liao et al.indd

Information-Seeking Behavior of
International Graduate Students vs.
American Graduate Students: A User
Study at Virginia Tech 2005

Yan Liao, Mary Finn, and Jun Lu

This is a comparative study on information needs and information-seek-
ing behavior of international graduate students and American graduate
students. This user study is based on empirical data collected from an
online survey conducted between April 7 and May 28, 2005, at Virginia
Tech. The goal of this comparative study is to investigate how graduate
students from diverse ethnic groups discover, select, and use various
information sources and to obtain insights into international graduate
students’ information-seeking behavior, especially its similarities and
differences compared with the information-locating patterns used by
their American peers.

h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t u d e n t
population in United States
colleges and universities is
continuously increasing. Since

1984 the United States has ranked first
worldwide in the number of international
students. In 2000, of the 1.2 million stu-
dents pursuing postsecondary education
outside their home countries, more than
one third choose to study in the United
States. Even a er the events of September
11, 2001, the United States is still the first
choice for study abroad for many interna-
tional students, especially at the graduate

level.1 Although preceded by five years
of steady growth, the number of inter-
national students enrolled in U.S. higher
education institutions did decrease by 2.4
percent in 2003–2004 to a total of 572,509,
according to Open Doors 2004. There has
also been an increase of 2.5 percent in the
total number of graduate enrollments with
wide diversity among graduate fields and
institutions, which partially offset a 5 per-
cent decline in the number of international
undergraduate students.2

At Virginia Tech, international gradu-
ate students accounted for 25 percent

Yan Liao served as Cataloging Librarian at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Library
and currently works at Georgetown University Law Library as Head of Cataloging; e-mail: yl233@law.
georgetown.edu. Mary Finn is Head of Expedited Cataloging at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University Library and Jun Lu is Assistant Professor of the Department of Mathematics and Statistics
at American University; e-mail: maryfinn@vt.edu, and lu@american.edu, respectively. This research was
funded by a grant from the Virginia Tech University Libraries Travel and Research Commi ee. The authors
wish to acknowledge assistance from graduate school officials: Monika Gibson, Ruth Athanson, and Sherri
Turner; and to express appreciation to the following Virginia Tech librarians: Paul Metz, Althea Aschmann,
Margaret Merrill, Dave Beagle, Vicki Kok, Bruce Obenhaus, Michelle Young, Luke Vilelle; and Professor
of Information Science at University of Missouri, Columbia: John Budd.

mailto:lu@american.edu
mailto:maryfinn@vt.edu
http:georgetown.edu

6 College & Research Libraries January 2007

(1465) of the total graduate program en-
rollment in spring semester 2005.3 These
students form a unique multicultural
user group for the university libraries.
Majoring in a variety of disciplines, many
international graduate students are work-
ing as teaching or research assistants in
different departments. Understanding
and meeting their affective as well as
cognitive needs will not only help them
achieve higher level of academic success
but also enhance universities’ teaching
and research capabilities.

There is a vast research literature
exploring topics on academic library
services and multicultural communities.
These works on academic multicultural
environments can be divided into two
categories. The first generally examines
the roles of academic libraries and their
responses to multiculturalism. Most of the
articles in this category discuss services
to students.4 The other category, with
relatively fewer articles, focuses upon the
international group itself, studying the
information needs and information-seek-
ing behavior of multicultural students.
The literature review revealed a gap in
studies of the international group over the
past decade. Many of the earlier studies
were done in the mid 1990s or even ear-
lier. (Louise W. Greenfield 1988;5 Kwasi
Sarkodie-Mensah 1986,6 1992;7 Mary Beth
Allen 1993—survey conducted in 1988;8
Suzanne Irving 1994;9 Nancy Moeckel and
Jenny Presnell 1995—survey conducted in
1991;10 Menxiong Liu and Bernice Redfern
1997—survey conducted 1995.11)

Most of the 1990s studies identify two
distinct barriers that affect the success
level of the use of libraries by interna-
tional students.

One is language/culture barrier, which
impedes communication between users
and librarians. It was estimated that the
average international student has only 50
percent of the reading speed and compre-
hension of his or her American counter-
part, and oral comprehension is less than
50 percent.12 Many international students
were observed pronouncing English words

in a nonstandard way.13 A lack of fluency in
English may result in failed online catalog
searching.14 International students with
English as their primary language were
more successful in using the library than
those for whom English is not their native
language.15 Several cultural a ributes were
found in international student groups
that also create barriers to library access,
including different cultural body language
and gestures, social class and religious
differences, traditional passive roles of
learners, and shyness about approaching
authority figures for assistance.16

Narrow concepts of the nature of
library services and functions formed
in their own countries created another
barrier for international students. Many
foreign libraries did not have the benefit
of open stacks and trained librarians.17
Traditional research tools were not always
available or well organized.18 In some
developing countries, academic libraries
were treated simply as study halls and
students had never learned to expect
service and freedom of access in Ameri-
can libraries. In contrast, many American
students have a be er understanding of
library services and functions.19 A few re-
searchers suggest that some international
students were baffled by unfamiliar tech-
nologies,20 such as CD-ROMs, microfiche,
audiovisual equipment, and the OPAC
(Online Public Access Catalog).21

