Teaching information skills has become an important part of most academic libraries’ service and outreach programmes. While students overall have become more technology savvy, there is little evidence to support an idea that they have become more information literate. There are many assumptions and opinions on students’ information needs and information habits, and expressions like “the Google generation” has created some stereotypes concerning young people’s information consumption (Rowlands et al., 2008). Projects and studies like “Project Information Literacy (PIL)” (Head, 2014) and the “ERIAL Project” (Duke & Asher, 2012) focused on students’ information habits, and they found that the picture is more complex than what meets the eye. Understanding the students’ habits and needs are important factors in planning and executing information skills training.

Students in health sciences are faced with rapid changes in technology, patient care and responsibilities, and are especially influenced by new health reforms and an aging population. Evidence-based practice (EBP)1 has been an important factor, and it is emphasised in frameworks, standards and guidelines as well as study programmes and course descriptions. Information literacy is an important part of EBP, and it is vital to introduce the students to subject-specific sources early on. This separates health sciences students from many others, as they are required to go beyond course readings much earlier, and for many health sciences students this begins in their first term in higher education.

In this study the author sought to find out how first-year students in health sciences used information sources when being given written assignments, what they thought about their own information skills, and what kind of sources they were required to use. The author also wanted to find out how librarians at the same institutions regarded the answers the students gave in questionnaires, and how to offer guidance and tutorials that suits the students’ needs. The idea was that librarians needed to understand the information habits of their students, and what that meant for teaching practice and use of guidelines and frameworks.

What sources do first-year students in health sciences use when receiving a new assignment from teachers, and what does it mean for their learning processes? How can the use of a framework help librarians in giving more consistent information skills training to first-year students?

This study consists of results from two surveys (questionnaires), informal interviews and a literature review.

A questionnaire was distributed among first-year students enrolled at XX University College, XY University College (campus xy) and XZ University College during the spring semester of 2015. The respondents were enrolled in one of the following study programmes: nursing, radiography, occupational therapy, child welfare, social work, or social education. The university colleges were chosen because of their similar study programmes, their similar sizes and their geographical proximities.

Informal interviews with some of the library staff from the three institutions were performed the next semester. The interview format was chosen to be able to shed some light on the issues from the questionnaires. The interview format made it possible for the author to probe into some attitudes to the students’ use of information. The interviews lasted approximately one hour each.

Due to an error in the initial questionnaire, some questions were not displayed to the respondents and not all questions were marked as mandatory. Therefore, a slightly updated questionnaire was distributed to students of XX University in January 2017. Due to the limited size of the samples of this study, the results should be regarded as exploratory, rather than comprehensive.

A literature review was performed to form the basis of the questionnaire and the interviews, but also to shed some light on the findings. This was done because of the limited size of the study. The literature review should therefore be regarded as part of the findings in the study, and is also featured in the discussion. The search terms used for the literature review were: information needs, information strategies, information behaviour, information literacy, information seeking, research strategies, research behaviour, research needs, self-efficacy, students, first-year students, college freshmen, higher education, college, university. Searches were performed in: Academic search elite, Emerald, ERIC, Sage journals online and ScienceDirect. Google Scholar was used for citation purposes.

Peer-reviewed articles and reports from the past 15 years, in English and Scandinavian languages, were included.

The results from the literature review showed, among other things, that students relied on Google and other previously learned information sources over and over again. They also showed a tendency to overestimate their information skills. This formed the backdrop of the questionnaire that was distributed. The results from the questionnaire were, in turn, discussed in informal interviews with librarians.

Traditionally, students in Norwegian secondary education have been required to write papers where they were expected to use readily available information, like statistics or general facts, and to reproduce knowledge, and to give their sources. Students therefore rely on Wikipedia instead of more in-depth, peer-review sources (Blikstad-Balas & Hvistendahl, 2013). Students have expressed that they felt unprepared (Arum & Roksa, 2011) for writing academic papers as freshmen in college even though they, in Norway, according to NQF (2011) should be able to “search for and use information from different sources to further his/her development in relation to future work and/or education” (p. 20), “analyse and assess different types of sources of relevance to his/her own work” (p. 21), and“[…] use digital tools and media to solve academic challenges in a critical and creative manner […]” (p. 47). The level of critical thinking required, as well as the formal requirements, such as following a particular citation style and using scholarly sources, felt new and overwhelming to them (Head, 2013). Head suggests that not only the level of academic writing, but also the amount of sources available were leaving college freshmen feeling overwhelmed, but also excited when starting a new paper.

