Library Review

Understanding academic reading in the context of information-seeking

Irene Lopatovska Deanna Sessions
Article information:
To cite this document:
Irene Lopatovska Deanna Sessions , (2016),"Understanding academic reading in the context of information-seeking", Library
Review, Vol. 65 Iss 8/9 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LR-03-2016-0026
Downloaded on: 02 October 2016, At: 09:04 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Information seeking and searching strategies as plans and patterns of action: A conceptual analysis", Journal of
Documentation, Vol. 72 Iss 6 pp. 1154-1180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2016-0033
(2016),"Thai immigrants' information seeking behaviour and perception of the public library's role during the settlement
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

process", Library Review, Vol. 65 Iss 8/9 pp. -

(2016),"Being where the users are: readiness of academic librarians to satisfy information needs of users through social
media", Library Review, Vol. 65 Iss 8/9 pp. -

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:332610 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Understanding academic reading in the context of information-seeking

1 Introduction
Reading is an integral part of the information-seeking process and is connected to one’s social role, task,
and choice of reading medium (Leckie, Pettigrew, & Sylvain 1996; Jabr, 2013). While prior research
produced influential models of information-seeking behaviour and separate models of reading practices,
we are not aware of any efforts to explicitly integrate reading into an information-seeking model.
Understanding reading practices and needs in the context of information-seeking can refine our
understanding of user choices and preferences for information sources (e.g. textbooks, articles,
multimedia content) and media (e.g. print and digital tools used for reading). It can also help to examine
the changes in reading practices brought about by digital devices and content.
This article reports on a pilot study that examined reading in relation to information-seeking
stages, tasks, and reading media in an academic setting. The study provides preliminary support for the
development of a unified information-seeking and reading model.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

2 Relevant literature
2.1 Information-seeking
At its broadest level, information-seeking is a ‘process in which humans purposefully engage in order to
change their state of knowledge’ (Marchionini, 1995). It is a way of making sense of a problematic
situation (Dervin, 1983; Dervin & Nilan, 1986) and is influenced by a specific context in which information-
seeking activities occur (e.g., Wilson, 1981; Wilson & Walsh, 1996; Savolainen, 1995).
Several models represent information-seeking as a linear process involving certain stages or
activities. Kuhlthau (1991) proposed five distinct stages of an information-seeking process, tied closely to
cognitive and affective states, while Ellis (1989) suggested four categories of activities that define the
information-seeking process. The intersection of these stages and activities of the information-seeking
process is illustrated by Wilson (1999) in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Intersection of Kuhlthau’s stages and Ellis’ activities models, proposed by Wilson (1999)

While Kuhlthau’s five-stage model suggests a linear progression, Foster’s (2004; 2006) synthesis
of several models posits a non-linear process of information-seeking. Foster’s approach is centred on
three primary information behaviours that inform one another: orientation, opening, and consolidating
(Figure 2).
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

Figure 2. Foster’s (2004) non-linear model of information-seeking behaviour

Overall, despite slight differences in terminology, there are many similarities between information-
seeking models. For example, several models include the ‘initiation’ stage of an information search (Ellis,
1989; Kuhlthau, 1991), and describe specific tactics associated with this stage (e.g., figuring out the topic
or changing the scope of the topic (Bates, 2002; Kuhlthau, 1991; Marchionini & White, 2007).
In designing our study, we mapped the information-seeking tactics and terminology proposed in
previous information-seeking models into three broad information-seeking stages: 1) initiation and
formulation, 2) exploration, and 3) extraction and finishing. Table 1 below lists specific tactics associated
with each stage of the information-seeking process.

Information- INFORMATION-SEEKING Marchionini

Kuhlthau Foster Ellis Bates
seeking stage TACTIC and White
Figuring out the topic X X X X X
INITIATION &
Narrowing or expanding the
FORMULATION X X X X
scope of the topic
Identifying and selecting
X X X X
information resources
Searching for keywords or
X X X X
finding specific facts
Browsing or exploring a
source(s) to see what I find X X X X X
EXPLORATION
and learn
Monitoring specific sources
X X X X
to keep up-to-date on a topic
Tracking down sources
based on footnotes or X X X X X
citations
Pulling relevant information
X X X X
from a resource(s)
Verifying the accuracy of
X X X
EXTRACTION/ information
FINISHING Synthesising information X X X
Finishing the assignment
(e.g., presentation, paper, X X X X
project, etc.)
Table 1. Mapping of study’s information-seeking themes to various information-seeking models

2
 In instances when information is sought in recorded sources, information-seeking tactics involve
specific reading styles and strategies. However, there is not sufficient literature about the relationships
between information-seeking and reading.