Ten years later, we have seen sig-
nificant improvement in both English
proficiency and information technology
development worldwide, especially in
many developing countries. Govern-
ments of those countries are paying
more a ention to the teaching of English
in recent years. In Asia, a large source
of international students, children are
now starting to learn English in early
elementary school rather than beginning
in junior high school as done in the past.
Evidence of the improvement of English
proficiency is the increased scores in
the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign
Language), which is required for foreign
students pursuing higher education in

http:Catalog).21
http:functions.19
http:organized.18
http:librarians.17
http:assistance.16
http:language.15
http:searching.14
http:percent.12

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 7

the United States. The test measures the
ability of nonnative speakers of English
to use and understand North American
English as it is spoken, wri en, and heard
in college and university se ings.22 ETS
(Educational Testing Services) TOEFL
score data summary reports showed a
steady increase of mean scores of gradu-
ate-level students (covering all examinees
who, on the exam sheet, indicated that
they were applying for admissions to
colleges or universities as graduate stu-
dents) during the past 10 years, from 532
(paper-based test, full score 677) in July
1991–June 1993 to 223 (computer-based
test, equals 563 in paper-based test) in
July 2003–June 2004.23 In accordance
with the ongoing improvement of the
English proficiency level of international
students within the past decade, lan-
guage barriers are less severe than they
were previously. At the same time, rapid
development of information technology
has innovatively changed the academic
libraries in developing countries in the
past ten years. According to the Fall 2003
International Student Survey at San Jose
State University, 94 percent of incoming
international students used a library in
their home country before coming to the
United States. Of those, 84 percent used
a computer inside a library.24 Digital li-
brary access and research are no longer
new to many international students. This
result reveals a significant difference
between international student surveys
conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s
and the current students. Thus, theoreti-
cally, emerging information technology
shouldn’t be a major obstacle standing
between international patrons and the
information sources as it appeared to be
10 years ago.

Do the barriers mentioned above con-
tinue to hinder international students’
success in information searching? Is there
an improvement in information-seeking
skills of current international students?
Can they use academic libraries and other
information sources more effectively than
before? The authors find current research

on international students’ library experi-
ence and needs lacking in the literature,
so there is insufficient data to answer
the questions above. Further, this study
is unique in that previous research has
not been done studying the similarities
and differences between international
students’ information-seeking behavior
and that of American students.

This comparative study focuses on
graduate student groups. It offers a
current view of information needs and
information-seeking experiences of the
growing international library user base.
In addition, this research should help aca-
demic librarians understand more about
the domestic patron group, and find more
effective and cost-efficient systems to
serve both groups.

Methodology and Data Collection
A Web-based anonymous survey was
published on Survey Monkey from April
7 to May 28, 2005. With the assistance of
the graduate school and departments’
graduate program heads, the cover le er
and the survey link was sent to gradu-
ate students via their listserv. A short
announcement had also been posted in
the news announcement column at uni-
versity library’s homepage for one and a
half months.

The survey questionnaire consisted
of four sections. Section I was structured
to elicit some demographic information
about the study group. Section II sought to
investigate the general information about
searching pa erns. Section III focused on
library activities. Section IV is an open-
ended question for final comments.

The authors employed statistical hy-
pothesis testing techniques to study the
following three areas:

1. Compare the information needs
and information-seeking behavior of in-
ternational graduate students compared
with American graduate students.

2. Investigate the relationship be-
tween English language proficiency of
international graduate students and their
information-seeking behavior.

http:library.24
http:se�ings.22

8 College & Research Libraries January 2007

3. Investigate the relationship be-
tween length of stay in the United States
of international graduate students and
their information-seeking behavior.

A series of null hypotheses have been
tested. A Chi-square test statistic was
calculated from a contingency table in
each hypothesis test and an ANOVA F
test was conducted to all the questions
with answers that can be numerically
measured: for example, answers “never”
to “very o en” can be measured from
1 to 5. Corresponding p values were
obtained from both tests. To reduce the
risk of inflating the overall rate of false
significance, the authors used a small
critical value (α=0.01) for all the hypoth-
esis tests. The null hypotheses would be
rejected if the resulting p values are less
than the critical value α. The Chi-square
test has been widely used to evaluate the
dependence and association of categori-
cal variables, and the ANOVA analysis is
used to further evaluate the difference of
the group means.

Since this study discusses both simi-
larities and differences of the informa-
tion-seeking behaviors of the two groups,
highest rated choices will be listed in the
findings, whether or not there are signifi-
cant differences in the choices.

TABLE 1
Geographic Distribution of International Graduate

Students: VT Enrollment vs. Survey
Geographic
Area

Frequency
(VT/1,465)

Valid
%

Frequency
(Survey/91)

Valid
%

Asia 1,061 72.4% 65 71.4%
Europe 105 7.2% 9 9.9%
Middle East 91 6.2% 6 6.6%
Africa 55 3.7% 2 2.2%
South America 45 3.1% 3 3.3%
Central America 26 1.8% 2 2.2%
North America 21 1.4% 1 1.1%
Arctic Region 5 0.3% 1 1.1%
Oceania 3 0.2% 0 0.0%
Unknown 53 3.6% 2 2.2%

Findings
Section I: Profile of the study group
According to the Virginia Tech Spring
2005 enrollment profile, there are 5,765
graduate students (3,568 full-time and
2,197 part-time). About 6.3 percent (362)
graduate students responded to the sur-
vey. Of those surveys returned, 315 were
valid. The sample size exceeded the Chi-
square test requirements.

Among the 315 respondents, 71.1 per-
cent (224) are American students (U.S.
citizen/permanent resident) and 28.9
percent (91) are international students.
International respondents came from 27
countries. Their geographic distribution
is reported in table 1. The respondent
structure of the survey closely resembles
the demographic distribution of graduate
students at Virginia Tech, which signifi-
cantly decreased the risk of skewing or
biasing survey data. (See figure 1 and
table 1.)

