for
information on the Web. Known as the critical incident technique, this
approach was first reported by Flanagan (9). The technique relies on the
subject to provide a brief but vivid description of a significant experience,
from which the assumptions underlying the respondent’s motives and
actions can then be inferred.

There are some limitations inherent in the critical incident technique,

including the problems typically associated with self-reported behaviour as
well as the potential for recall bias. However, in spite of its limitations, the
technique has been used successfully to study Web use (8, 10, 11) and it
provided a practical option for obtaining qualitative data in this study.

The interviews were guided by a semi-structured schedule (see Appendix

B). First, participants were asked a broad question modelled on one used in
an earlier study (11).
Try to recall a recent instance where you found important information on the World Wide
Web, information that you needed for a class assignment or that you used to make an

The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003 87

important decision. Please try to describe that incident in enough detail so that I can visualise
the situation.

Then, to elicit detailed accounts of the critical incidents, two sets of six
questions were asked, one set focused on a successful search and the other
on an unsuccessful search. This strategy ensured consistency in data
collection while preserving the opportunity for individual perspectives to
emerge.

DATA COLLECTION
Data collection was conducted on the St John’s campus by the principal
researcher, the University’s Information Literacy Librarian and a DLIS
Graduate Assistant. After introductions and a brief summary of the
procedures, the interviewer provided each respondent with a copy of the
Participant Consent Form. The interviewer went over each section with the
subject and answered any questions posed. The subject and interviewer
then signed the form and a copy was returned to the subject. The original
consent form was retained by the interviewer and delivered to the principal
investigator upon completion of the interview.

Participants completed the background questionnaire and were interviewed

using the previously described interview schedule. As each subject was
describing the two critical incidents (a successful and unsuccessful Web
search), the interviewers took notes on a data collection form specifically
designed for this study. This ensured that sufficient detail was recorded for
each interview.

DATA ANALYSIS
Descriptive and comparative statistics were used to analyse the data
collected. The quantitative data generated by the background question-
naire was tabulated and frequency distributions were computed. Content
analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data provided by the interviews.
To ensure validity, a set of coding rules was developed and used to score
each interview. Describing and standardising the coding rules in advance
reduced the possibility that coding would be skewed by private under-
standings or ambiguous criteria.

RESULTS
Twenty students completed the questionnaire and the semi-structured
interview. These respondents reported feeling comfortable using computer
technology and, based on the interviews, they appear to have incorporated
Web surfing into their daily lives. Based on a Likert scale of 1
/5, self-
assessment of search skills was high for both the Web (M /3.57) and the

88 The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003

library Web site (M /3.57), although the respondents did report a slightly
lower awareness of the University Library’s services (M /3.17).

During the interviews, the majority of participants (55%) recounted at least

one search for information required to complete a class assignment, while
40% also described searches to fulfil personal information needs. Regard-
less of topic, the preferred approach for course assignments was to conduct
a Web search, often because ‘it’s easy and you can print out articles . . .
books take too long to find and get information from’. The search engine
used most often was Google or Yahoo, although AltaVista, HotBot,
Dogpile, Ask Jeeves, Z Works, and X Quick were also reported. The choice
of search engine was driven by familiarity and experience, with several
students reporting that they continue to use the first search engine they
discovered or were introduced to by a sibling or teacher.

The search topics that students reported most often included subjects
related to education and history (n /15), science (n /6), current events
(n/3), travel (n /9), shopping (n /6) and music (n/3). Search success
varied depending on whether the student was searching for a specific item,
conducting a topical search or browsing. Directed searches seeking a
specific item resulted in the highest success rate (50%). Broad subject
searches produced less favourable outcomes, with students reporting a
success rate of only 25%. Browsing was not described by many students
and in the few instances where students reported this serendipitous
approach, the results were often considered unacceptable.

Students reported relying heavily on their friends and family, as well as the
media, for information about how to search the Web. Siblings, both older
and younger, often provided the most helpful tips and suggestions. One
student credited her high school librarian, claiming that the librarian
insisted that students use the Web and learn how to search effectively.
Students who had participated in information literacy programmes cited
relevance and authority as important factors in the assessment of the
quality and reliability of Internet information. In practice, however, few of
these students actually applied those criteria during the searches they
recounted during the interviews. Many students appeared to be satisfied
with the most expedient search outcome.