In an experiment performed on third-year radiography students, Øvern (2011) found that most of the students rated their search abilities as “average” in databases, but mostly “good” overall online. In the post-test, after giving lectures to half the class on information searching, the overall results went up in confidence, i.e. more students answered “good” on their skill level, but the students in the test group were less confident than in the control group. This coincided with the librarians’ experiences, as expressed in the interviews. Griffiths and Brophy (2005, p. 542) found that students were satisfied with insufficient or even wrong answers as long as they found documents that matched their search terms. In the survey for this study, students answered the question on confidence before a library intervention. 38 respondents of 51 total said they were “very good” or “good” at searching for information on the Internet, while the number fell to 26 of the 51 when asked about their searching skills in databases, which is just over half of the respondents. In Øvern’s (2011) study, the students who had participated in the training program, showed less confidence in searching than those in the control group, who had only received the introductory lecture. This may suggest that only the students subjected to real search training realised their shortcomings when it came to information skills. Two librarians in the interviews for this study also supported this.

Head’s (2013) research showed that Google searching was the most used information resource for high school seniors and college students, followed by library databases (e.g. JSTOR) followed by course readings as the third most used resource (p. 25). This study showed that students used course readings first, 94% used this as one of the first resources in information gathering, 54% used lecture notes and 45% used Google. When asked to choose just one resource, 72% percent answered that they would use their course readings, and 11% would choose Google first. Still, the trends were the same; course readings and Google searching were among the highest ranked information resources for first-year students. Head’s (2013) study showed that many first-year students learn, or tried to learn, new information strategies during their first year, and that by the end of the year, the first-year students’ research was more similar to other college students’ than to high school students’ (p. 27). These findings also, to a certain degree, match the general experiences of the librarians in the interviews. Still, the librarians expressed some concern in the overall abilities of the students, and they reported that it was sometimes difficult to get access to students to help them develop information skills. Academic librarians should perhaps be more aware of students’ previous knowledge and skills, and to introduce subject-specific skills as soon as possible to help students with their motivation. Students enter higher education with some information skills, and librarians should understand that they only need to expand and build on the information skills the students already possess (Salisbury & Karasmanis, 2011, p. 44). This, according to Salisbury and Karasmanis (2011), “opens up possibilities to improve learning activities so that they are more relevant to students’ existing skill set […]” (p. 44). Still, the bottom line is that if the students are not met with the academic demands that will put them to the test, they will not discover that their skills are insufficient and therefore not be motivated to learn new ones. If teachers want their students to learn how to write well in an academic sense, they have to express what this entails in their assignments and to be prepared to spend more time on assessment and follow-ups with the students.

The Norwegian Qualifications Framework (NQF, 2011) gives the directions and overall learning goals for information skills, and each higher education institution in the country has a quality assurance system that, among other things, should back up the NQF within the organisation. However, the NQF’s broad definitions are not always easy to integrate into each study programme, and there is a largely unorganised and “under-debated” issue of who has the overall responsibility to teach academic writing skills within the organisation. The students in the survey for this article were, perhaps surprisingly, in accordance with the librarians in the interviews when they expressed what sources they used. The use of textbooks, lecture notes and Google for written assignments, as expressed by so many, not only poses a practical problem, but also a larger issue. What does this mean for the quality of the assignments? The NQF clearly states that students who have finished their bachelor’s studies should be able to “apply academic knowledge and relevant results of research and development work to practical and theoretical problems […]” and “can find, evaluate and refer to information and scholarly subject matter […]” (NQF, 2011, p. 47), but what does it mean if this is not followed up in study programmes, evaluations and the quality assurance systems? In this study, an overwhelming majority (98% in the 2015 survey and 94% in the 2017 survey) of the students reported that they had been given assignments that required them to use and cite sources, but as they were not asked about whether they were required to use sources that were not on their reading lists, it is hard to know how the requirements affected their behaviour. Students must face demands that ensure a wider set of sources and methods through their academic writing processes, particularly the students in health science because they will later be included in professions that emphasises evidence-based practice.