Another demographic factor exam-
ined was the total number of years the
international students had been studying
in the United States. Almost half of the in-
ternational respondents (49.4%) indicated
that they’ve been in the United States for
2–5 years; 29.7 percent reported less than
2 years, and 20.9 percent have been in

the United States for 5
years or more.

Concerning the Eng-
lish proficiency ques-
tion, a total of 85 re-
spondents, including
75 international and
10 American students,
claimed that English
is not their primary
l a n g u a g e . Ta b l e 2
shows their English
proficiency in speak-
ing, listening, writing,
and reading. Reading,
listening, and speak-
ing comprehension are
very important during
the information-seek-
ing process. The data

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 9

FIGURE 1
American (US citizen/PR) vs. International Students

4300, 75%

1465, 25%

American (US citizen/PR) vs. International
Students at VT (5,765)

American (US citizen/PR) vs.
International Students (315)

AmericanAmerican

224, 71%

International
International

91, 29%

indicates that graduate students, whose
primary language isn’t English, have
strong confidence in their English skills.

Section II: General Information-Seeking
Behavior

The term “Information-Seeking Behav-
ior,” although seemingly self-explanatory,
actually covers a broad range of poten-
tial activities. In this study, the authors
briefly break the process into three linear
stages:

1. Initiating: how do graduate students
begin locating information they want

2. Searching: which methods are most
o en used by graduate students

3. Locating: where do graduate stu-
dents usually find the information they
want

Stage 1: Initiating
In “how do you usually START to locate
wanted information (check one answer),”
the authors listed eight
methods in addition to
one open-ended choice
(“other”) in which stu-
dents could specify other
methods not on the list.
It was a single-choice
question. The purpose
was to identify the exact
starting point of the in-
formation-seeking pro-
cess for each student.

The null hypothesis being tested is that
there is no significant difference of the
preferences of starting method between
international graduate students and the
American graduate students. With Chi-
square=22.285, df=6, p<0.001 (p< α), the
authors found the preferences of initial
information channels are significantly dif-
ferent among international and American
respondents. Almost half the international
respondents said they initiated searching
from the Internet. Their second choice
(16.5%) is VT E-resources (including
electronic journals, databases, and elec-
tronic theses and dissertations), while 40.6
percent American respondents tended to
search VT E-resources first (see table 3).

Stage 2: Searching
During the searching process, there are six
methods out of nine seeking procedure
choices with response frequencies above
average (see figure 2).

TABLE 2
English Proficiency

Poor/Fair Good Very Good/
Excellent

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Speaking 22 25.9% 22 25.9% 41 48.2%
Listening 16 18.8% 24 28.2% 45 52.9%
Writing 21 24.7% 26 30.6% 38 44.7%
Reading 9 10.6% 21 24.7% 55 64.7%

10 College & Research Libraries January 2007

TABLE 3
Initial Information Channels

Classmates/
Professors/
Librarians

Reference
Resources

Textbooks/
Lecture
Notes

Addison
Catalog

VT E-
Resources

Internet Other

International Freq. 9 2 7 12 15 45 1
% 9.9% 2.2% 7.7% 13.2% 16.5% 49.5% 1.1%

American Freq. 22 10 11 20 91 65 5
% 9.8% 4.5% 4.9% 8.9% 40.6% 29% 2.2%

2.285, df=6, p<0.001
othesis that there is no significant difference of the preferences of starting method between
espondents and American respondents is rejected.)

Chi-square =2
(The null hyp
international r

The statistical analysis didn’t find a
significant difference among the choices
of these methods, except in “Search Ad-
dison Catalog.” Table 4 shows that inter-
national respondents search the library
online catalog significantly more o en
than American respondents.

Figure 2 shows that the Internet is the
most frequently used information re-
source. What Internet tools are most used
by graduate students? The authors offered
eight answers and one additional open-
ended choice (“other ”). Students were
allowed to check one or more answers.
The study found that top three favorite
Web searching tools are “Search Engines,”
“VT library Web sites,” and “Online refer-
ence tools.” The three least favorite tools
are “Web directories,” “Online discussion
forums,” and “Weblog” (see figure 3).

Cross-tabulations were performed to
find significant differences of preferences
for these tools between the two groups.

The result shows that international and
American respondents have similar pref-
erences of the top 3 Internet tools. But sig-
nificantly more international respondents
(11%) would search “Online discussion
forums” than American respondents
(3.1%) (Chi-square=7.838, df=1, p<0.005),
while more American respondents
(44.6%) would explore “professional as-
sociation Web sites” than international
respondents (24.2%) (Chi-square=11.423,
df=1, p<0.001).

Stage 3: Locating
For the question “where do you usually
find the wanted information,” students
were able to check more than one answer
out of eight choices, and they could also
indicate other answers beyond the list.
Figure 4 shows that the top three infor-
mation sources are “VT E-Journals,”
“Library sponsored E-resources,” and
“Library books.”

TABLE 4
Search Addison Catalog

Never/Seldom (0) Occasionally (3) Often/Very Often (5) Means
Freq. % Freq. % Freq . %

International 6 6.6% 10 11% 75 82.4% 4.52
American 28 12.5% 59 26.3% 137 61.2% 3.97

ANOVA F=10.626, p<0.001
97, df=2, p<0.001

esis that there is no significant difference of the frequencies of using library online
international respondents and American respondents is rejected.)