Regardless of participation in information literacy programmes, some

students demonstrated little interest in refining or revising unsuccessful
search strategies. One student summed up the prevailing sentiment, noting
that when the results of a search were not what he wanted, ‘it got on my
nerves’. When these students were frustrated by searches where the desired

The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003 89

information remained elusive, they responded by switching to another
search engine or abandoning the search altogether. In some instances,
students returned to the professor who had made the assignment and
requested permission to change the topic to one where the information
would be easier to find. According to these students, most instructors were
willing to comply with these requests. Although, in contrast, one student
reported that the professor would not only refuse requests to switch topics,
but she also required an assessment of the authority of the Web site as part
of the assignment.

Those students who demonstrated more advanced search skills were often
successful because they had incorporated a variety of strategies into their
typical search behaviour. One student recounted a complex search where he
used Google’s ‘search within search’ to narrow his results, while another
described a systematic use of ‘favourites’ to organise frequently needed
sources. This behaviour was in stark contrast to the haphazard approach
used by some of the respondents, including one student who looked
through forty pages of results before correcting a misspelling of an
individual’s name, explaining ‘I thought maybe she wasn’t prominent’.

DISCUSSION
The results of this study certainly have implications for information literacy
programme planning because it is clear that these students had trouble
locating information on the Web. While some of their problems can be
attributed to inexperience, many of the difficulties they encountered were
exacerbated by a poorly developed understanding of the organisation and
retrieval of information. Three areas were particularly problematic and
warrant particular attention: Question negotiation, information retrieval,
and source evaluation.

Many of the search failures that these students experienced can be

attributed to their inability effectively to negotiate the search question.
To obtain good results, a searcher must be able to decipher the question
asked in order to identify key concepts and use Boolean operators
appropriately. It was not surprising that Boolean operators were rarely
employed but it was disturbing that students were able to articulate the role
of operators correctly. A similar problem was noted with the importance of
Web source evaluation; students could discuss the critical role of quality
assessment of Websites, but they rarely applied the criteria in the searches
they described. This failure to link knowledge to application is problematic
and warrants an exploration of the factors that may contribute to it,

90 The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003

including the role of mental models, reference groups and habits as well as
a student’s intellectual development.

Mental models
As discussed earlier, search behaviour is influenced by an individual’s
conceptualisation of the Web. Slone (12) reported that mental models are
constructed by interaction or experience with a system as well as through
use of similar systems. In this study, student expectations of what
information the Web could provide, as well as their search plans, suggest
that their conceptualisation of the Web may be inaccurate. It is in this
context that findings like those reported by Bruce (8) have particular
relevance. Recall that Bruce argues the need for ‘reality anchors’ in order to
improve user experiences on the Web. If students conceptualise the Web as
primarily a connector or conduit, like a road or superhighway, they are
likely to minimise the importance of understanding the underlying
information architecture of a Website.

On the other hand, if students can integrate an understanding of the

organisational aspects of the Web with the conduit model, their con-
ceptualisations may become more accurate. As it stands, few of these
students appeared to recognise the impact of searching the container versus
the contents of information resources. In a print-based world, this
difference might be easily explained using the example of a card catalogue
that holds descriptions of resources like books (the containers) but not the
contents. But in an electronic environment the distinction is easily blurred,
especially since most searches will produce some results and many online
public access catalogues (OPACs) now include enhanced records.

Since the current emphasis on the mechanics of searching does not appear
to be carried into practice, it may be time to reconsider the focus of our
instructional programmes. Given the importance of mental models, the
mechanics or ‘how to’ of Web searching should be de-emphasised in favour
of instruction on the how the Web works. Despite the prominence of the
‘information superhighway’ model, the Web is more than a roadway. Given
that the Web does have an organisational structure, introducing basic
information architecture may be a more effective means of improving
student search skills. This is especially important as libraries continue to
shift more resources to a Web-based electronic environment. Keyword
searching using Google limits information access because that strategy will
not extract information contained in many databases.

The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003 91

Since conceptualisation of the Web is a problem for many users, it is
imperative that Website designers and information programme planners
take into account the findings of user studies like this one. When students
continually overlook databases or select an inappropriate database or
search strategy, the need for new and deeper learning is apparent. However,
it is equally important that information literacy programmes are flexible
enough to respond to these needs and that Website designers take into
account the importance of user conceptualisations of the Internet.

