herring.p65 Faculty Acceptance of the World Wide Web for Student Research 251 Faculty Acceptance of the World Wide Web for Student Research Susan Davis Herring Although undergraduates frequently use the World Wide Web in their class assignments, little research has been done concerning how teach­ ing faculty feel about their students’ use of the Web. This study explores faculty attitudes toward the Web as a research tool for their students’ research; their use of the Web in classroom instruction; and their poli­ cies concerning Web use by students. Results show that although fac­ ulty members generally feel positive about the Web as a research tool, they question the accuracy and reliability of Web content and are con­ cerned about their students’ ability to evaluate the information found. ince its development in 1991, the Web has become a perva­ sive research source for stu­ dents on college and univer­ sity campuses throughout the United States. Increasing computer instruction in elementary and secondary schools and the growing numbers of personal com­ puters in homes have resulted in a high computer literacy rate among students entering college, often higher than that of their instructors, and in a growing fa­ miliarity with the use of the Web. However, despite the Web’s popular­ ity and widespread use, and despite the volume of information available, many academic librarians report that students often use the Web inefficiently and appear unaware of its limitations, failing to rec­ ognize issues of reliability, validity, or authority. As Cheryl LaGuardia wrote, “users have been set loose (or free, de­ pending upon your point of view) across the web, around the world, throughout the online universe, groping for data, grasping at what we may consider infor­ mation straws.”1 But how do teaching faculty view their students’ use of the Web? To work effec­ tively with students engaged in course- related research, academic librarians need to understand faculty attitudes toward the Web as a research tool. The research described here centers on a survey of full- time faculty designed to determine fac­ ulty attitudes toward their students’ use of the Web and toward the acceptability of the Web as a student research tool. Review of the Literature A substantial body of literature already exists on acceptance and use of the Internet and the Web in academia. As pointed out by Susan S. Lazinger, Judit Bar-Ilan, and Susan Davis Herring is Associate Professor of Bibliography and Engineering Reference Librarian in the M. Louis Salmon Library at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; e-mail: herrings@email.uah.edu. The assistance and suggestions provided by Dr. Marion Paris and Dr. Annabel Stephens were invaluable in the successful completion of this study and are sincerely appreciated. Financial support from the Uni­ versity of Alabama Graduate School and the School of Library and Information Studies is gratefully acknowledged. 251 mailto:herrings@email.uah.edu 252 College & Research Libraries May 2001 Bluma C. Peritz, this research tends to clus­ ter in three areas: studies of general use patterns; studies of Internet use by librar­ ians and other information professionals; and studies of use by college and univer­ sity faculty.2 However, faculty attitudes toward their students’ use of the Internet have yet to be investigated. Several authors have looked at prob­ lems facing faculty and students using the Internet as an educational tool. Bertram C. Bruce and Kevin M. Leander, writing on the use of digital libraries and other information technologies in education, identified major issues in Internet use as perceptions of the value of information, questions concerning authority, and com­ puter anxiety.3 Other researchers have focused on questions of the accuracy and reliability of Web sites. Tom Regan noted that poor quality exists even in sites cre­ ated and maintained by commercial news organizations.4 According to Luciano Floridi, the Web may become a powerful source for disinformation (defined as pro­ paganda, incomplete or corrupted infor­ mation, or censorship) unless some type of quality certification by academic and/ or commercial services is instituted.5 A 1999 study by Tschera Harkness Connell and Jennifer E. Tipple tested the accuracy of information on the Web us­ ing the AltaVista search engine and a sample of sixty reference questions. The authors found that although 27 percent of the pages provided correct, or mostly correct, answers and only about 9 percent provided wrong answers, 64 percent of the pages provided no answers to the questions at all.6 An earlier study by Chuck Koutnik, taking questions from Slavens’s Reference Interviews, Questions, and Materials (3rd edition), had a success rate of just under 32 percent.7 Kari Boyd McBride and Ruth Dickstein, in a discussion of how students are using the Web, wrote that “what has really changed with the advent of the Web is that students no longer get most of their information for class assignments from reputable print sources in the library.”8 This echoes Bruce and Leander ’s concern about “students who imagine that the Internet is the only source worthy of searching” and students who believe “that sources have value by virtue of hav­ ing an electronic link.”9 Ralph Alberico also noted the tendency for students to “accept anything the computer says” and pointed out issues of authority, prov­ enance, intellectual property, and the dan­ ger of accepting “factoids,” or informa­ tion taken out of context.10 However, several studies have found that students using the Web for research seem satisfied with what they find. Peter Wei He and Trudi E. Jacobson, studying individuals using Internet terminals at the State University of New York at Albany, reported that 97 percent said they found the Internet useful, 45 percent felt they could “find most of the things they need for their research/assignments from the Internet,” and 34 percent described the Internet as their most important resource.11 A study of students at three southeastern U.S. colleges by Timothy T. Perry, Leslie Anne Perry, and Karen Hosack-Curlin found that more than 40 percent of the stu­ dents surveyed used the Internet at least once a week on a regular basis, and of these, almost one-half used it to find in­ formation.12 A survey of students using the Web at Duke University’s undergraduate library showed that they frequently use it for academic purposes, are confident about their ability to navigate it, and generally trust its resources. More than 85 percent of the students rated the accuracy of Web resources as moderate to excellent.13 Steven R. Knowlton, writing in the New York Times, noted that many educators feel that students do not realize how much of the vast amount of information readily available over the Web is unreliable.14 He quoted one professor who noticed a de­ cline in the quality of his students’ papers after they had begun using the Web for research. Also noting the range of qual­ ity in Web sites, Bob Duffy and Jennifer Yacovissi wrote: “Does this mean that stu­ dents will be led astray, fed misinforma­ tion by uncredentialed pretenders to ex­ pertise? Probably.”15 http:unreliable.14 http:excellent.13 http:formation.12 http:resource.11 http:context.10 Faculty Acceptance of the World Wide Web for Student Research 253 Methodology The purpose of the current study was to determine faculty attitudes toward their undergraduate students’ use of the Web for class-related research. To do this, a survey instrument was designed that in­ cluded the End-User Computing Satisfac­ tion (EUCS) instrument, some demo­ graphic questions, and a series of questions on classroom Web-use policies. Comments were also encouraged. The EUCS instrument was designed by William J. Doll and Gholamreza Torkzadeh specifically to measure end users’ attitudes toward computer pro­ grams with which they are familiar.16 Re­ spondents indicated how often they would respond positively to a series of questions using a five-point Likert-type scale of “almost never” to “almost al­ ways.” EUCS scores include factor scores, which focus on the specific factors of con­ tent, accuracy, format, ease of use, and timeliness, and an aggregate overall score, which is the sum of the five factor scores. Over the past ten years, the EUCS in­ strument has proved to be a valid and re­ liable method of judging user perceptions of numerous programs designed to de­ liver textual and numeric information. Al­ though not previously used in research on the Web, it has been used successfully in studies of a variety of management in­ formation system applications, including accounts payable, accounts receivable, CAD-CAM, customer service, dispatch­ ing, engineering analysis, inventory, per­ sonnel, student data, and other manage­ ment systems; word processing, spread­ sheets, database management, electronic mail, payroll, and other administrative programs; digital libraries; and computer simulation.17–20 The EUCS instrument used in this study was a modified form of Doll and Torkzadeh’s twelve-item EUCS instru­ ment. Four items that had been deleted from the second-stage test instrument were reintegrated into the form because these questions related directly to the Web environment and the issues that surround it. Also, minor changes in the wording of the questions were made to focus the at­ tention of the respondents on the Web. In addition, a series of six questions de­ signed to determine the Web-use policies that faculty apply to course-related student research was asked. These questions were: • I tell my students about specific Web sites and require them to use those sites in their assignments. • I tell my students about specific Web sites and encourage them to use those sites in their assignments. • I do not tell my students about spe­ cific Web sites, but I allow them to use the Web as a resource. • I allow my students to use Web sites as their only resource for class assignments. • I allow my students to use Web sites, but only in conjunction with other types of resources (such as print). • I do not allow my students to use the Web as a resource for class assignments. Many faculty indicated that they either limit their students’ use of the Web, direct students to specific sites, or require students to get permission to use specific sites. These six questions were answered on a Likert-type scale of “almost never” to “almost always.” After pilot testing, a packet containing a cover letter, the survey instrument, and