Although I found evidence that the students followed the stages Kuhlthau found in her study of high school students, variations in the process model are also evident. For example, students did not necessarily complete the stages in order, and some combined stages in an iterative process. Furthermore, interpersonal and social communication seemed to impact their focus and topic formulation.
Motivated to understanding the students' process, she began a study to define the experience of information searchers from their own perspective. Her Search Process model was the result of the study and represents the actual process students use in response to an assignment requiring library research.
Kuhlthau conducted an exploratory study of two high school classes over two semesters doing separate research assignments. She collected overlapping qualitative data so that any emerging theory derived from her model would be grounded in their real life situations. She observed the students in the library, but also used journals, search logs, time lines, and flow charts to reveal cognitive states (thoughts), affective positions (feelings), and steps taken (actions) during the research process. Based on the results of her study, Kuhlthau developed a Model of the Search Process. The model describes thoughts, feelings, and actions during the information search process. With the model, Kuhlthau was able to tie in other theories, including Robert S. Taylor's (1968) levels of information need, Donald McFayden's (1975) types of searches, and Tefko Saracevic's (1975) ideas on personal relevance. Applying Nicholas Belkin's (1980) suggestion that various kinds of gaps or anomalous states of knowledge (ASKs) depend on the level of knowledge of the topic and the nature of the situation, Kuhlthau's model provides instructors, system designers, and librarians with a tool for better understanding student researchers.
The model proposes these 6 stages in the students' information search process:
As Kuhlthau also noted, Belkin had suggested that gap situations begin with the vague recognition that there is a lack of information. One knows that one needs information, but that lack of knowledge makes it hard to express precisely an information request. To clearly define any lacks of knowledge and to validate her model, Kuhlthau followed Brenda Dervin's (1977) recommendation that theory of librarianship center on the user's perspective of the information and used the students' views as the basis for her model. Kuhlthau taped structured-question interviews of six volunteer students. In the validation studies, however, she did not specifically utilize Dervin's sense-making theory and methodology for focusing on "the constructings that humans do to make sense of their experiences" (Dervin, 1992). To analyze discontinuities in the information search process in more depth, the research reported in this paper applied sense-making methodology in interviews with student researchers and discussed the gaps they met and overcame. The five students were selected because of gaps described in their journals.
During the project, the researcher attended classes in order to be introduced by the teacher, to answer any questions when the assignment was distributed, to observe students in the library, and to collect journals. After the research papers were completed, five students were invited to participate in interviews. The interviewees were selected based on comments in their journals suggesting that the students had bridged an information gap, which is the topic I wanted to explore in the timeline, sense-making interviews. During the taped interviews, which lasted from 35 minutes to one hour, students described what they did and shared anecdotes about problems (gaps) and solutions (bridges). The student respondent and the interviewer constructed a timeline to summarize and to review the total project at the end of the interview.
Interviews were tape recorded outside the classroom, and the interviewer took notes and documented personal observations immediately afterwards. During the interview, students were told briefly about Brenda Dervin's sense-making theory: sense-making assumes that discontinuities (or gaps) are a fundamental aspect of reality; therefore, when studying how humans use information or information systems, one can investigate moments when a user seems to face a gap or stopping point in a process. I asked students to recall in general their topic selection process? What questions did the students ask themselves that would define their gaps? What strategies and tactics did they plan for bridging the gaps? What did they do? What did they feel, think, or do after crossing the gap? In the end, to summarize the search process and to record any previously unmentioned events, the students drew a timeline of events beginning with the assigning of the paper and ending with handing it in to the teacher.
Evidence from the journals and other writing about the six stages of progress during a search were charted on a grid denoting the cognitive, affective, and action levels. The journals were analyzed and coded for the beginning of each of the stages. Comments from journal entries were grouped as thoughts, feelings, and actions. A table denoting how many students began each stage on a particular day was constructed (see below). Indications of the searchers' increase in focus during the topic-proposal phase were labeled and the degree of specificity in the summary paragraphs was rated on a comparative scale (not focused, somewhat focused, and clearly focused). Results were compared to see how progress through the stages as shown in the journals related to the degree of focus or clarity in the proposals. Finally, timeline interview data was analyzed for differences and similarities to the journals and paragraphs.
Looking more closely at how the students progressed during the first 10 days, I found that the rate of change varied greatly. Over one third of students (10 of the 28) shifted from Task Initiation (Stage 1) to Topic Selection (Stage 2) on Day 4, but one student worked very fast on the first day and progressed from stage 1 to stage 3 (Preliminary Exploration) in that single day. Another student was a slow starter and did not begin stage 1 until Day 5. Four students only got to stage 2 (Topic Selection) during the 10 days covered by the first phase. However, over half the students (16) got to the 4th stage (Focus Formulation), and 5 students even began stage 5 (Information Collection) within the first 10 days.
| Journal Day | Task Initiation | Topic Selection | Prefocus Explora. | Focus Formula. | Informa. Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | 21 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Day 2 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 1 | |
| Day 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Day 4 | 1 | 10 | 3 | ||
| Day 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Day 6 | 1 | 3 | |||
| Day 7 | 1 | 3 | 2 | ||
| Day 8 | 3 | 2 | |||
| Day 9 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Day 10 | 4 | 1 | 10 | 4 |
Furthermore, I found evidence that searchers may skip stages or progress in a different order. For example, one student went from stage 1 to stage 3 and then back to stage 2. Another student skipped Topic Selection and Preliminary Exploration by going from stage 1 immediately to stage 4, Focus Formulation. More significantly, students show some evidence of an iterative approach to the model. Seven students clearly changed topics once or twice and then repeated one or two stages. A sample pattern is: Task Initiation, Topic Selection, Prefocus Exploration, topic switch (1), Prefocus Exploration, topic switch (2) , Focus Formulation.