Reference groups and habits

Students in this study also reported that their choice of search strategies
was influenced by familial and peer reference groups, most notably
reporting that they generally relied on what they learned about Web
searching from their siblings and friends. This finding is not surprising
given what we know about the influence of social groups on behaviour. For
example, Childers and Rao (13), in their study of familial and peer
influence on consumer decisions, note that communication among peers
and within family groups is an important factor in the choice of both
products and brands. They explain that ‘referents with high credibility,
such as those having presumed expertise, will often serve as sources of
information-based influence for uncertain or uninformed consumers’
(13, p. 199). They also report that for luxuries and brand choice of
publicly consumed products, peers are most influential while family exerts
greater influence on decisions related to necessities and brand choice of
privately consumed products. This is a particularly valuable point because
it may explain how siblings or friends who appear Web-savvy are able to
exert such powerful and lasting influence on the search behaviour of less-
experienced and/or confident students. If search engines are considered
publicly consumed products, then these students would be influenced most
by the brand preferences of their peers, in this case Google. Clearly, we
need to understand the nature of this behaviour and develop a strategic
instructional response to it or these peer reference groups will continue to
exert undue influence on student information seeking behaviour.

Similarly, the impact of habitual behaviour on the decisions students make

as they search for information cannot be ignored. Habits operate in concert
with reference groups to allow students to act with minimal deliberate or
conscious effort. Ouellette and Wood (14) argue in their meta-analysis of
the research on habit and intention in everyday life that the factors
underpinning habitual responses must be understood before intervention
strategies will succeed. Habits are automatic behaviours that occur with
minimal thought and effort when the environmental context and the

92 The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003

individual’s goals evoke previous experiences. Conscious and deliberate
actions will only unseat habitual behaviour if the activity is different or the
context is difficult or unstable. Additionally, because new responses always
entail some uncertainty, habitual behaviour is not easily dislodged until ‘the
new behavior is established with sufficient strength to proceed automati-
cally without conscious awareness of intent and to reveal its long-term
benefits’ (14, p. 70). Essentially, this shift requires disconnecting the
automatic association that generates habitual behaviour and replacing it
with an alternative (15). In the context of student Web searching, behaviour
change depends on interrupting the automatic Google search response and
helping students develop a stronger association between information
literacy skills and successful search outcomes.

Intellectual development
It is also useful to consider student search behaviour within the context of
intellectual development. Perry’s (16) work is particularly helpful here as it
illuminates the process of intellectual development as a series of stages:
dualism, multiplicity, relativism, and commitment. His model is based on
research with male undergraduates at Harvard in the 1960s and, although
it has been criticised for its reliance on an elite study sample, Perry’s
construct is useful for understanding student search behaviour.

In the Perry model, individuals proceed through stages of intellectual and

moral development beginning with dualism. Dualism is a stage of
development where the world is viewed in absolutes: good or bad, right
or wrong; where uncertainty creates confusion; where authority figures
provide answers that students accept without question. The next stage or
multiplicity is evidenced by the recognition that a diversity of opinions and
ideas can be legitimate. The hallmark of this stage is the assertion that
‘everyone has a right to his or her own opinion’, although the belief in
absolute authority remains strong. The next stage is relativism where
context becomes important, with a concomitant tendency to perceive
everything as contextual or relativistic. In the final stage, the individual
accepts the need for commitment and responsibility within a relativistic
world.

Most undergraduates begin college in a dualistic stage of development and

do not reach relativism or commitment until their senior year or later (17).
This both explains and complicates the role of developmental factors in
student search behaviour. As dualistic thinkers, young undergraduates
would be expected to look to authorities for answers, even including as we
saw earlier their more Web-savvy siblings and peers. Yet, encouraging

The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003 93

dualistic thinkers to move beyond absolutes can be frustrating because
these students will insist that the responsibility for their learning rests
primarily with the instructor as the authority. As Katung et al . (18) in their
study of attitude change among first-year biology students at the
University of Glasgow note, the needs of students at the dualistic stage
and those at more advanced stages are quite different. Dualistic students
need more structure and less diversity and benefit from more direct
experience and a personal atmosphere in the classroom, while students
functioning at higher stages regard these conditions as constraints.

While Perry’s model has broad relevance, it does not acknowledge gender
differences in development. Fields (17), in her discussion of women’s
development and information literacy instruction for undergraduates,
provides a good summary of the seminal studies of women’s intellectual
development including the work of Gilligan (19) and Belenky et al . (20).
More recently, Baxter Magolda (21) developed the epistemic reflection
model which extends the Perry model to include gender specific tendencies
including the female ‘receiving’, ‘interpersonal’ and ‘interindividual’ and
the male ‘mastery’, ‘impersonal’ and ‘individual’. Fields (17) suggests that
librarians should focus on ‘connection’, ‘collaboration’ and ‘firsthand
experience’ as they plan information literacy instruction for women.
Additional ideas useful in instructional design emerge from the work of
Wood et al . (22). In reporting their research on developmental differences
in study behaviour, they note that working with a partner and elaborative
interrogation are particularly effective strategies. Elaborative interrogation
encourages the learner to ask ‘why’ as a way of making associations
between prior knowledge and new information. They concluded that
working with a partner and using existing knowledge to support new
learning are the most effective study strategies. Certainly, each of these
strategies can be adapted and used to strengthen information literacy
instruction.