2.2 Academic Reading

Reading is broadly defined as the process of constructing meaning from a text (Barrett, 2005; Coiro,
2007). This process involves a series of cognitive reading strategies to effectively locate, comprehend,
synthesize, and communicate information (Barrett, 2005). The literature identifies two main reading styles,
deep and surface, which are characterised by certain processes and expressed through particular
reading strategies (Holschuh, 2000; Hubbard & Simpson, 2003; Roberts & Roberts, 2008).
Reading strategies are defined as deliberate actions or behaviours readers engage in when
comprehending what was read (Hubbard & Simpson, 2003; Liu, 2010). Reading strategies help readers
select, organise, connect, and evaluate information. They largely depend on information-seeking goals,
user beliefs, attitudes, and tasks (Coiro, 2007; Roberts & Roberts, 2008; Chan Lin, 2013; Hock & Mellard,
2011; White, Chen & Forsyth, 2010). Reading was also found to be influenced by text difficulty (Bilal,
2013) as well as individual and cultural differences (Rayner et al., 2009).
Deep reading, also referred to as ‘reading to learn’ and ‘careful reading,’ is reading with the goal
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

of long-term retention of the material and for comprehension at a level that can be ‘perspective-
transforming’ (Roberts & Roberts, 2008). For example, a student who is engaged in deep reading will
seek to connect readings beyond the need to prepare for a quiz, will try to relate it to other information or
apply gained knowledge at a later date (Adler et al., 1998). The process of deep reading is rooted in
semantic memory or the process of connecting new information--facts, ideas, concepts, or perspectives--
to previous knowledge (Roberts & Roberts, 2008). Specific strategies associated with deep reading
usually include:
• Taking notes on main ideas (Holschuh, 2000; Hubbard & Simpson, 2003).
• Looking for connections between ideas (Holschuh, 2000; Hubbard & Simpson, 2003; Roberts &
Roberts, 2008).
• Connecting text to previous knowledge, personal experiences, or emotions (Holschuh, 2000;
Roberts & Roberts, 2008).
• Highlighting or annotating key information (Holschuh, 2000; Hubbard & Simpson, 2003).
• Asking or predicting questions while reading (Holschuh, 2000; Hubbard & Simpson, 2003).
• Comparing multiple sources of information (Holschuh, 2000; Hubbard & Simpson, 2003; Roberts
& Roberts, 2008).
These strategies help integrate information meaningfully, eliminate compartmentalised
knowledge, facilitate long-term learning and retention (Holschuh, 2000), develop critical thinking skills,
and effectively engage a reader (Roberts & Roberts, 2008). Previous researchers linked deep reading to
print media that supports navigation, creates a sense of control, and provides tactile experiences better
than digital media (Noyes & Garland, 2003).
Surface reading seeks task-completion over retention or comprehension (Holschuh, 2000). The
process of surface reading often takes the form of rapid reading, requires minimal effort, and relies
heavily on memorisation and rote learning. Some researchers further divide surface reading into three
sub-categories: skimming, scanning, and browsing (Adler et al., 1998; Liu, 2010). Skimming is the most
commonly cited form of surface reading; it is defined as reading in order to gain a grasp of the content’s
essence or reading to establish a rough idea of content (Adler et al., 1998; Liu, 2010). Scanning, also
referred to as search-reading or reading to answer questions, is defined by the search for a particular
piece of information, such as date or definition (Adler et al., 1998; Liu, 2010). Both skimming and
scanning are characterised by speed, rapid movement within a text, and the dismissal of irrelevant
portions of information (Liu, 2010). Scanning is generally more goal-oriented and task dependent and can
range from simple answer selection to complex problem-solving (Adler et al., 1998). Browsing is the least
structured type of surface reading. When browsing, the goal or goals are not well defined, movement
within a text is random, and large portions of information are skipped over (Adler et al., 1998; Liu, 2010).
The following strategies signify surface reading in one or more of its forms:
• Rote memorisation (Holschuh, 2000; Hubbard & Simpson, 2003; Roberts & Roberts, 2008)
• Reading only section headings, titles, key words, definitions, or other emphasised text (Holschuh,
2000; Hubbard & Simpson, 2003; Roberts & Roberts, 2008)
• Reading only summarised material (Holschuh, 2000; Hubbard & Simpson, 2003)
• Skipping unfamiliar words and concepts (Holschuh, 2000)

