brown.p65 426 College & Research Libraries September 1999 Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students in the Information Age Cecelia M. Brown This article reports on findings from a survey exploring the information literacy of physical science graduate students. The study also describes the graduate students’ perceptions of the physical and psychological components that enhance or detract from their ability to find, appraise, and use information and how they feel during the various stages of an information search. This snapshot investigation illustrates that physical science graduate students form an information-literate microcosm de spite the lack of formal library instruction. The students offer a small number of reasons why they may be inhibited from locating an informa tion source and report experiencing little anxiety as they search for infor mation. They also describe their ideal information-seeking environment as being within the comfort of their home or the convenience of the library. Further, they place some emphasis, but not total reliance, on the capability to connect to the Internet quickly. Relevance, quality, and speed are the cornerstones of a successful search quest. Recommendations for outreach to graduate students who are not native speakers of En glish are made. Also, suggestions are proposed for library instruction that is specifically designed for, and attracts a greater number of, physi cal science graduate students. ver the past two decades, technology has become an integral part of the fabric of academic life. Physical sci ence faculty and students employ tech nology every day on university cam puses as they e-mail colleagues all over the globe, word process manuscripts, create spreadsheets of data, and search online databases for information to support their teaching and research activities. Parallel with the increasing dependence on technology for daily tasks has been the unimaginable expan s i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n re l a t e d t o t h e physical sciences. Physical science li brarians and information specialists have taken advantage of the new tech nologies to organize, provide access to, and archive this wealth of information. However, the extent to which gradu ate students in the physical sciences are able to identify, find, appraise, and make effective use of the vast amounts of information available to them to ad dress a specific problem (i.e., their in formation literacy) has not been docu mented. Cecelia M. Brown is an Assistant Professor and the Chemistry–Mathematics Librarian at the University of Oklahoma; e-mail: cbrown@ou.edu. 426 mailto:cbrown@ou.edu Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students 427 Background The 1989 report from the ALA’s Presiden tial Committee on Information Literacy defines an information-literate person as one who “must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the abil ity to locate, evaluate, and effectively use the needed information.”1 Information- literate persons are prepared for lifelong learning because they are able to locate the information required for any en deavor or decision that confronts them.2 The goal of the study was to provide suggestions for programs and services that would maximize the information-seeking ability of graduate students in the physical sciences. The ALA report contends that informa tion literacy is essential for the promotion of economic independence and quality of life, and thus it is in the best interest of all U.S. citizens to achieve literacy in infor mation. Similarly, graduate students in the physical sciences must achieve a high degree of information literacy to success fully complete the rigorous requirements of their degree programs and subse quently become competitive in the world market. These graduate students are the world’s future leaders, innovators, and educators in a variety of areas ranging from the chemical basis of Alzheimer ’s disease and cancer to the development of materials for use in devices such as high- energy density batteries, fuel cells, and gas sensors. Yet, whether they have mas tered the art of navigating the world of information available to them is unclear. Related Research Achievement of information literacy has become very challenging in the current Age of Technology. Although the 1989 ALA report placed a large emphasis on computers and networks,3 a recently re vised report by the same committee states that “technology alone will never allow America to reach the potential inherent in the Information Age.”4 This realization is accompanied by a series of recommen dations for fostering information literacy, including the suggestion to conduct more research related to information literacy that emphasizes methods to benchmark information literacy abilities and progress. Indeed, several earlier papers and reports have highlighted programs aimed at enhancing information literacy, yet none have specifically addressed de grees of information literacy and how they can be assessed.5 Many factors enhance or diminish in formation literacy in university students. Academic librarians are uniquely posi tioned to foster the development of infor mation literacy. This is purported to be especially successful when librarians de velop partnerships with faculty and, as partners, incorporate information literacy programs into the academic curriculum.6 Despite these efforts, however, a number of physical and psychological barriers inhibit the development of information literacy.7 What these factors are and how they affect the information literacy of physical science graduate students has not been documented. Objectives This study was undertaken to explore the information literacy level of graduate stu dents in the physical sciences at the Uni versity of Oklahoma (OU). A questionnaire was designed to query the students about their perceptions of the physical and psy chological components that contribute to, or detract from, their ability to find, evalu ate, and utilize needed information. The goal of the study was to provide sugges tions for programs and services that would maximize the information-seeking