CONCLUSION
Student search behaviour is an ongoing concern for those committed to
designing and delivering effective information literacy programmes. This
paper reports the results of a study of student Web searching and explores
some of the underlying factors that influence student search behaviour. The
insights gained from this exploration should be helpful for information
literacy programme planners. If we want our programmes to be effective,
we must consider the complex nature of search behaviour and develop
strategic instructional responses that address the factors that influence that
behaviour. Ultimately, information literacy programmes must be flexible

94 The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003

enough to evolve with a dynamically changing environment and substantial
enough to respond to the ongoing and complex needs of our students.
Without lasting improvement in student search behaviour, our students will
not acquire the information literacy skills we seek to develop and that they
need to succeed in college and beyond.

AUTHOR’S NOTE
The author gratefully acknowledges the data collection assistance provided
by St John’s University Information Literacy Librarian, Benjamin Turner,
and her graduate assistant, Elizabeth Guthrie.

REFERENCES
1. See, e.g. GRAPHIC, VISUAL, AND USABILITY (GVU) CENTER’s 10th WWW User
Survey and the corresponding Website: http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-
1998-10/.
2. NIELSEN, J. Usability engineering . Boston, MA: Academic Press, 1993.
3. See, e.g. SPOOL, J. Web site usability: A designer’s guide. North Andover, MA: User
Interface Engineering, 1997.
4. See, e.g. CAMPBELL, N., ed. Usability assessment of library-related Web sites: Methods
and case studies. Chicago: American Library Association, 2001.
5. BATTLESON, B., BOOTH, A. and WEINTROP, J. Usability testing of an academic
library Website: a case study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27, 2001, 188
/198.
6. SABOL, L. The value of student evaluation of a Website. Research Strategies, 16, 1998,
79
/84.
7. CHISMAN, J., DILLER, K. and WALDBRIDGE, S. Usability testing: a case study.
College & Research Libraries, 60, 1999, 552
/569.
8. BRUCE, H. Perceptions of the internet: what people think when they search the internet
for information. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 9(3),
1999, 187
/199.
9. FLANAGAN, J. C. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin , 51, 1954, 327
/
358.
10. KOENEMANN-BELLIVEAU, J., CARROLL, J. M., ROSSON, M. B. and SINGLEY,
M. K. Comparative usability evaluation: critical incidents and critical threads. Proceedings
of CHI 94 , New York, NY: ACM, 1994, 245
/251.
11. MORRISON, J. B., PIROLLI, P. and CARD, S. K. A taxonomic analysis of what World
Wide Web activities significantly impact people’s decisions and actions, 2000. http://
www.parc.xerox.com/istl/projects/uir/pubs/pdf/uir-r-2000-17-Morrison-CHI2001-WebT-
axonomy.pdf.
12. SLONE, D. J. The influence of mental models and goals on search patterns during Web
interaction. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
53(13), 2002, 1152
/1169.
13. CHILDERS, T. L. and RAO, A. R. The influence of familial and peer-based reference
groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research , 19, 1992, 198
/211.
14. OUELLETTE, J. A. and WOOD, W. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple
processes by which past behaviour predicts future behaviour. Psychological Bulletin ,
124(1), 1998, 54
/74.

The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003 95

15. AARTS, H. and DIJKSTERHUIS, A. Habits as knowledge structures: automaticity in
goal-directed behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 2000, 53
/63.
16. PERRY, JR., W. G. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a
scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
17. FIELDS, A. M. Women’s epistemological development: implications for undergraduate
literacy instruction. Research Strategies, 18, 2001, 227
/238.
18. KATUNG, M., JOHNSTONE, A. H. and DOWNIE, J. R. Monitoring attitude change in
students to teaching and learning in a university setting: a study using Perry’s
developmental model. Teaching in Higher Education , 4(1), 1999, 43
/60.
19. GILLIGAN, C. In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development .
Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1982.
20. BELENKY, M. F., CLINCHY, B. M., GOLDBERGER, N. R. and TARULE, J. M.
Women’s ways of knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind . New York, NY: Basic
Books, 1986.
21. BAXTER MAGOLDA, M. B. Knowing and reasoning in college: gender-related patterns in
students’ intellectual development . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1992.
22. WOOD, E., WILLOUGHBY, T., MCDERMOTT, C., MOTZ, M., KASPAR, V. and
DUCHARME, M. J. Developmental differences in study behaviour. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 91(3), 1999, 527
/536.