3
 • Skimming text without focusing on understanding before moving on (Holschuh, 2000; Hubbard &
Simpson, 2003)
Surface reading is appropriate for some tasks, such as memorisation of key terms, document
selection, or in conjunction with deep reading. However, surface reading does not encourage elaborative
thinking and information integration (Holschuh, 2000) and is not appropriate for tasks involving analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation of information (Roberts & Roberts, 2008). Previous research often links surface
reading strategies to digital texts that are better suited to enable scanning, searching for keywords, and
other surface reading strategies (Liu, 2005)
Academic reading takes a range of forms depending on a reader’s purpose (Adler et al., 1998). It
is usually associated with a particular task or a goal (Daniel, 2013; Roberts & Roberts, 2008) and is
deeply enmeshed with writing and other activities including note-taking, annotation, and form-filling (Adler
et al., 1998).
Overall, while we found a number of studies on reading styles and strategies, none of them
focused on reading as a stage in an information-seeking process. The presented study aimed to address
this gap.

3 Methods
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

In order to understand the connection between information-seeking and reading, we developed an

exploratory study using an online questionnaire as a primary data collection tool. The questionnaire
method was chosen in order to collect data from a large number of participants in a short period of time
and in a manner that was relatively burdenless for participants (Krathwohl, 2009). Use of an online
questionnaire also allowed our participants to describe their information seeking and reading experiences
as they unfolded in real time.
The study relied on a convenience sample of 34 students recruited through the mailing list of a
master’s degree program in library and information science. The data were collected over a period of two
months during an academic semester. Students were encouraged to make multiple entries in the
questionnaire, resulting in the total of 44 entries (an average of 1.3 survey entry per participant). In a
single entry, participants could report multiple academic tasks and associated information-seeking and
reading activities, resulting in the total of 126 reported academic tasks.
Prior to developing the questionnaire, we ran an open-ended online survey that was distributed to
the same student population to determine the type of academic tasks and information resources they
engage with in their academic work. We used the qualitative findings from the initial survey as well as the
reviewed above literature on the information-seeking stages and reading styles to develop eighteen
questionnaire items around six main research questions:
1. What academic task (e.g., course assignments) do student participants engage in?
2. What information-seeking tactics do participants employ during the initiation/formulation,
exploration, and extraction/finishing phases of working on their academic tasks?
3. What surface or deep reading strategies do participants use while engaging in information-
seeking?
4. What reading content and media do participants use for their academic task?
5. What is participants’ satisfaction with features that support document-based interactions on the
chosen media (e.g., annotation, highlighting, note-taking, printing)?
6. What are the participants’ demographics?

Most of the questionnaire items allowed participants to choose multiple responses. For example,
while participants could describe only one academic task at a time, they could choose multiple
information-seeking and reading strategies associated with the task. A complete list of the survey items is
available in Appendix A.
Since most of the data collected through the questionnaire were nominal, descriptive statistics
was used to summarize patterns that emerged from it.
The study was approved by the Institute’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).

4 Results
4.1 Academic tasks
Participants were asked to identify their current academic tasks from a list of eleven options with an
option to include additional non-listed tasks. Out of the 126 total academic tasks mentioned by the study
participants, the most commonly reported was preparing a research paper (45) followed by short writing

4
 (35), class reading (26), and preparing a presentation/design project (20). Other tasks received few
mentions and are not reported here.
All highly-reported academic tasks were associated with a more frequent use of electronic media
in comparison to print. Database articles were the most frequently reported sources of information for all
academic tasks. Presentation and design projects were associated with the highest relative frequency of
reading, including the highest number of deep reading tactics (Table 2).

4.2 Information-seeking stages

A total of 127 information-seeking tactics were reported in relation to the four frequently reported
academic tasks mentioned in section 4.1. A large number of information-seeking tactics were associated
with exploration and extraction/finishing stages and included: a) pulling relevant information from a
resource(s) (22); b) identifying and selecting information resources (20); c) browsing or exploring a
resource(s) ‘to see what I find and learn’ (15); d) finishing an assignment (13); e) narrowing or expanding
the scope of the topic (13); and f) synthesising information (13). The least frequently reported tactics
included: figuring out the topic (9); tracking down resources based on footnotes and citations (9);
searching for keywords or finding specific facts (8); monitoring specific resources to keep up-to-date on a
topic (3); and verifying the accuracy of information (2).
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