Chi-square=13.3

(The null hypoth
catalog between

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 11

FIGURE 2
Most Popular Information-Seeking Methods

4.48

3.84

3.75

3.68

3.42

3.27

0 1 2 3 4 5

Search internet via search
engines, etc.

Search Addison Catalog

Check text books or lecture
notes

Search VT E-Journal

Search VT Databases & ETD

Ask classmates/professors

(0 = n/a; 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = occasionally; 4 = often; 5 = very often)

The statistical analysis found only
one different preference: 58.2 percent
international respondents said that they
find the wanted information in library
books, while only 38.8 percent American
respondents checked this answer (Chi-
square=9.866, df=1, p<0.002).

Figure 2 demonstrates that compared
with print resources, respondents favor
electronic formats. This preference is
consistent with the result of the follow-

ing question: “How do the following
factors affect your information resource
choices?” The response averages of all six
factors are above “3 (somewhat impor-
tant)” (see figure 5). Respondents treated
accessibility as a more important factor
than stability. Online resources allow
more flexible access. Full-text keyword
searching is another great feature that
print resources don’t have, which can
help users to jump to a relevant paragraph

FIGURE 3
Popular and Unpopular Web Searching Tools

136

92.40%

81.30%

43%

8.90%

5.40%

1.90%

Search engines

VT Library Web sites
(catalog, databases, e-journals)

Online reference tools
(dictionaries, encylopedias, etc.)

Web directories

Online discussion forums

Web log

256

291

12 College & Research Libraries January 2007

FIGURE 4
Most Useful Information Sources

76 . 60 %

4 4 .8 0 %

4 4 .3 0 %

2 4 2

14 1

14 0

VT E-Journals

Library sponsored E-
resources (databases, ETD, etc.)

Library books

0 50 10 0 15 0 20 0 2 50 3 00

instantly. Although the stability of online
resources isn’t as good as print resources,
graduate students will choose them first
in most cases. The statistical analysis
shows that these factors have similar
influence on international respondents
as on American respondents.

Section III: Library Activities Information
This section focused on the use of library
resources. It investigated the following
aspects:

1. Use of library in graduate study vs. in
undergraduate study:
Analyses of the frequency of library use

shows that during undergraduate studies,
international respondents used libraries
as o en as American respondents. How-
ever, in graduate programs, international
students use library services, both in on-
site visits and in online searching, more
o en than their American counterparts
(see tables 5 and 6).

Compared with library resources and
services in undergraduate studies, how
many Virginia Tech library resources/ser-
vices are new to graduate students? Figure
6 shows that among nine choices, the top
three new services are “Reference coun-
seling service via online chat or email” 66
percent (207), “Interlibrary loan” 58 per-

Factors Affecting Information Resource Choices
FIGURE 5

Stability (being accessible 3 .13
over a long period)

Authority and reliability

(author's/editor's
3 .2 7
reputation)

Ease of use 3.4 8

Accuracy/Impartiality/

Objectivity (accurate facts,
3 .52
impartially presented)

Accessibility (convenience
of location, time of 3 .6 2

availability, searching time)
Relevance (relating to the

3 .8 5 topics you are searching
for)

0 1 2 3 4

(0 = n/a; 1 = not important; 2 = not very important; 3 = somewhat important; 4 = very important)

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 13

FIGURE 6
New Library Resources/Services Compared with those in your

Undergraduate Study

58%

34%

25%

42%

16%

29%

66%

32%

16.80%

Interlibrary loan

Microfiches, microfilms

Online (Addison) catalog

Online database literature
research

Open stacks

Reference counseling in
person

Reference counseling
online

Reference
workshops/orientations

Self-service copy machine

TABLE 6
Search Library Web Sites from January through April 2005

Never/Seldom (1) Occasionally (3) Often/Very often (5) Means
Freq. % Freq. % Freq %

International 2 2.2% 15 16.5% 74 81.3% 4.58
American 29 12.9% 51 22.8% 144 64.3% 4.03
Chi-square=11.529, df=2, p<0.003
ANOVA F=11.755, p<0.001
(The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the frequencies of searching library Web
sites from January through April 2005 between international respondents and American respondents
is rejected.)

TABLE 5
Visit University Libraries from January through April 2005

Never/Seldom (1) Occasionally (3) Often/Very often (5) Means
Freq. % Freq. % Freq %

International 7 7.7% 23 25.3% 61 67% 4.19
American 66 29.5% 73 32.6% 85 37.9% 3.17
Chi-square=26.184, df=2, p<0.001
ANOVA F=28.266, p<0.001
(The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the frequencies of visiting university li-
braries from January through April 2005 between international respondents and American respondents
is rejected.)

14 College & Research Libraries January 2007

TABLE 7
New Library Services

Library Services International
(New to me %)

American
(New to me %)

Chi-
Square

p value

Interlibrary loan 87.9% 45.5% 47.635 p<0.001
Microfiches, microfilms 71.4% 18.3% 81.799 p<0.001
Online (Addison) catalog 46.2% 16.5% 30.248 p<0.001
Online database literature
search

59.3% 34.8% 15.980 p<0.001

Open stacks 26.4% 12.5% 9.037 p<0.003
Reference counseling
(in person)

40.7% 25% 7.626 p<0.006

Reference counseling (online) 76.9% 60.7% 7.513 p<0.006
Reference workshop/orientation 52.7% 23.7% 25.133 p<0.001
Self-service copy machine 44% 5.8% 67.308 p<0.001
(The null hypothesis that all these library services are equally new to international respondents and
American respondents is rejected.)