ability of graduate students in the physical sci ences. Ultimately, the suggestions might be used to help a range of students become information literate and thus be able to find, evaluate, and use information for life long learning and problem solving. Methodology In addition to learning how graduate stu dents in the physical sciences find, evalu 428 College & Research Libraries September 1999 ate, and use information, the question naire was developed to elicit their percep tions of the search processes. The ques tions were largely open-ended and concerned the students’ initial thought processes before an information search, the resources they are likely to use, and how they trace and locate individual sources. Similar questions have been used in case studies and focus groups to un derstand the information-seeking process from the user’s perspective.8 Moreover, several questions were asked to discover what facilitates or in hibits the physical science graduate stu dents’ information-seeking processes and how they feel during the various stages of information seeking. These questions were patterned after those used previ ously to study the emotional, situational, and physical barriers that affect students’ information-seeking processes.9 Finally, ten questions were designed to obtain de mographic information about the stu dents, including gender, age, native lan guage, year of study, semester course load, degree pursued, primary research area, stage in graduate program, projected year of graduation, and career plans. To reduce paper use and to take ad vantage of electronic communication, the survey was distributed electronically (i.e., e-mail). Initially, the questionnaire was distributed to only ten graduate students in order to assess its strengths and weak nesses, estimate the time required to com plete it, and ensure that it included all per tinent variables. After making minimal modifications, the questionnaire was e- mailed in February 1999 to all the bio chemistry–chemistry (eighty), mathemat ics (forty-two), and physics–astronomy (twenty-one) graduate students at OU. Six respondents requested a printed ques tionnaire. Respondents were asked to re turn the questionnaires as quickly as pos sible. After two weeks, another e-mail was sent to encourage nonrespondents to re turn a completed questionnaire. In March, an appeal was sent to the physical science faculty members asking them to encour age their students to respond to the sur vey. A final query was sent to the remain ing graduate students during the latter part of March. To ensure confidentiality, all data were cataloged using an assigned identification number and the returned e-mail questionnaires were deleted. Ap proval to use human subjects in this in vestigation was granted by the Institu tional Review Board of OU. Survey Population Thirty-six of the 143 students queried re sponded to the questionnaire for a re sponse rate of 25 percent. The low re sponse rate may be attributed to a number of factors. A high percentage of the physi cal science graduate students are not na tive speakers of English and are very underrepresented in the sample of stu dents responding. It is likely that they did not understand the questionnaire and its potential benefit. Also, the students are under extreme time constraints. Gradu ate students in the physical sciences are expected to excel in their course work, instruct laboratory sessions, and conduct innovative research, leaving them little time for other activities. Consequently, it is very possible that they felt too busy to answer the survey. However, valuable information can be learned from the answers given, despite the low response rate. The students who answered the survey are a diverse group, in varying stages of their graduate pro gram, specializing in different areas of the physical sciences. As such, they provide a heterogeneous sample of the physical science graduate students at OU. Also, they gave detailed responses to which they had given much consideration. Their answers resemble the types of qualitative responses expected from a focus group or personal interview where the survey population is traditionally small. Student representation was 47 percent chemistry–biochemistry (21% of students responding), 31 percent mathematics (26% of students responding), and 22 per cent physics–astronomy (38% of students responding). Sixteen of the biochemistry– chemistry students were pursuing a Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students 429 Ph.D., and one was pursuing a nonthesis master’s degree. Eight of the mathemat ics students were enrolled in the Ph.D. program, five of whom were specializing in mathematics education. Two of the mathematics students were taking a nonthesis master ’s degree, and one of these was a mathematics education ma jor. The remaining mathematics student was working on a master ’s degree with the thesis option. All eight physics–as tronomy graduate students were Ph.D. candidates. The average number of years spent at OU at the time of the survey was 2.8, with a range of 0.5 years to nine years. Consequently, the students responding were at varying levels in their programs, ranging from just starting to writing their dissertation. The greatest number of courses the students were enrolled in was three, and the longer they had been in their program, the fewer courses they were taking. The senior students reported being enrolled in dissertation hours only. The expected date of graduation varied from 1999 to 2004. Twenty-five (69%) of the thirty-six stu dents responding reported English as their native language. Three (8%) stu dents were native Russian speakers, and the remaining eight (22%) spoke either Arabic, Chinese, German, Hindi, Nufi, Sinhalease, Tamil, or Turkish. The stu dents’ plans after graduation included positions in teaching (31%), academia (17%), research (14%), or industry (14%). The remaining students (22%) were un decided about their career plans. The av erage age of the students at the time of the survey was 27.9 years, with a range from twenty-two to forty-nine years. Six teen (44%) of the respondents were fe male and twenty (56%) were male. Library Resources at the University of Oklahoma The OU library system comprises a main library and six branch libraries, includ ing the chemistry–mathematics and phys ics–astronomy branch libraries. The chemistry–mathematics library, located within the same complex as the chemis try–biochemistry and mathematics de partments, holds more than 70,000 vol umes and receives approximately 500 journal titles. The physics–astronomy li brary is located in the same building as the physics–astronomy department, and contains more than 35,000 volumes and subscribes to 185 journals. Campuswide full-text electronic access via the World Wide Web (Web) is available to the suite of American Physical Society journals and to twenty-three Institute of Physics jour nals. The panoply of indexes and abstracts available for use at no charge to patrons at OU and their modes of access are listed in table 1. Findings Informgtion Requirements The students were asked to check the rea sons they need information on a list that included course work, dissertation/the sis research, and special projects, plus an option to describe other information re quirements. They were asked to check all that apply. Twenty-seven percent of the students use information for course work, 25 percent for research, and 47 percent for special projects, including grant proposal preparation and teaching responsibilities. Four (11%) of the respondents stated they look for information for their personal interests, to either gain personal knowl edge or satisfy their own curiosity. Time Devoted to Informgtion Seeking The students were asked how much time they devote to seeking information on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Every stu dent spends at least some time each month looking for information. Forty- seven percent of the students devote any where from twenty minutes to one or more hours per day seeking information. A Ph.D. candidate in mathematics re ported seeking information only sporadi cally, whereas another, also a mathemat ics Ph.D. student, reported looking for information five to six hours per day, sev eral days in a row, one to three times per semester. Similarly, a biochemistry–chem istry Ph.D. student searches for approxi 430 College & Research Libraries September 1999 mately twenty minutes a day, three times per week, or spends an entire day, two times a month, depending on need. One physics–astronomy student, who at the time of the study had been at OU for nine years, looks for information daily and regrets that too much of that time is sim ply for pleasure. Processes Involved in an Information Search When the students were asked to describe their initial thought process before begin ning an information search and how they feel at this stage of the process, they gave a variety of responses. Eleven (30%) of the students reported beginning by thinking of authors’ names and key words with which they can search OU’s online com puter catalog (OLIN) or another second ary source such as Chemical Abstracts, Medline, or ERIC. Others (25%) said they think about where they can get the needed information—journals, textbooks, professors, or other graduate students. Three (8%) students were concerned TABLE 1 Indexing and Abstracting Tools Available at the University of Oklahoma for Use by Patrons Free of Charge Discipline Title and Access Modes General Article First via OCLC First Search Web version Carl UnCover via Web via Telnet Science Citation Index print Chemistry-biochemistry Chemical Abstracts print as CA Student Edition via OCLC First Search Web version MEDLINE via OCLC First Search Web version as PubMed via the Web Mathematics Current Mathematical Publications print as MathSciNet via the Web ERIC (Educational Resource Information Center) CD-ROM via OCLC First Search Web version Mathematical Reviews print as MathSciNet via the Web Zentralblatt fur MathematiklMathematics Abstracts print Physics-astronomy Physics Abstracts print Physical Review Online Archive (PROLA) via Web Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students 431 about the quickest way to get the infor mation needed. One biochemistry–chem istry Ph.D. candidate “hope[s] it’s there,” whereas an MS mathematics student be lieves “it’s going to be trouble!” In gen eral, the students reported feeling posi tive at this point in their information quest, using words such as “fine,” “con fident, ” “curious, ” “enthusiastic,” or “hopeful.” However, five (14%) students expressed frustration with not being able to find exactly what they need, saying they “know there’s stuff out there but don’t know how to access it.” A math ematics education Ph.D. candidate was “amazed at the junk that comes up dur ing a fairly simple search … stuff that has no logical relation.” Frustration also is generated by the lack of available online databases precipitating the need to search print versions of Chemical Abstracts, or Dissertation Abstracts, or to physically come to the library. A biochemistry–chem istry Ph.D. candidate drew an analogy with a chef, having “all the ingredients (and some nonvalue ones) without a recipe.” The students were then asked to spe cifically identify and appraise all likely sources used in a search for information. Eighteen (50%) of them stated that jour nal article reference lists are good to ex cellent sources for information. Carl UnCover received mixed reviews rang ing from “not that great” to “not very sat isfying” to “excellent” by ten (28%) stu dents. One of these students noted that Carl UnCover Reveal, a table of contents alerting service available to all faculty and graduate students at OU free of charge, is an excellent information source. Al though thirteen (36%) students cited pro fessors as good to excellent information sources, three of these students also re ported that their professors are often too busy to be helpful. Six (16%) biochemis try–chemistry students described the ex cellent utility of Chemical Abstracts Stu dent Edition via FirstSearch, and one lauded the thoroughness of printed Chemical Abstracts. However, two (6%) students found printed Chemical Ab stracts to be “bad” and “time-consum ing.” Three