Academic task*
Variable Research Short writing Class reading Presentation/design
paper (45) (35) (26) project (20)
Reading Deep reading 0.6 28 0.5 19 0.7 17 0.7 14
Surface reading 0.4 20 0.5 16 0.3 9 0.3 6
Total: 48 35 26 20
Information- Initiation/formulation 0.2 9 0.1 4 0.3 7 0.1 2
seeking Exploration 0.5 23 0.3 11 0.3 8 0.7 13
stage
Extraction/finishing
0.3 14 0.4 14 0.4 11 0.6 11
Total: 46 29 26 26
Source Articles 0.2 11 0.1 5 2.0 52 0.2 3
Textbook/monograph 0.1 3 0.1 1
Blogs/news 0.1 2 0.1 1
Text-editing software 0.0 2 1
Total: 16 8 52 5
Medium Digital 0.7 33 0.7 23 0.7 17 0.8 15
Print 0.3 12 0.3 12 0.3 9 0.3 5
Total: 45 35 26 20
Table 2. Types of reading, information-seeking stage, source and medium associated with academic
tasks

*Number and ratio of each variable per academic task

The frequency of information-seeking tactics varied slightly depending on the type of academic task in
which a participant was engaged. For example, a greater percentage of participants who were writing an
essay or short-writing assignment noted that they were synthesising and finishing the assignment (48%),
compared to those who were writing a lengthier research paper (30%).
Both deep and surface reading strategies were present across all information-seeking stages and
academic tasks (Table 2). Overall, deep reading was reported more frequently than surface reading. Data
suggest that most instances of deep and surface readings occurred during the exploration stage (Table
3).

Research Short Presentation Class All

paper writing /design reading tasks
Initiation/formulation Deep 11% 9% 7% 14% 10%
Surface 7% 9% 5% 13% 8%

5
 Exploration Deep 30% 19% 34% 21% 27%
Surface 30% 22% 16% 11% 23%
Extraction/finishing Deep 13% 22% 27% 22% 19%
Surface 9% 20% 11% 19% 13%
Table 3. Relationship between task, information-seeking stage, and reading strategy

4.3 Reading strategies

All 126 reported academic tasks were associated with reading. The majority of reading strategies were
connected to digital resources (88) and were associated with deep reading (50).
The three most commonly reported reading strategies included connecting a text to previous
readings and knowledge (26), revisiting significant parts of the text (23), and thinking of questions (18).
These behaviours frequently co-occurred with other deep reading strategies, such as thinking of
questions and predicting upcoming themes/arguments; in four separate instances students indicated co-
occurrence of three or more of these behaviours. Deep reading behaviours were associated with
highlighting, note-taking and annotating (29), behaviours indicative of deep reading in a mixed media
environment.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

Research Presentation/desi
Short writing Class reading All tasks
paper gn
% n % n % n % n % n
Deep Print 16 7 23 8 20 4 27 7 21 26
reading
Digital 42 19 31 11 50 10 38 10 40 50
Surface Print 11 5 11 4 5 1 8 2 10 12
reading Digital 31 14 34 12 25 5 27 7 30 38
Total 100 45 100 35 100 20 100 26 100 126
Table 4. Relationship between academic task, reading style, and medium

Surface reading strategies, such as skimming (20) and fact-checking (18), were reported in conjunction
with deep reading strategies. Only one student reported using a surface reading strategy in isolation in
the context of verifying the accuracy of previously found information.

4.4 Reading content: source, medium, satisfaction

The most frequently reported information sources used for academic tasks included scholarly journal
articles from electronic databases and search engines (71). Textbooks and monographs (4), blogs and
news sources (3), and text-editing software (3) were used less frequently (Table 2). More than two-thirds
of participants reported using digital media for information-seeking and reading (Table 2).
On average, participants reported higher levels of satisfaction with the features of digital media
than print (the average satisfaction score for digital was .50 compared to print score of .34, where
dissatisfaction corresponded to -1.00, neutral = 0, and satisfied = 1.00). The most satisfying features of
digital media included the ability to work with multiple documents simultaneously and make notes. Some
of the least satisfying features associated with digital media were the abilities to share comments and
make bookmarks. Some of the most satisfying features of print media were the abilities to make notes in-
text and make copies while the least satisfying features included the abilities to search and share a
document.