The question that remains important here is whether the seemingly random information retrieval methods that students use during their first year in higher education adversely affects their learning? In a study done at Illinois Wesleyan University, Asher and Duke (2012) found that students applied Google-like searches in subject databases, and that they most likely change database in stead of applying more advanced search techniques. They also showed great willingness to change topic to fit easily found information (p. 78). This implied that the lack of searching skills and/or willingness to adapt to new sources (i.e. databases) could have a great impact on what they learned. Brabazon (2008) referred to an Australian study done by Squires and FitzGerald. The study showed that information scaffolding was necessary to help students go beyond Google (p. 20), and that students rarely read learning outcomes and marking criteria. Brabazon also explained how her own first year students demonstrated “[…] superficial research and comprehension skills and awkward writing modalities. They do not seek out diverse views to construct an argument” (p. 20–21). The students in this study relied heavily on textbooks, Google and their own lecture notes. It would have been interesting to see what kind of impact that had on their written assignments compared to what it could have been if they had used a wider selection of refereed research. The librarians that were interviewed for this study were unsure what kind of effect it would have.

Having access to teachers, teaching assistants and peers were emphasised by students in this study, and it is natural to assume that this is of particular use to students who are new to HE, and presumably lack some of the information skills that they need to get their academic work done. However, each teacher is responsible for a large number of students, and having time and resources to give each student the necessary individual training and attention is almost impossible. Some teachers are experimenting with different methods to improve learning, like group study, peer mentoring etc., but the teachers’ time remains a challenge. This is also a factor for librarians. The librarians in the interviews stated that they neither had the time nor the competence to help students develop their academic writing skills. Others (Loertscher & Woolls, 2012; Oakleaf, Hoover, Woodard, & Corbin, 2012) called for a role-expansion for librarians. “Librarians are uniquely positioned to play a special role” Oakleaf et al. (2012, p. 22) stated, and they continued: “Librarians participate (or should) in the development of the learning outcomes for the campus—especially those related to information literacy—and ensure that outcomes are embedded in the beginning, middle and end of the curriculum” (p. 22). If this is to become a reality on college and university campuses, one could argue that librarians need to either remove some services or work more efficiently to make time on the schedule to address these issues. As Elmborg (2006) said, “moving from service provider to active educator challenges librarians and library educators to develop new guiding philosophies.”

The study showed that students rely heavily on their textbooks, notes from lectures and Google to find information for their academic work. They only occasionally seek help from librarians or use the traditional library resources, like searching databases, likely because they tend to overestimate the level of their own skills, and that they have experienced that they can get by with Google and course readings only. This is in contrast to what the Norwegian Qualifications Framework (NQF, 2011) and the ICN Code of Ethics (International Council of Nurses, 2012) has suggested. The librarians interviewed for the study did not see an immediate solution to help the students use a wider set of information sources, other than the sessions the librarians were already involved in.

It is the responsibility of the institution to improve students’ information skills, but few teachers want to accept sole responsibility for training their students in these skills. Time is a scarce resource, and taking precious class time to help students search for literature and help them with critical analysis is not a prioritised task. Teachers also tend to overestimate the level of students’ information skills. Experiencing that their information skills are not what they thought is probably the only way to get students interested in learning more. Giving students assignments that require them to do more research will therefore be essential, particularly for students in health sciences, since they will be met with higher demands for information skills both in their next years of study and in their future careers (International Council of Nurses, 2012).

Students learn their information skills and coping skills during their first year of college. It is therefore vitally important to get it right straight away, and to introduce them to subject-specific sources as soon as possible. Early, and well-directed interventions could make a difference when it comes to changing the students’ habits and drawing them out of the comfort zone that is Google and their textbooks.

The Norwegian Qualifications Framework (NQF) needs to be properly embedded in study programmes, and librarians should initiate teaching efforts that can emphasise learning to comply with NQF’s overall goals. Implementing an information literacy framework could also give the librarians a more systematic approach to teaching and a much-needed gravitas as teachers, something that would also be significant in collaboration with faculty teachers.