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. 5 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 28 17 6 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% 8 150 175 150 120 118 73 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 No 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 52 176 63 9 15 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 61 170 56 7 21 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 94 140 65 7 9 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. www.ets.org/redirect/tests.html