TABLE 8
Difficulty Level of Using Library Services/Resources

Not
Interested
% (Freq.)

Will Try
Later
% (Freq.)

Easy
% (Freq.)

Difficult
% (Freq.)

Very
Difficult
% (Freq.)

N/A
% (Freq.)

Interlibrary loan 11% (36) 17% (52) 59% (188) 6% (18) 1% (2) 6% (19)
Microfiches,
microfilms

26% (82) 16% (50) 29% (92) 8% (24) 3% (8) 19% (59)

Online (Addison)
catalog

1% (4) 2% (6) 83% (260) 11% (35) 2% (7) 1% (3)

Online database
literature research

3% (11) 4% (13) 77% (242) 11% (35) 1% (4) 3% (10)

Open stacks 6% (19) 7% (23) 71% (222) 5% (17) 2% (5) 9% (29)
Reference
counseling service
(reference desk/
college librarians)
in person

21% (65) 20% (62) 42% (132) 2% (7) 1% (4) 15% (45)

Reference
counseling service
(reference desk/
college librarians)
via online chat
service or email

25% (80) 22% (69) 32% (101) 3% (8) 1% (4) 17% (53)

Reference
workshop/
orientation

28% (89) 13% (40) 36% (115) 2% (7) 1% (2) 20% (62)

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 15

TABLE 9
Difficulty Level of Taking Library Reference Workshop/Orientation

Not
Interested

Will Try
Later

Easy Difficult/
Very
Difficult

N/A
(No

Comments)
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

International 16 17.6% 21 23.1% 41 45.1% 3 3.3% 10 11%
American 73 32.6% 19 8.5% 74 33% 6 2.7% 52 23.2%

3.574, df=4, p<0.001
othesis that there is no significant difference of interest level and difficulty

library reference workshop/orientation between international respondents
respondents is rejected.)

Chi-square=2
(The null hyp
level of taking
and American

cent (182), and “Online database literature
searches” 42 percent (132).

The statistical analysis shows that sig-
nificantly more international respondents
felt new to all these library services than
their American peers, which indicates that
a quite large academic library service gap
exists between the United States and other
countries (see table 7).

The difficulty levels of using these nine
services were explored in follow-up ques-
tions. The authors deliberately offered
the choice “Not interested” and “Will try
later” for the students who haven’t used
the services (see table 8).

The Chi-square analyses find inter-
national respondents were more dis-
posed to seek personal interactive help
in their information-seeking process,
although they didn’t feel it was more
difficult to use library services than

American respondents. 23.1 percent
of international respondents showed
interest in “reference workshop/orien-
tation” and 17.6 percent said they were
not interested, while only 8.5 percent
of American respondents would like
to try the service later and 32.6 percent
showed no interest in it. 33 percent of
the international respondents wanted
to contact librarians for reference help
later and 14.3 percent of the study group
showed no interest, while only 14.3 per-
cent of American respondents showed
interest in the reference counseling
service and 23.2 percent said they were
not interested.

2. Library instruction/orientation:
Table 11 summarizes the difference in
frequency of taking library instruction/
orientation between international respon-

TABLE 10
Difficulty Level of Using Reference Counseling Service in Person

Not
Interested

Will Try
Later

Easy Difficult/
Very
Difficult

N/A
(No

Comments)
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

International 13 14.3% 30 33% 36 39.5% 4 4.4% 8 8.8%
American 52 23.2% 32 14.3% 96 42.9% 7 3.1% 37 16.5%
Chi-square=17.145, df=4, p<0.002
(The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference of interest level and difficulty
level of using library reference counseling service in person between international respon-
dents and American respondents is rejected.)

16 College & Research Libraries January 2007

TABLE 11
Library Instructions/Orientation

Undergraduate Graduate None
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

International 14 15.4% 42 46.2% 35 38.5%
American 77 34.4% 81 36.2% 66 29.5%
Chi-square=11.367, df=2, p<0.003
(The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference of taking library instruction/ori-
entation between international respondents and American respondents is rejected.)

dents and American respondents. More
American respondents took library in-
struction in undergraduate studies, while
in the graduate period, more international
respondents a ended library orientation.
This result is consistent with the data in
table 9, which shows more international
respondents showed interest in library
reference workshop/orientation. In gen-
eral, more American respondents (70.5%)
have taken library instruction/orientation
than international respondents (61.5%).

Figure 7 lists the frequency of the an-
swers to the follow-up question “what
type of information sources were covered
by the instruction/orientations?” There
were 214 respondents answering this
question who have taken library instruc-

tion and there is no significant difference
of instruction content existing between
the international student group and
American student group. This may be
due to international respondents taking
library instruction during their graduate
studies in the United States.

3. Library activities:
Figure 8 shows that the top three most
conducted library activities out of ten
choices are “Search academic-related
resources,” “Study/Do research (using li-
brary materials),” and “Study/Do research
(using my own materials).” The three
bo om activities on the list are “Find non-
class related reading resources,” “Group
study/project,” and “Meet friends.”