of the five mathematics edu cation Ph.D. candidates touted the virtues of ERIC but did not describe their mode of access. Three (8%) Ph.D. students, one from each discipline, declared the Internet to be a good source of information but were not specific about particular sites. Four (11%) students listed OLIN as a good to excellent source. Science Citation In dex was mentioned as a “good way to move forward to more recent research on a topic” by a biochemistry–chemistry Ph.D. student, and a mathematics master ’s student observed that amazon.com was a good resource for books. A mathematics Ph.D. candidate found MathSciNet to be only an “aver age” information resource, and a phys ics–astronomy Ph.D. student highlighted NED, an extragalactic database from NASA, as an “excellent” source of infor mation. Twenty-six (72%) students follow a similar pathway when tracing and locat ing individual resources. In essence, they obtain a citation using the methods de scribed above, search OLIN either in the library or remotely, retrieve the material from the library shelf, photocopy it, and then read the information. Six (23%) of these twenty-six students read the ab stract or the entire article to ascertain its relevance before photocopying. Three (8%) respondents indicated that they find articles on the Web and either print the pages out or read them with their Web browser. The remaining seven (19%) stu dents did not outline their search strate gies but, rather, reported either difficulty using OLIN, difficulty limiting their searches, or a high reliance on obtaining articles via interlibrary loan (ILL) and/ or Carl UnCover. The students were then asked to de scribe the point at which they stop look ing for an individual information source and how they feel at this point in their information quest. Two (6%) people, Ph.D. candidates in biochemistry–chem istry and mathematics education, claimed they never stop searching for information. http:amazon.com 432 College & Research Libraries September 1999 Eleven (31%) students said they discon tinue looking if the item cannot be found in the OU library system, and an addi tional eleven (31%) said they discontinue their search after placing an ILL request. Four (11%) students discontinue when they believe the information they are looking for either does not exist or sim ply cannot be found, and a mathematics education master ’s student quits after having exhausted all the sources known. Three (8%) students abandon their search after a short time (approximately five minutes) and pursue an alternative route. Two (6%) students consult friends and colleagues before they cease looking, and two (6%) others end their search if the item is not written in English. Four of the eight physics–astronomy Ph.D. students terminate their quest if the information cannot be accessed and downloaded from the Web for free. In contrast to the positive feelings cited at the onset of an information search, the students reported feelings of frustration, puzzlement, fatigue, disappointment, in effectiveness, anxiety, and being lost when they decide to stop looking for an information source. One biochemistry– chemistry Ph.D. student wondered if the information from ILL or Carl UnCover was worth the paperwork and manpower required to obtain it, and another was concerned about missing “something simple.” Two (6%) biochemistry–chemis try Ph.D. candidates were bothered by the time-consuming nature of the process but were hopeful that the needed information would arrive eventually. Two (6%) other Ph.D. students in biochemistry–chemis try said they feel happy when they stop looking because they have the informa tion they need. Finally, the student who made the chef analogy earlier in the sur vey wrote: “the chef has found the recipe, has the ingredients; however, the pots and pans have been stolen, not to mention he forgot to pay the utilities and has no gas or electric to begin his masterpiece.” When asked how they decide which individual sources of information will be of use, sixteen (44%) students cited the correct topic being of the greatest impor tance and thirteen (36%) were concerned with the standing of the information source. The reputation of the article’s au thors was important to seven (19%) stu dents, whereas three (8%) noted that the number of times the article has been cited indicates its usefulness. Seven (19%) stu dents said they read the abstract or the article before they are able to evaluate its usefulness. The physics–astronomy Ph.D. candidate who had been at OU the long est commented that ease of access is an important factor in an information source’s value. Although nothing deters ten (27%) students from finding information, eleven (31%) cited problems with online databases. The next question asked the students to describe how they use the information obtained. All of the students read the in formation source, and eight (22%) subse quently file the item in their homes or offices. Six (17%) students take this one step further and enter the citation into a citation database such as EndNote. Read ing for three (8%) students consists of scanning for needed information, such as a chemical structure or the reagents used in an experiment, whereas seven (19%) students annotate as they read. Three (8%) other students read and then cite the source in a class project or in their thesis. The longest-term Ph.D. physics–as tronomy student reads the information and then either files it or, if it is not use ful, recycles the paper or deletes the file from the hard drive. Finally, in learning about their infor mation-seeking processes, the students were asked how they know when their search is complete and how they feel at this final point. More than half the stu dents (55%) reported knowing their search is complete if they either find what they are looking for, obtain the answers to their question(s), or are able to solve the problem(s) at hand. Four (11%) stu dents believe their search is complete Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students 433 when they exhaust all the sources avail able, whereas one concludes the search if the information cannot be located. Eight (22%) students perpetually seek informa tion because, as one biochemistry–chem istry Ph.D. student wrote, “one idea bleeds into another, so it feels never end ing.” Two mathematics students, one master’s and one Ph.D., claimed they do not know when their search is complete. Finally, four (11%) students deem their searches over when either time runs out, the project is due, or “the time involved has become more important than the dis covery.” At this ending point in their in formation searches, the students reported emotions ranging from relief, satisfaction, accomplishment, and success to disgust, frustration, exhaustion, and uneasiness. The mathematics education Ph.D. student who reported feeling uneasy said that “there is too much out there to choose from and [I] may have missed the very best one.” Two analogies were drawn at this point. Again, the Ph.D. biochemistry– chemistry student feels like “the chef [who] bought some better pans and is cooking outdoors as nature intended,” whereas a mathematics Ph.D. likened his feelings to those experienced when find ing a good pair of shoes on sale. Inhibitors and Facilitators to Finding Information After being queried about their informa tion-seeking processes and tactics, the students were asked to comment on fac tors that inhibit or facilitate their searches. Although nothing deters ten (27%) students from finding information, eleven (31%) cited problems with online databases, including not knowing the correct keywords, the Internet being down, the databases being too compli cated to search, the item not being on the shelf, and there being no method to ac cess individually authored chapters within books. Five (14%) students com plained that time constraints inhibit their information searches, whereas one bio chemistry–chemistry Ph.D. student re ported being inhibited when the journals are housed in the main library and valu able time is wasted on physically retriev ing the information. Being inhibited in their information searches created nega tive feelings in all the respondents. De scriptions of their feelings included “de spondent,” “lost,” “frustrated,” and “helpless.” A biochemistry–chemistry Ph.D. student believes the “work would have been better if [I] had just found the material as originally envisioned,” whereas another is ready to “rip [out my] hair!” Another biochemistry–chemistry Ph.D. student becomes “determined to do better next time,” and yet another feels “deprived of useful information.” One of the physics–astronomy Ph.D. stu dents declared that when inhibited from finding information, the resources at OU feel “too restricted.” Fifteen (42%) students found that ac cess to online databases such as OLIN, ERIC, and Chemical Abstracts Student Edition facilitates their information-seek ing processes. Human resources, includ ing library staff, fellow graduate stu dents, and professors, were reported by thirteen (36%) students to be of assistance in an information pursuit. Carl UnCover and ILL were said to facilitate informa tion seeking by three (8%) students, whereas another three commented that the order of the books and journals in the library are useful in locating the neces sary materials. The senior physics–as tronomy student is aided in information searches by a “good, fast Internet con nection.” The students expressed posi tive feelings when their information search is made easier. These feelings in cluded “good,” “happy,” “pleased,” and “satisfied.” A Ph.D. student in mathemat ics education feels that “[my] time is ac tually respected by someone,” whereas, physics–astronomy Ph.D. student felt that “the universe is functioning as it was intended to.” Presentation of Information The physical science graduate students were next asked to describe how they present the information they have found. 434 College & Research Libraries September 1999 Twenty-one (58%) students present it as a citation in a paper or in their disserta tion. Six (16%) of the students said they present the information in a seminar, and five (13%) reported filing the information for future reference. Four (11%) students apply the information in their research, and another four use it when talking to their faculty advisor. In addition, three (8%) students noted presenting the infor mation in their course work. Also men tioned by one student each was using the information for personal knowledge and when talking with a colleague. A master ’s student in mathematics education simply reported not presenting the information located. Measurement of the Success of an Information Search The students responding to the question on how they measure the success of an information search use one of five ap proaches. Ten (27%) students consider a search successful if they find what they are looking for, whereas nine (25%) deem a search successful if the information leads to an understanding of the topic or question at hand or their research project. Saving time marks a successful search for six (16%) students, and three (8%) based the success of their search on the grades they earn. The quality of the end product is important to three (8%) students, espe cially, as one biochemistry–chemistry Ph.D. said, “when a project comes out as well as I could do it, even if I had worked on it for much longer.” Choice of Information-seeking Environ- ment After being questioned in detail about their processes of information seeking, the physical science graduate students were asked to check on a list where they prefer to carry out their searches for informa tion. They were asked to check all that apply. The majority (86%) of the students indicated the library, 42 percent their home, 39 percent their office, and 33 per cent their laboratory as good locations to look for information. Four (11%) students also noted the OU computer laboratories as good information-seeking sites. One student, a Ph.D. biochemistry–chemistry candidate, also likes to look for informa tion in old bookstores so as to have “ma terials permanently on hand.” When asked why they designated the above as their preferred places to look for information, convenience and/or comfort were cited by most of the respondents (92%). The fourteen (38%) students who found the library the most convenient place to look for information claimed they did so because the library has all the books and journals in one place, computer access to databases, and staff to provide assistance. Home was listed as being con venient by six (16%) students because they can be near their families and also have access to their personal computer. The advantage of searching for informa tion from home is comfort for three (8%) students. Two (6%) students mentioned that they search for information in the most readily available and easiest-to-ac cess location, and therefore search in all four places suggested. After questioning the students about where they look for information, the next item on the survey asked, “Please de scribe your ideal information-seeking environment.” For eleven (31%) students, the library is ideal. In contrast, one stu dent desired “any place comfortable, NOT the library.” Eight (22%) students declared that their ideal setting is any where there is a computer, preferably with a “fast Internet connection.” A place that affords a quiet setting was ideal for five (14%) students, especially if there are either “big soft chairs,” “minimum dis tractions,” or “a good selection of printed materials.” A biochemistry–chemistry Ph.D. candidate remarked that the ideal setting is one that “has what [I] need, [is] well organized, [is] user-friendly, and [is] accessible when [I] need it.” Another Ph.D. candidate in biochemistry–chemis try commented that in the ideal location the search tools would be easily found and everything needed would be “on hand.” Carl UnCover was given as the Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students 435 ideal information-seeking environment by another biochemistry–chemistry Ph.D. candidate, whereas another ’s ideal situ ation includes a “big desk, paper handy, bright room, [and at] room temperature.” Library Instruction Experiences Finally, the physical science graduate stu dents were asked whether they had re ceived any form of library instruction while at OU, and if yes, to describe their experiences. Fifty percent of the students had received some type of library instruc tion, but few were able to comment on the usefulness or nature of the sessions. Comments ranged from “hands-on dem onstration” to “group tour” to “someone talked to my math class last summer.” A biochemistry–chemistry Ph.D. candidate admitted needing more knowledge, whereas another mentioned asking for help at the front desk. In fact, 83 percent of the students consult the librarian and/ or the library staff when searching for information. They described their en counters as “positive,” “helpful,” “friendly,” and “wonderful.” Discussion This snapshot investigation of the infor mation-seeking abilities and behaviors of thirty-six physical sciences graduate stu dents at the University of Oklahoma il lustrates that this is an information-liter ate microcosm. In accordance with the definition of an information-literate per son given by the ALA’s Presidential Com mittee on Information Literacy, these stu dents are indeed “able to recognize when information is needed” and possess the “ability to locate, evaluate, and effectively use the needed information.”10 The students demonstrate their infor mation literacy ability by first realizing that they need information to support their research and course-related activi ties. After an information need is recog nized, they search the panoply of infor mation-locating tools available using au thors’ names and appropriate keywords. The students are aware that they must exhaust all available resources before end ing a search and must employ rigorous criteria for evaluating the information obtained. They then present the informa tion as a citation within a seminar, a pa per, or a thesis. These abilities surprised the investiga tor for a number of reasons. First, previ ously published information on the infor mation literacy of undergraduates sug gests that this population is not reaching its potential, and thus it seemed unlikely that such a great leap could be made be tween undergraduate and graduate school.11 Second, the investigator has con ducted a number of hands-on workshops demonstrating FirstSearch databases and Carl UnCover specifically for physical sci ence graduate students. These sessions were poorly attended, especially by the mathematics and physics–astronomy stu dents. The students themselves reported receiving little, or unmemorable, library instruction while at OU. Third, the inves tigator interacts daily with physical sci ence graduate students who generally seem distracted and rushed when seek ing information. It appeared to the inves tigator that thorough searches were not being conducted. It was these anecdotal experiences that led the investigator to believe that physical science graduate stu dents are not reaching their information literacy potential. Yet, the students’ thoughtful and often impassioned re sponses to the survey questions indicate otherwise. The cause of the apparent transition in information literacy between the under graduate and graduate years is not clear from this study, but one can conjecture that the students surveyed were more highly motivated than those previously studied. This suggestion is in spite of the positive relationship previously observed between academic achievement, and li brary anxiety and avoidance.12 Alterna tively, perhaps the observations can be attributed to the maturity of the physical sciences graduate students. College fresh men have been shown to experience a high level of library anxiety and avoid ance, and this level declines linearly with http:avoidance.12 http:school.11 436 College & Research Libraries September 1999 each year of study.13 Also, longitudinal case studies that tracked the information search processes of four students in their senior year of high school and again af ter four years of college found that the students developed a sense of ownership of the search process as they matured.14 This was also the case in this investiga tion. The students became highly in volved in their information-seeking