APPENDIX A

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF
OF WEBSITE
WEBSITE USABILITY
USABILITY

Background Questionnaire

Interviewer:__________________ Participant # :______________

Please circle the number that most accurately describes your response to the
following items:

1. How familiar would you say you are with everyday computing
activities (e.g., word processing, email)?

1 2 3 4 5
not at all familiar very familiar

2. How familiar would you say you are with the use of Webpages for
on-line activities (e.g., searching for information)?

1 2 3 4 5
not at all familiar very familiar

96 The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003

 3. How familiar would you say you are with the design and creation of
Webpages?

1 2 3 4 5
not at all familiar very familiar

4. How familiar would you say you are with the St. John’s University
Library Webpages?

1 2 3 4 5
not at all familiar very familiar

5. How familiar would you say you are with the St. John’s University
Library services?

1 2 3 4 5
not at all familiar very familiar

6. What do you primarily use the Web for?

(Please check all that apply.)

I Education
I Shopping/gathering product information
I Entertainment
I Work/Business
I Communication with others (not including email)
I Gathering information for personal needs
I Wasting time
I Other (Please explain _____________)____

7. How do you find out about new WWW pages/sites?

(Please check all that apply.)

I Books
I Friends
I Follow links from other Web pages/sites
I Internet search engines (e.g., Alta Vista, Google, etc.)
I Internet directories (e.g., Yahoo, etc.)
I Listservs or newsgroups

The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003 97

 I Magazines/newspapers
I Signatures at end of email messages
I Television/radio
I Other sources (please explain____________________)

8. Approximately, how many items does your Favorites/Bookmarks

contain?

I I don’t use Favorites/Bookmarks

I I don’t know
I 1 to 10 pages
I 11
/50 pages
I 51
/100 pages
I 101 pages or more

9. To what extent would you say you use the Internet to search for
specific information? Would you say. . .

I Most of the time

I Sometimes
I Seldom
I Never

10. What search engine(s) do you typically use?

11. To what extent would you say you use the Internet to have ‘fun’ and
explore? Would you say. . .

I Most of the time

I Sometimes
I Seldom
I Never

12. What year of your studies are you presently in?

I Freshman I Sophomore I Junior I Senior

13. Have you declared a major?

I NO
I YES

What is your major?__________________________

98 The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003

 14. Have you taken, or are you taking now, a Discover New York class?
I NO I YES

15. What is your gender?

I MALE I FEMALE

16. What is your present age? ____________ YEARS

APPENDIX B

Student Perceptions of Website Usability

Interview Schedule

Part I: Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study entitled ‘Student

Perceptions of Website Usability.’ In order to make certain that each
participant receives the same information, I am going to read to you from
this script.

We will begin by going over the consent form for participation in this study.
It explains the purpose of the study and describes what you will be asked to
do.

. Review the consent form with the participant and ask if he/she has any
questions.
. Ask the participant to read and sign the consent form.
. Sign the consent form and give a copy to the participant.

Part II: Background Questionnaire

Before we begin the interview, I would like to ask you to tell us something
about yourself and your computing experience.

. Ask the participant to complete the Background Questionnaire.

Thank you. Now, let’s move on to the main part of the study.

Part III: Interview Questions

Next, I am going to ask you to try to recall a recent instance where you
found important information on the World Wide Web, information that

The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003 99

you needed for a class assignment or that you used to make an important
decision. Please try to describe that incident in enough detail so that I can
visualize the situation.

1. What type of information were you looking for?

2. What led to your need for this information?
3. How did you search for this information?
4. Why did you approach your search in that way?
5. Did you do anything during the search that you believe was especially
effective?
6. Why do you think this action was so effective?

Now, I would like you to describe an instance where your search for
important information on the Web was unsuccessful. Again, please try to
describe the incident in enough detail so that I can visualize the situation.

7. What type of information were you looking for?

8. What led to your need for this information?
9. How did you search for this information?
10. Why did you approach your search in that way?
11. Did you do anything during the search that you believe was especially
ineffective?
12. Why do you think this action was so ineffective?

OK, that’s all the questions I have for you today. Are there any additional
comments that you would like to make? Or questions that you would like
to ask me?

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study. We sincerely
appreciate your help with this research.

. Give the participant a thank-you gift bag.

100 The New Review of Academic Librarianship 2003