FIGURE 7
Information Sources Covered by the Library Instructions/Orientations

3.70%

70.10%

81.80%

70.10%

56.10%

55.10%

34.10%

150

175

150

120

118

Other

Library tour

Library online catalog

Databases

E-Journal

Reference resources
(Indexes, dictionaries,

etc.) in print

Internet search engine

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 17

FIGURE 8
Least/Most Conducted Library Activities

3.57

3.29

2.57

1.8

1.56

1.42

0 1 2 3 4 5

Search academic-relatead
resources via Addison
Catalog, databases, etc

Study/Do research use
library materials

Study/Do research use my
own materials

Find non-class related
reading resources

Group study/project

Meet friends

(0 = n/a; 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = occasionally; 4 = often; 5 = very often)

The statistical analysis shows interna-
tional respondents are much more active
than American respondents not only in the
top three activities, but also in “Use the re-
serve service,” “Group study/project,” and
“Meet friends” (see table 12 Chi-square
and ANOVA). This result is consistent
with the data in tables 5 and 6, which
confirm that international respondents use
university libraries much more o en than
American respondents. Some international
respondents use the library not only for
study and research but also as a social

gathering place. This is quite different from
most American respondents.

4. Library information sources:
Graduate students were asked to choose
their favorite library information sources
out of nine choices. Four choices—“Elec-
tronic resources,” “Online Library Cata-
log,” “Books,” and “Print Journals”—get
far more votes than other resources (see
figure 9). The statistical analysis does not
find any significant difference of the two
study groups on this topic.

FIGURE 9
Top Library Information Sources

87%

65.50%

65.20%

48.30%

275

207

206

152

Electronic resources (E-
Journal, databases, ETD,

etc.)

Online Addison catalog

Books

Print journals

18 College & Research Libraries January 2007

TABLE 12
Differences in Frequency of Library Activities (Chi-square)

Library Activities International
(Often/Very
Often)

American
(Often/Very
Often)

Chi-
square

p value

Search academic-related
resources

74.7% 47.8% 19.063 p<0.001

Study/do research (using
library resources)

70.3% 40.6% 24.794 p<0.001

Study/do research (using my
own resources)

48.4% 24.6% 22.878 p<0.001

Use the reserve service 22% 8% 17.469 p<0.001
Group study/project 9.9% 2.2% 10.078 p<0.006
Meet friends 8.8% 0.9% 27.941 p<0.001

Differences in Frequency of Library Activities (ANOVA)
Library Activities International

(Freq. Mean)
American
(Freq. Mean)

ANOVA
F

p value

Search academic-related
resources

4.27 3.48 16.918 p<0.001

Study/do research (using
library resources)

4.12 3.04 26.344 p<0.001

Study/do research (using my
own resources)

3.35 2.30 24.181 p<0.001

Use the reserve service 2.45 1.72 18.369 p<0.001
Group study/project 1.64 1.27 9.376 p<0.002
Meet friends 1.70 1.13 29.986 p<0.001
(The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in frequencies of conducting
library activities between international respondents and American respondents is rejected.)

5. Reference service and interlibrary
loan:
Unlike other library services, the suc-
cess of reference service and interlibrary
loan depends on the cooperation and
communication between patrons and
librarians/staff. Many previous studies
from the 1990s show these two services
are the weakest link to international
students.

According to the survey data, the fre-
quency of using reference services falls
between “never” and “seldom.” Figure 10
shows the top three types of questions out
of five choices that respondents consult
with reference librarians.

The only difference in the two study
groups on the topic is that international
respondents consulted reference librarians
for “Web search strategies” more o en than
American respondents (see table 13).

Figure 11 shows the reasons for the
infrequent use of reference services. 80.5
percent of the respondents said that they
did not need reference services. 34.9
percent never thought of asking a refer-
ence librarian, and 11 percent claimed
that they did not know what a reference
librarian does.

The analysis shows the number of
international respondents (16.5%) who
said they did not know “what a reference

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 19

TABLE 13
Consulting Librarians for Web Search Strategies
Never/Seldom (1) Occasionally (3) Often/Very

Often (5)
Means

Freq. % Freq. % Freq %
International 79 86.8% 5 5.5% 7 7.7% 1.42
American 215 96% 7 3.1% 2 0.9% 1.10
Chi-square=12.008, df=2, p<0.002
ANOVA F=11.875, p<0.001
(The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference of consulting librarians for Web
search strategies between international respondents and American respondents is rejected.)

FIGURE 10
Frequency of Consultations with Reference Librarians

2.1

1.71

1.7

0 1 2 3 4 5

For research assistance,
finding materials for
papers, etc.

For help in using
Addison catalog,
reference books, etc.

For online database
usage

(0 = n/a; 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = occasionally; 4 = often; 5 = very often)

FIGURE 11
Why Never/Seldom Consulting Reference Librarians

5.1%

2.60%

5.10%

80.50%

34.90%

11%

Other

Language difficulties or
cultural difference

Librarians are not very
helpful

I don't feel I need it

I never think of asking a
reference librarian

I don't know what a
reference librarian does

20 College & Research Libraries January 2007

FIGURE 12
Using Interlibrary Loan (ILL)

Yes

64.80%

35.20% 111

204

librarian does” is higher than American
respondents (6.3%) (Chi-square=8.107,
df=1, p<0.004). It also shows that 7.7 per-
cent of international respondents never
or seldom use reference service because
of language difficulties or culture differ-
ence, while American respondents do not
have this problem (Chi-square=17.622,
df=1, p<0.001).

The percentage of users of interlibrary
loan is higher than those who use refer-
ence services (see figure 12). The reasons
for not using the service are reported
in figure 13. The analysis did not show
significant difference of the two study

groups on either the use of the ILL service
or the reasons for not using the service.