a return envelope was mailed to 1,129 full- time faculty in Alabama institutions of higher education. The sample included faculty from both public and private in­ stitutions and from two- and four-year colleges and universities. Approximately two to three weeks after the initial mail­ ing, reminders were sent to those who had not responded. A total of 388 usable forms were returned by the end of the survey period. The returned surveys are proportionally representative of the three different levels of institutions in the state. Two research questions are considered in this report on the research study: 1. Have faculty accepted the Web as a suitable resource for their undergraduate students’ research? http:familiar.16 254 College & Research Libraries May 2001 TABLE 1 Factor and Overall EVeS Scores and t-Test Values N Expected Actual Standard t value Sig. Mean Mean Deviation (2-tailed)* Content factor 358 12 13.5950 2.7533 10.961 .000 Accuracy factor 355 12 13.6254 2.9368 10.428 .000 Format factor 363 6 7.2231 1.4014 16.629 .000 Ease-of-use factor 361 9 10.7175 2.2055 14.795 .000 Timeliness factor 364 6 7.3709 1.4761 17.719 .000 Overall EUCS score 340 45 52.6794 8.9307 15.855 .000 * p < .05 2. Do faculty encourage their under­ graduate students to use the Web as a re­ source in their course-related research as­ signments? Responses to the EUCS form were used to determine faculty satisfaction with the Web as a resource for their students. Re­ sponses to the Web-use policy questions were used to determine the level of fac­ ulty encouragement of Web use by their students. Overall acceptance of the Web was determined by the combination of the two sets of questions. Results Both the EUCS factor scores and overall scores proved to be significantly higher than the expected means, as shown in table 1. T-tests against the expected means showed statistically significant differ­ ences (alpha = .05) in a positive direction for all factor scores and the overall score. Responses to the Web-use policy ques­ tions also proved to be generally positive, as shown in table 2. Using “sometimes,” “often,” and “almost always” responses as indicators, results show that more than 77 percent of the faculty respondents en­ courage their students to use specific Web sites, 50 percent require them to use spe­ cific sites, and 73 percent allow them to use the Web without specifying any par­ ticular sites. Only 7.1 percent forbid Web use. However, it is interesting to note that more than 83 percent of the faculty require their students to use other resources in conjunction with the Web. Academic discipline proved to be a sig­ nificant factor for both EUCS scores and Web-use policy responses. Post hoc analy­ sis showed that faculty in the language and literature disciplines had signifi­ cantly lower EUCS content and accuracy factor scores and overall EUCS scores TABLE 2 Web-use Policy Statements: Means and Percentages Statement Mean Almost Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost Always Require specific sites Encourage specific sites Allow use of any sites Allow use of Web as only source Allow Web use only in conjunction Do not allow Web use 2.4918 3.2316 3.1935 1.5514 3.1069 1.2640 30.4% 12.8% 14.9% 67.4% 9.2% 86.3% 19.6% 10.1% 12.2% 16.9% 7.8% 6.5% 26.6% 33.2% 30.4% 10.3% 21.3% 4.0% 17.1% 28.9% 23.8% 4.0% 26.7% .6% 6.3% 15.0% 18.8% 1.4% 35.1% 2.5% Faculty Acceptance of the World Wide Web for Student Research 255 TABLE 3 Significant Grou[ Differences for Academic De[artments Dependent (I) Department (J) Department Mean Diff. Sig.* Variable (I-J) Content Language & Literature Administrative Science -2.0019 .012 Accuracy Science Social Science 1.8652 .018 Humanities 1.8163 .050 Language & Literature Science -2.6325 .000 Administrative Science -1.8400 .050 Education -2.0839 .014 Health Science -2.1103 .018 Format Science Social Science .8799 .021 Overall EUCS score Science Language & Literature 5.7625 .030 * p < .05 than did faculty in several other disci­ plines, as shown in table 3. Faculty in the sciences had significantly higher scores for the accuracy and format factors than did faculty from other disciplines. Considering Web-use policy, faculty in education proved to be most likely to re­ quire students to use specific sites, whereas engineering/computer science faculty were least likely to require stu­ dents to use other sources in conjunction with the Web (see table 4). Institution type also was a significant factor for satisfaction as measured by the EUCS instrument, with faculty from com­ munity/junior colleges showing higher means on both content and accuracy fac­ tors than did other faculty, as shown in table 5. Neither gender nor age had any sig­ nificant impact on satisfaction or Web-use policy. Approximately one-quarter of the sur­ vey respondents added comments to the survey. The majority of these comments focused on Web content, accuracy, and reliability, and indicated concern about students’ ability to effectively evaluate Web information. A few representative comments are shown here: • “The biggest challenge for me is to get the students to evaluate the source of the information. Critical thinking skills must be used!” • “Students tend to accept what they read—on the WWW or in a book—with­ out question. They need to be taught to evaluate a source for accuracy and/or bias.” TABLE 4 Post Hoc Tests of Grou[ Significance for Web-use Policy Dependent Variable (I) Department (J) Department Mean Diff. Sig.