quests as they considered how they should approach the search, weighed their options, and evaluated their results. The physical science graduate students at OU exhibited their maturity by being able to redirect their search if it originally failed by seeking assistance from the li brary staff when necessary and by realiz ing that, as scientists, their search for in formation is a lifelong endeavor. This investigation also delved into the feelings experienced by the physi cal science graduate students during various stages of an information search. These questions were posed to ascertain the level of anxiety experienced by these students when looking for information resources. Constance A. Mellon has re ported that 75 to 85 percent of under graduate students experience an over whelming sense of fear or inadequacy that inhibits their success in a library search.15 Although some of the physical science graduate students surveyed in this investigation experience feelings of dread or frustration when beginning a search, none of them approach informa tion searches fearfully. Qun G. Jiao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie described four antecedents to library anxiety that cause students to avoid the library: bar riers with staff, affective barriers, com fort with library, and knowledge of the library.16 The physical science graduate students surveyed did recall several as pects that inhibited them from locating needed information, but nothing that caused them to avoid the library. In fact, several students found the library to be the ideal information-seeking environ ment and have no difficulty asking the library staff for assistance. The major ity even described their experiences as pleasant. As we approach the new millennium and access to information becomes even more challenging, the investigator de sired to learn what physical science graduate students envisioned as an ideal information-seeking environment. The purpose of the question was to stimulate their imaginations with regard to the pos sibilities that existed for an ideal informa tion-seeking setting in the future. None of the students proposed anything un usual or fantastic, favoring the library or their home for information seeking. Com fort, convenience, and time saving were the key aspects. The physics–astronomy students showed the greatest concern for technology as the cornerstone of an ideal information environment, simply requir ing a computer with a high-speed Internet connection. Similarly, physics–astronomy faculty members demonstrate a high de gree of reliance on electronic journals and databases for information seeking.17 This electronic-based information-seeking process of physicists and astronomers is perhaps the early model for the informa tion-seeking behavior that will emerge in the future for all physical scientists. Conclusions Graduate students in the physical sci ences at OU exhibit a high degree of in formation literacy. They are able to find, effectively use, and evaluate information to meet their specific needs with minimal anxiety. How they become information literate is not apparent from this study and warrants further investigation. Learning how this is achieved may help foster information literacy in the under graduate population. Even though academic librarians are uniquely positioned to foster informa tion literacy, library instr uction in tended for the benefit of physical sci ence graduate students at OU has not been well attended, or remembered, despite encouragement by faculty ad visors, flexible scheduling, and the hands-on nature of the sessions. It is http:seeking.17 http:library.16 http:search.15 http:matured.14 http:study.13 Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students 437 recommended that future library in struction be tailored to meet the stu dents’ specific needs. Students are more receptive at the beginning of their academic careers, yet they require ex pert information-seeking ability as they progress in their program. Therefore, separate programs should be planned for the beginner, intermediate, and ad vanced searcher. For students still in volved in course work, the workshops should highlight the needs of a particu lar class problem or assignment, in cluding patent searching or use of Chemical Abstracts. For senior gradu ate students, the sessions should be designed to address problems and top ics related to particular research spe cialties in the physical sciences, such as heterogeneous catalysis, superno vae, or number theory. When creating library instruction programs, the im portance of convenience, comfort, and time saving to the student audience, should be kept in mind. Strong part nerships with faculty are imperative for these plans to succeed. Although the respondents were infor mation literate and experienced minimal library anxiety, only a small fraction of the total number of graduate students in the physical sciences responded. Particularly absent were those students whose native language is not English. High levels of library anxiety have been reported in these individuals, yet very little has been written about their library experiences.18 Special attention must be paid to this unique group of students to ensure that they are able to locate, evaluate, and use the library resources available. One means to this end may be the production of multilingual Web-based library instruc tional materials. It also is important to note that even though the physical science graduate stu dents at OU are information literate, they have not entirely embraced the Internet as the key to the world of information. It is but one tool in their kit for information seeking within the entire framework of the academic library. The potential of the Internet is great for the development of information literacy, yet, as the physical science graduate students demonstrate, it should not be considered the only means to achieving that end. Consequently, for lifelong learning to take place, an indi vidual must be able to find, use, and evaluate a range of information sources, including, but not limited to, technology and computers. Notes 1. American Library Association, Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, Final Re port (Chicago: ALA, 1989), 1. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid., 1–14. 4. ———, A Progress Report on Information Literacy: An Update on the American Library Associa tion Presidential Committee on Information Literacy: Final Report (Chicago: ALA, 1998). Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/nili/nili.html. 5. Chris Atton, “Using Critical Thinking as a Basis for Library User Education,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 (Nov. 1994): 310–13; Laura A. Sullivan and Nancy F. Campbell, “Strength ening the Foundation for Information Literacy in an Academic Library,” Reference Librarian 33 (1991): 183–89; Christina Susan Bruce, “Information Literacy: A Framework for Higher Educa tion,” Australian Library Journal 44 (Aug. 1995): 158–70; Patricia Senn Brevick and Dan L. Jones, “Information Literacy: Liberal Education for the Information Age,” Liberal Education 79 (winter 1991): 24–29; Zorana Ercegovac, “Information Literacy: Teaching Now for Year 2000,” Reference Services Review 26 (fall/winter 1998): 139–60; Katherine Furlong and Franklin D. Roberts, “If You Teach It, Will They Learn? Information Literacy and Reference Services in a College Library,” Computers in Libraries 18 (May 1998): 22–25; Mary Reichel, “Twenty-five Year Retrospective: The Importance of What We Do,” RQ 33 (fall 1993): 29–32; Loanne Snavely and Natasha Cooper, “Competing Agendas in Higher Education: Finding a Place for Information Literacy,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 37 (fall 1997): 53–62; Tina Evans Greenwood and Jeffrey Frisbie, “Li brary Instruction That’s Out of This World! Information Literacy at Fort Lewis College,” Refer ence Services Review 26 (fall/winter 1998): 45–50; Pierina Parise, “Information Power Goes Online: http://www.ala.org/acrl/nili/nili.html http:experiences.18 438 College & Research Libraries September 1999 Teaching Information Literacy to Distance Learners,” Reference Services Review 26 (fall/winter 1998): 51–60; Harold W. Tucker and Carla Stoffle, “Learning Theory and the Self-reliant Library User,” RQ 24 (fall 1984): 58–66; Herbert S. White, “Bibliographic Instruction, Information Lit eracy, and Information Empowerment,” Library Journal 117 (Jan. 1992): 78–79; Richard Hume Werking, “A Critical Look at Possibilities for and Obstacles to Library Use,” RQ 31 (winter 1991): 162–66. 6. Donna Amstutz and Donna Whitson, “University Faculty and Information Literacy: Who Teaches the Students?” Research Strategies 15 (winter 1997): 18–25; Patricia Iannuzzi, “Faculty Development and Information Literacy: Establishing Campus Partnerships,” Reference Services Review 26 ( fall/winter 1998): 97–116; Denise Isbell and Carol Hammond, “Information Literacy Competencies,” College & Research Library News 6 (June 1993): 325–27; Gloria J. Leckie and Anne Fullerton, “Information Literacy in Science and Engineering Undergraduate Education: Faculty Attitudes and Pedagogical Practices,” College & Research Libraries 60 (Jan. 1990): 9–29; J. Edmund Maynard, “A Case Study of Faculty Attitudes toward Library Instruction: The Citadel Experi ence,” Reference Services Review 18 (summer 1990): 67–76; Lawrence J. McCrank, “Academic Pro grams for Information Literacy: Theory and Structure,” RQ 31 (summer 1992): 485–97; Cerise Oberman, Bonnie Gratch Lindauer, and Betsy Wilson, “Integrating Information Literacy into the Curriculum: How Is Your Library Measuring Up?” College & Research Library News 59 (May 1998): 347–52; Cerise Oberman, “The Institute for Information Literacy: Formal Training Is a Critical Need,” College & Research Libraries News 59 (Oct. 1998): 703–705. 7. Jane Keefer, “The Hungry Rats Syndrome: Library Anxiety, Information Literacy, and the Academic Reference Process,” RQ 32 (spring 1993): 333–39; Qun G. Jiao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Antecedents of Library Anxiety,” Library Quarterly 67, no. 4 (1997): 372–89; ———, “Perfectionism and Library Anxiety among Graduate Students,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 24 (Sept. 1998): 365–71; Qun G. Jiao, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Art A. Lichtenstein, “Library Anxiety: Characteristics of ‘At-Risk’ College Students,” Library & Informa tion Science Research 18 (spring 1996): 151–63; Constance A. Mellon, “Attitudes: The Forgotten Dimension in Library Instruction,” Library Journal 113 (Sept. 1988): 137–39; ———, “Library Anxi ety: A Grounded Theory and Its Development,” College & Research Libraries 47 (Mar. 1986):160– 65. 8. Carol Collier Kuhlthau, “Longitudinal Case Studies of the Information Search Process of Users in Libraries,” Library and Information Science Research 10 (July 1988): 257–304; ———, “In side the Search Process: Information Seeking from the User’s Perspective,” Journal of the Ameri can Society for Information Science 42, no. 5 (June 1991): 361–71; Louise Limber, “Information Seek ing and Learning Outcomes: A Study of the Interaction between Two Phenomena,” Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly 31, no. 3 (1998): 28–31. 9. Jiao and Onwegbuzie, “Antecedents of Library Anxiety,” 386–88; Mellon, “Attitudes,” 137–39; ———, “Library Anxiety,” 162; Barbara Valentine, “Undergraduate Research Behavior: Using Focus Groups to Generate Theory,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 19, no. 5 (Nov. 1993): 300–4. 10. ALA, Final Report, 1. 11. Brevick and Jones, “Information Literacy,” 24–29; Reichel, “Twenty-five Year Retrospec tive,” 29–32. 12. Jiao, Onwegbuzie, and Lichtenstein, “Library Anxiety,” 158. 13. Mellon, “Attitudes,” 137–39. 14. Kuhlthau, “Longitudinal Case Studies of the Information Search Process of Users in Li braries,” 257–304. 15. Mellon, “Library Anxiety,” 160. 16. Jiao and Onwegbuzie, “Antecedents of Library Anxiety,” 373. 17. Cecelia M. Brown, “Information Seeking Behavior of Scientists in the Electronic Informa tion Age: Astronomers, Chemists, Mathematicians, and Physicists,” Journal of the American Soci ety for Information Science 10 (Aug. 1999): 926–43. 18. Jiao, Onwegbuzie, and Lichtenstein, “Library Anxiety,” 158.