6. Comments to university libraries
There are four questions being asked
investigating the graduate students’
general evaluation of the university
libraries. Figure 14 shows that the top
three reasons that graduate students use
libraries are “There are books/materials
I want,” “Convenience of location,” and
“Hours are convenient.” Graduate stud-
ies are overwhelmingly time consuming
and intellectually taxing. The result shows
that convenience of time and location is

FIGURE 13
Reasons for Not Using ILL

5.40%

22.50%

56.80%

20.50%

17.10%

0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 60 %

Other

Procedure is too
complicated

Don't need it

Didn't think of asking
for such service

Don't know what
interlibrary loan is

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 21

FIGURE 14
What Criteria Induce You to Use Libraries

89.50%

51.30%

44.30%

285

162

140

There are
books/materials I want

Convenience of location

Hours are convenient

quite important to the respondents. Most
graduate students are quite satisfied with
the library’s resources and services (see
figures 15 and 16). In general, graduate
students think the library is quite useful
in their information seeking (see figure
17).

The statistical analysis shows that
international respondents have quite
similar answers to American respondents
for most general evaluation questions,
but international respondents value the
usefulness of library in their information-
seeking process higher than American
respondents (see table 14).

7. English proficiency and length of stay
in the United States vs. information-
seeking behavior
A series of cross-tabulations and ANOVA
analyses have been performed to test sepa-
rately the relationships between English
proficiency, length of stay in the United
States and information-seeking behavior of
international respondents. The analyses do
not find strong connection between these
factors and information-seeking behavior.

Discussion
The exponential development of digital
information technology has innovatively

FIGURE 15
Library Resources

176

16.50%

55.90%

20%

2.90%

4.70%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

No Comments

22 College & Research Libraries January 2007

FIGURE 16
Library Services

170

19.40%

54.00%

17.80%

2.20%

6.60%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

No comments

FIGURE 17
How Useful is the Library in Your Information-Seeking Process

140

29.80%

44.40%

20.60%

2.20%

3.00%

Very useful

Useful

Somewhat useful

Not useful

No comments

TABLE 14
How Useful is the Library in Your Information-Seeking Process

N/A or Not Useful
(1)

Somewhat Useful
(3)

Useful/Very Useful
(5)

Means

Freq. % Freq. % Freq . %
International 3 3.3% 10 11.0% 78 85.7% 4.65
American 13 5.8% 55 24.6% 156 69.6% 4.28

ANOVA F=7.215, p<0.008
1, df=2, p<0.012

esis that international respondents and American respondents equally value the
library in the information seeking process is rejected.)

Chi-square=8.82

(The null hypoth
usefulness of the

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 23

and globally changed the philosophy and
style of teaching, learning, and research-
ing in academia. Being more flexible and
easier to access, online information re-
sources and searching tools are becoming
the favorite choice of graduate students.
During the general information-seeking
process, searching the Internet and ex-
ploring library electronic resources are
the top two starting methods. Web search
engines are the most o en used retrieval
tools for both groups. Library electronic
resources are preferred to other informa-
tion sources and all graduate students
value accessibility and convenience of
access as the most important factors when
seeking information resources. Despite
these similarities, the study finds more
international graduate students than
American students find information in li-
brary books and the library online catalog
plays a more important role in interna-
tional students’ information seeking.

The results of this study demonstrate
that international students use librar-
ies much more actively and o en than
American students during their graduate
studies. Although American academic
library services are quite new to them,
they don’t think those services are difficult
to use. They show stronger interest than
American students in reference instruc-
tion/orientation/workshops and reference
counseling service in person. Language
difficulties and culture differences are still
obstacles for some international graduate
students, but those obstacles are much
less severe than they were in previous
studies. The research shows that many
international graduate students are quite
confident about their English proficiency.
With diminished communication prob-
lems, a lack of knowledge of reference
services is the first encumbrance standing
between international users and academic
librarians.

The study also shows some distinctive
characteristics of the studying style of in-
ternational graduate students. Compared
with American students, more interna-
tional students like to do group study/

discussion in libraries. Some of them
prefer searching information in online
discussion forums, while few American
graduate students say they do so.

Some differences in library services
are found between American academic
libraries and those in other countries. It
seems academic libraries in the United
States emphasize library education in
undergraduate period more than librar-
ies in other countries. There is still a large
service gap existing between American
academic libraries and university libraries
in other countries. Many library services
and resources in the United States are new
to international graduate students who
finished their undergraduate programs in
their home countries. This could explain
the differences in initiation methods in
information seeking between American
and international students. Being unfa-
miliar with library electronic resources,
international students tend to search the
Internet first, while American graduate
students start from library electronic
resources.

Conclusion
The multicultural character of today’s
collegiate population in the United
States presents a challenge to academic
librarians. It is important for university
libraries to examine the characteristics of
its user population and to develop and
implement appropriate and effective
services for relevant user groups. The
analysis presented here describes certain
characteristics of the international gradu-
ate population vs. their American peers at
a large research institution.

Results of this study demonstrate that
the impact of language/culture commu-
nication barriers and technology barri-
ers on the international students’ access
to libraries has decreased. International
graduate students are using various on-
line searching tools and resources as o en
as their American counterparts. Although
they are not familiar with many academic
library services, they are not afraid to
use them. Feelings of shame and embar-

24 College & Research Libraries January 2007

rassment when asking for help at the
reference desk have been replaced with
interest in contacting librarians and tak-
ing library instruction/workshops.