* (I-J) Require specific sites Allow Web only with other sources Education Language & Literature Science Social Science Humanities Language & Literature Engineering! Computer Science .8360 .8360 .8440 .9954 1.0742 .024 .024 .043 .003 .019 * p < .05 256 College & Research Libraries May 2001 TABLE 5 Significant Group Differences for Institution Types Dependent Variable (I) Institution Type (J) Institution Type Mean Diff. (I-J) Sig.* Content Accuracy * p < .05 CII Colleges CII Colleges Universities Four-year Colleges Universities 1.1368 1.4195 1.5040 .014 .035 .002 • “Many students believe research be­ gins and ends with only what is on WWW, which is most untrue. Many students be­ lieve that if information isn’t on computer, then it isn’t important. Very limited.” • “I am generally pleased with the WWW as a source of useful information; students often treat it as the source of info. However, there is no quality control on WWW info, so it runs the gamut from excellent to useless and outdated.” • “My biggest concern for students is the danger of believing that everything in print on the Web can be trusted as ac­ curate w/out additional verification.” • “I think it sometimes prevents the students from discovering other ways of gathering info for research, such as com­ munity searches and how to use the li­ brary intelligently.” Many faculty indicated that they either limit their students’ use of the Web, direct students to specific sites, or require students to get permission to use specific sites. Some typical comments included: “I usually se­ lect a list of Web sites for student use. That allows me to eliminate sites I find that have less-than-factual information” and “[M]y students have to follow a client and are re­ quired to do several teaching projects to the client. Information/handouts/etc. are ob­ tained from the Web—all materials are OK’d by instructor beforehand.” Other issues mentioned by numerous respondents included problems with the organization of Web information, lack of searching skills, and plagiarism. Analysis and Conclusions Three points are clear from the results of this survey. First, the original research questions posed at the beginning of this project can be answered positively. The faculty who participated in this survey have accepted the Web as a suitable re­ source for their students’ class-related research. They encourage students to use it and often give them specific sites to consult. However, as a second point, most fac­ ulty are not satisfied with the Web as a sole source of information for their stu­ dents to use. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of fac­ ulty require students to use other re­ sources in conjunction with the Web. And finally, they have some serious doubts about the value, accuracy, authority, and reliability of Web-based information and about their students’ ability to evaluate this information after they find it. These points have distinct conse­ quences for academic librarians. Clearly, academic librarians should accept the Web as a legitimate research resource, make it available to library users, and teach those users how to use it efficiently. In addition, because many faculty have doubts about their students’ ability to use the Web and the information they find there effectively, this is an appropriate point for the introduction of information literacy training by library faculty, as sug­ gested by many librarians, including Helge Clausen and Lorie Roth.21, 22 The importance that faculty place on use of other resources in addition to the Web strongly suggests that traditional li­ brary resources will continue to be a nec­ essary component of student research. Therefore, libraries must continue to de­ velop their print resources in conjunction Faculty Acceptance of the World Wide Web for Student Research 257 with providing access to electronic re­ sources, at least for the foreseeable future. Recommendations The conclusions above suggest several recommendations. First, academic library professionals should be proactive in working with teaching faculty to develop course-related training aimed at enabling students to find Web-based information effectively and to evaluate its quality, au­ thority, and credibility. By taking the ini­ tiative in this instructional area, academic librarians can offer needed assistance to faculty and also increase their level of pro­ fessional authority and visibility within the institution. Moreover, librarians should build components on Web search skills and evaluation techniques into li­ brary instruction classes, orientation pro­ grams, and tours, as well as in one-on­ one instruction. Special emphasis should be placed on effective search techniques and evaluation skills focusing on quality criteria, such as the authority and cred­ ibility of sources and the accuracy, reli­ ability, and validity of content. Second, librarians should work in con­ junction with subject faculty to select ap­ propriate sites for student use. This ac­ tivity may involve different levels of ef­ fort and types of end