For example, two respondents had strong input from parents on the topics they selected. One knew from personal experience that for a topic to interest her it would have to do with health. After a day or two, she called her parents and described her lack of focus. They promised to think about it, too, and call her back. (Paraphrasing comment during the interview) when they called back, they asked me if I was still as interested in the mislabeling of food packages as I used to be. It was a good reminder. I could use that as a topic. What a relief. Once the topic was narrowed, she went on to the next stage, Prefocus Exploration.
The second respondent had a pilot's license and was amazed about her friends' concerns for airline safety. However, she was unable to proceed because she did not have an argument to focus on for her topic. Then her father, also a pilot, came to visit. He shared his anger about deregulation in the 1970's. It was before I was born, but after talking with him, I knew I wanted to investigate his argument about deregulation causing safety problems. She read broadly on the topic and collected quotes and statistics supporting the correlation between airline safety decline and the relaxing of regulations.
One interview respondent stated he was not stressed; however, he revealed that he was concerned from past experience about whether the instructor agreed politically with the side he was planning to argue. He felt his grade would be lower if he didn't pick the same side. He made time for an appointment with the instructor to go over his argument before he committed himself to the topic argument. Another student was having problems picking a topic. While in a sociology class, the teacher distributed a fact sheet that showed statistics on females earning less money in the same profession than males do. Affected by this revelation and the class discussion, she explained that later it just came to me that this would be a good topic for my English paper. She called on the sociology teacher to provide the sources for the fact sheet and did her own searching for other sources.
In several interviews, the student respondents mentioned frustration with finding periodicals in the university library. The library separately stores the most recent issues, issues a few years old, and issues older than 5 years on open shelves, bound in the stacks, or on microfiche accordingly. One of the more successful searchers had the opportunity to become friends with a library assistant during a tour earlier in the semester. The student was less anxious about using the library after the assistant had helped explain the online search system. When it came time to look for periodicals, this student felt comfortable calling on her friend, was quickly oriented, and proceeded with her research. In comparison, another student explained in the interview that she avoided the most current periodicals because they are "too hard to find" and only used periodicals a year or two old as resources. A third interview respondent invited a classmate writing on a similar topic to go together to the library to find periodicals. The respondent was anxious and said that locating periodicals seemed hard.
Other social relationships that seemed to impact topic selection and searching included talks with a ROTC commander, review of the topic proposal by the resident advisor, and discussions with roommates. The social aspect of the process and how interpersonal communication influence searching is not specifically depicted in Kuhlthau's model or published study.
Variations in the rate by which the students completed the stages suggest a correlation between topic focus and progress in searching. As students become more focused on a specific topic, they feel relieved, think of plans and strategies for searching, and complete the next stage in the information search process. If topics change or steps are repeated, students then need to express their topic clearly and to focus before progressing. As Kuhlthau discovered, preliminary topic research precedes focus. The students in this study wrote more focused topic proposals and paragraphs if they had done Prefocus Exploration. If they had begun the Information Collection stage, their thoughts were more organized, and they expressed more confidence about the project.
Research results suggest that the model is applicable to college freshmen. As Kuhlthau has noted, when system designers, database searchers, teachers, and librarians "are aware of the stages in the search process, they may be able to offer intervention that matches the user's actual level of information needs." Furthermore, I suggest that these mediators can clarify what stage a student is in if they also recognize that stages may be skipped or repeated. It may be hard for mediators to clarify the stage given that students may skip or repeat stages, but perhaps necessary to support information seeking effectively. Mediators may need to be flexible and to utilize a strategy that includes continuous evaluation of a users' progress in the information seeking process.
Concerning social communication, discussions with a parent, roommate, or instructor can influence the degree of focus by relieving emotional stress and by supporting specificity in thought. The sense-making interviews give some evidence that human interactions help searchers to proceed with activities and to complete tasks. The influence of interpersonal communication on the searching process warrants further research; however, social interaction could be added as a specific dimension of the information search model. Kuhlthau described each stage in more detail and listed beside each task the thoughts, feelings, actions, strategies, and moods that are most productive. She acknowledged that "the strategies of talking, writing, and thinking seemed to be as important to students as the actual sources they used" (Kuhlthau, 1988). The data further suggests that the model might be augmented by listing human interaction separately from other actions and from writing and thinking strategies. A distinct column labeled "Communication" could be added, and both actions and strategies involving other people could be documented. This distinction could help studies of the search process during collaborative work.
Dervin, Brenda (1977). "Useful Theory for Librarianship: Communication, Not Information," Drexel Library Quarterly, vol. 13, 16-32.
Dervin, Brenda (1992). "From the Mind's Eye of the User: The Sense-Making Qualitative-Quantitative Methodology, " Qualitative Research in Information Management (J. D. Glazier and R. Powell eds.), Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Kelly, George (1963). A Theory of Personality : The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York: Norton.
Kuhlthau, Carol (1988). "Developing a Model of the Library Search Process: Cognitive and Affective Aspects," RQ, Winter, 1988, 234-242.
McFayden, Donald (1975). "The Psychology of Inquiry: Reference Service and the Concept of Information/Experience," Journal of Librarianship, vol. 7, 2-11.
Saracevic, Tefko (1975). "Relevance: A Review of and a Framework for Thinking on the Notion of Information Science, " JASIS, vol. 26, 321-343.
Taylor, Robert (1968). "Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries, " College and Research Libraries, vol. 29, 178-194.
© 1996, American Society for Information Science. Permission to copy and distribute this document is hereby granted provided that this copyright notice is retained on all copies and that copies are not altered.