The research shows academic libraries
are essential to the information seeking of
international graduate students. However,
these students do not have enough educa-
tion about library services. Though most
international graduates do not find library
services difficult to use, this does not mean
they are using them correctly. Basic library
programs for undergraduate students,
which concentrate on the introduction
of various library services, could be set
up for international graduate students to
help them to become more familiar with
university libraries and make full use of
various services. Some online discussion
forums and group workshops could be set
up to a ract more international graduate
students. Since English proficiency level
does not appear to be a barrier to successful
library use, multilingual instructions may
not be necessary in most cases. Having
been familiar with many digital informa-
tion technologies, international graduate
students have li le technical problem in us-
ing automated library systems and digital
resources. They may need some instruction
on higher level information competence
skills, such as defining research problems
precisely, formulating effective search strat-
egies, organizing and assessing resources
appropriate to academic research.

An important consideration learned
through the process of distributing this

survey is the close relationship between
graduate students and their departments.
Distribution help from the graduate pro-
gram department heads has effectively
promoted the response rate. Compared
with American graduate students, the
bond between international students and
their departments is much tighter. Librar-
ians can benefit from keeping the impor-
tance of this relationship in mind in future
planning. Having been integrated into the
instructional and research fabric of differ-
ent academic units, university libraries
could take this advantage and increase the
cooperation with other academic depart-
ments. Some library marketing strategies
may have be er effect through cultivating
interdepartmental cooperation.

Cultural diversity in the academy
brings university libraries unique benefits
as well as challenges. Instead of being
steady, those challenges are ever-chang-
ing and intricate. There is no easy and
fixed method to handle them. Continu-
ing to study the international user group,
learning their needs, and tracking their
performance could be the first step on the
right path. It is valuable for academic li-
braries to have a more comprehensive and
thorough understanding of the needs of
student population so that librarians can
a empt to meet those needs. The interac-
tive study process is also beneficial to the
user group studied in that the respondents
are provided with an introduction to vari-
ous library services and are made aware of
services that may be of interest to them.

Notes

1. Institute of International Education, “Interest in International Education Exchange Remains
Strong in the A ermath of September 11th according to IIE survey” (2002). Available online at
h p://www.iie.org/Content/ContentGroups/Announcements/Interest_in_international_educa-
tional_exchange_remains_strong_in_the_a ermath_of_September_11th_acc.htm.

2. Open Doors, “Open Doors 2004: International Students in the U.S.” (2004). Available online
at h p://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=50137.

3. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, “University Enrollment Profile 2005.”
4. Sara Baron and Alexia Strout-Dapaz, “Communicating with and Empowering International

Students with a Library Skills Set,” Reference Services Review 29, no. 4 (2001): 314–26.
5. Louise W. Greenfield, “Training Library Staff to Reach and Teach International Students,”

LOEX 88 (1988): 46.
6. Kwasi Sarkodie-Mensah, “In the Words of a Foreigner,” Research Strategies 4 (Winter 1986):

30–31.

User Study at Virginia Tech 2005 25

7. Kwasi Sarkodie-Mensah, “Dealing with International Students in a Multicultural Era,”
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 18, no. 2 (Sept. 1992) 214–16.

8. Mary Beth Allen, “International Students in Academic Libraries: a User Survey,” College
& Research Libraries 54 (July 1993): 323–33.

9. Suzanne Irving, “Addressing the Special Needs of International Students in Interlibrary
Loan: Some Considerations, ” Reference Librarian 45/46 (1994): 111–17.

10. Nancy Moeckel and Jenny Presnell, “Recognizing, Understanding, and Responding: A
Program Model of Library Instruction Services for International Students,” Reference Librarian
no. 51–52 (1995): 309–25.

11. Mengxiong Liu and Bernice Redfern, “Information-Seeking Behavior of Multicultural Students:
A Case Study at San Jose State University,” College & Research Libraries 58 (July 1997): 348–54.

12. Greenfield, “Training Library Staff to Reach and Teach International Students.”
13. Kwasi Sarkodie-Mensah, “Dealing with International Students in a Multicultural Era.”
14. Suzanne Irving, “Addressing the Special Needs of International Students in Interlibrary

Loan: Some Considerations.”
15. Mengxiong Liu and Bernice Redfern, “Information-Seeking Behavior of Multicultural

Students: A Case Study at San Jose State University.”
16. Allen Natowitz, “International Students in U.S. Academic Libraries: Recent Concerns and

Trends,” Research Strategies 13 (Winter 1995): 4–16.
17. Nancy Moeckel and Jenny Presnell, “Recognizing, Understanding, and Responding: A

Program Model of Library Instruction Services for International Students.”
18. Ibid.
19. Kwasi Sarkodie-Mensah, “In the Words of a Foreigner.”
20. Mary Beth Allen, “International Students in Academic Libraries: a User Survey.”
21. Jian Q. Kuang, “A Study to Determine How International Students Utilize the Library Re-

sources and Services of the Bowling Green State University Libraries ” (master’s thesis, Bowling
Green State University, 1989).

22. ETS, “Tests Directory: TOEFL—Test of English as a Foreign Language” (2005). Available
online at www.ets.org/redirect/tests.html.

23. ETS, “TOEFL Test and Score Data Summaries” (2005). Available online at h p://www.ets.
org/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=20beaf5e44df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCR
D&vgnextchannel=d35ed898c84f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD.

24. PamelaA.Jackson,“IncomingInternationalStudentsandtheLibrary:aSurvey,” ReferenceServices
Review 33, no. 2 (Feb. 2005): 197–209.