products, ranging from selection of a few recommended sites for demonstration to specialized site lists, or “webliographies,” for class use, to the development of specialized Web pages providing access points or gate­ ways to authoritative Web information. This type of service can be viewed as an expansion of traditional collection devel­ opment activities, taking into consider­ ation both the needs of the curriculum and the special difficulties facing students and faculty in determining the value and quality of Web information. Many librar­ ians are already involved in this activity but are not always guided by coordinated efforts with teaching faculty. Finally, library administrators and col­ lection development specialists should re­ member that although faculty accept the Web as a suitable tool for their students’ research, they do not consider it a suffi­ cient resource in either quantity or quality of research information available. There­ fore, libraries must continue to develop traditional print resources along with elec­ tronic resources. This point needs to be made clear to budget-minded institutional administrators who may try to cut library materials funds on the basis that the Web is making “all” information available on everyone’s desktop “for free.” Future Research The research study described here was limited to faculty at institutions of higher education in the state of Alabama and, as such, is intrinsically nongeneralizable. However, the results are significant and can offer important points of consider­ ation for all academic librarians. Expan­ sion of the study beyond the state is planned. If similar results are found for the larger study, the power of the research will be greatly enhanced. Notes 1. Cheryl LaGuardia, “Online Links: Users’ Needs, Librarians’ Roles,” Library Journal (Nov. 15, 1998): S10–S11. 2. Susan S. Lazinger, Judit Bar-Ilan, and Bluma C. Peritz, “Internet Use by Faculty Members in Various Disciplines: A Comparative Case Study,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48 (June 1997): 508–18. 3. Bertram C. Bruce and Kevin M. Leander, “Searching for Digital Libraries in Education: Why Computers Cannot Tell the Story,” Library Trends 45 (spring 1997): 746–70. 4. Tom Regan, “On the Web, Speed Instead of Accuracy,” Nieman Reports 52, no. 1 (spring 1998): 81; available online at Expanded Academic Index ASAP, Article A20624184. 5. Luciano Floridi, “Brave.Net.World: The Internet as a Disinformation Superhighway?” Elec­ tronic Library 14 (Dec. 1996): 509–14. 6. Tschera Harkness Connell and Jennifer E. Tipple, “Testing the Accuracy of Information on the World Wide Web Using the AltaVista Search Engine,” Reference and User Services Quarterly 18 258 College & Research Libraries May 2001 (summer 1999): 360–67. 7. Chuck Koutnik, “The World Wide Web Is Here: Is the End of Printed Reference Sources Near?” RQ 36 (spring 1997): 422–25. 8. Kari Boyd McBride and Ruth Dickstein, “The Web Demands Critical Reading by Stu­ dents,” Chronicle of Higher Education (Mar. 20, 1998): B6. 9. Bruce and Leander, “Searching for Digital Libraries in Education,” 754. 10. Ralph Alberico, “Serving College Students in an Era of Recombinant Information,” Wil­ son Library Bulletin 69, no. 7 (Mar. 1995): 29–32, 119. 11. Peter Wei He and Trudi E. Jacobson, “What Are They Doing with the Internet? A Study of User Information Seeking Behaviors,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 1, no. 1 (1996): 31–51. 12. Timothy T. Perry, Leslie Anne Perry, and Karen Hosack-Curlin, “Internet Use by Univer­ sity Students: An Interdisciplinary Study on Three Campuses,” Internet Research: Electronic Net­ working Applications and Policy 8, no. 2 (1998): 136–41. 13. John Lubans Jr., “How First-year University Students Use and Regard Internet Resources” (Perkins Library, Duke University, 1998); available online at http://www.lib.duke.edu/lubans/ docs/1styear/firstyear.html (26 March 1998). 14. Steven R. Knowlton, “How Students Get Lost in Cyberspace,” New York Times, 2 Nov. 1997, A18. 15. Bob Duffy and Jennifer Yacovissi, “Seven Self-contradicting Reasons Why the Worldwide Web Is Such a Big Deal,” Proceedings of the 17th National Online Meeting (1996): 81–90. 16. William J. Doll and Gholamreza Torkzadeh, “The Measurement of End-user Computing Satisfaction,” MIS Quarterly 12 (June 1988): 259–74. 17. William J. Doll, Weidong Xia, and Gholamreza Torkzadeh, “A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument,” MIS Quarterly 18 (Dec. 1994): 453–61. 18. Anthony R. Hendrickson, Kristy Glorfeld, and Timothy Paul Cronan, “On the Repeated Test–Retest Reliability of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument: A Comment,” Deci­ sion Sciences 25 (July/Aug. 1994): 655–65. 19. Jin Taek Jung, “Measuring User Success in the Digital Library Environment” (Ph.D. diss., Drexel University, 1997). 20. Roger McHaney and Timothy Paul Cronan, “Computer Simulation Success: On the End- User Computing Satisfaction Instrument: A Comment,” Decision Sciences 29 (spring 1998): 525– 36. 21. Helge Clausen, “Internet Information Literacy: Some Basic Considerations,” Libri 47 (Apr. 1997): 25–34. 22. Lorie Roth, “Educating the Cut-and-Paste Generation,” Library Journal (Nov. 1, 1999): 42– 44. http://www.lib.duke.edu/lubans