5 Discussion and conclusion

Due to the study limitations, such as use of a convenience sample of library and information science
students, some findings can be attributed to the sample’s demographics and academic demands. For
example, the findings pertaining to the types and frequency of academic tasks or information-seeking
stages could not be generalizable beyond the study sample. While our findings pertaining to the reading
styles and media could also be influenced by the sample’s demographics, they are supported by prior
research and have broader implications.
The findings suggest that at all stages of information-seeking for all academic tasks, graduate
students were engaged in both deep and surface reading using both print and electronic resources. No
particular information-seeking stage or an academic task was characterised by exclusive use of print or

6
 digital resources. The fact that students are using various types of information resources to satisfy their
academic needs is supported in prior literature (Liu, 2006) and suggests that it might be premature for
academic libraries to part with their print collections (Kacherki & Thombare, 2010).
Our findings also indicate that students used a combination of deep and surface reading
strategies while working on their academic projects, suggesting that all academic tasks require various
degrees of deep and surface reading. Overall, participants reported more instances of deep reading,
which could be attributed to the characteristics of the sample (e.g., graduate students may be more
engaged with reading material than undergraduates), or could generally characterise academic reading
(compared to recreational reading, for example).
Variations in the distribution of reading strategies across academic tasks and information-seeking
stages suggest an additional dimension—reading—that can be incorporated into existing information-
seeking models (Table 1). Following previous work, we propose a model (Figure 3) that reiterates
aspects of the high-level information-seeking models where task determines information-seeking stages
and information-seeking tactics which, in turn, influence the choice of information content and media used
for the task (Wilson, 1999). If information-seeking involves textual information, reading becomes an
integral part of the process (Figure 3). Our study identified unique reading patterns associated with
different information-seeking stages and tasks, but the study data were insufficient to run statistical tests
to confirm causal relationships between academic task types, information-seeking stages, reading styles
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

and information resources. Future work will examine whether specific deep or surface reading styles and
corresponding reading strategies (e.g., skimming, predicting) depend on information-seeking stage and
tactic (e.g., figuring out topic) as well as the available and/or chosen information resource, and, in turn,
influence subsequent information-seeking tactics and information resource selection. For example, our
study found that exploration stage was associated with both deep and surface reading, but at this stage
reading styles varied by the type of project the student was working on. Future work will examine whether
academic task, particular information seeking tactic (e.g. monitoring), and/or a type of an information
resource have the strongest influence on reading styles. We also plan to examine the extent to which
reading styles influence information-seeking tactics and information resource selection. For example,
deep reading associated with the exploration stage might result in increased uncertainty that warrants
return to initiation and formulation stage, while surface reading might result in a satisfaction of an
information need and lead to the next stage of extraction/finishing. We also want to expand the model by
incorporating information seekers’ cognitive and emotional states and other characteristics that might
affect their reading. For example, it would be interesting to examine whether a tired student be less likely
to engage in deep reading, even when his academic task calls for it, or whether an unhappy student be
more likely to engage into deep reading to gain more information and change her present state. Future
plans also include testing the model by investigating information-seeking and reading behaviours of
students in different countries and academic disciplines.
While there is not sufficient evidence in prior studies to support the link between the type of
reading and information-seeking stage, there is extensive literature on the relationships between reading
and the type of information resource and the reading medium. Previous literature suggests that readers
often apply surface reading strategies (e.g., browsing, scanning, and searching for keywords) while
interacting with digital texts (Liu, 2005). Digital media features, such as limited navigation, sense of
control, and tactile experiences, were also found to negatively affect comprehension, learning, and reader
satisfaction (Noyes & Garland, 2003) and might be undesirable for the tasks requiring deep reading. In
light of these findings, it is somewhat surprising that our participants reported high frequencies of deep
reading associated with digital resources and media. Furthermore, our participants were usually satisfied
with using digital resources for deep reading. These findings suggest that LIS students use digital
resources more frequently than print resources due to the convenience, availability, and other features of
digital resources (Catalano, 2013; Lopatovska et al., 2014). Increased comfort and even satisfaction with
reading digital text for academic tasks, compared to the earlier studies, might also be explained by the
technological advancements made over the last ten years (e.g., higher DPI, glare control, availability of
PDF readers that save annotations, browsers that reformat text to make it more 'book-like', etc.). Lastly,
increased acceptance of digital resources might signal an adjustment of student attitudes and work habits
toward digital resources (Jabr, 2013) and an increased comfort with digital texts for ‘careful’ reading and
long-term learning (Holschuh, 2000).

7
 Figure 3. High-level model of information-seeking with textual information

Information-seeking is a complex process that involves multiple behavioural, cognitive and

emotional dimensions. Very often, researchers focus on the stage of acquiring information and pay less
attention to how this information is processed and used. Our study took a step toward advancing our
understanding of an important link between academic tasks, information-seeking actions, reading
strategies and associated sentiment. Such understanding can help a) students in choosing the right
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

reading resources for their academic tasks; b) educators in assigning appropriate materials for course
projects; c) libraries in providing appropriate resources to their readers, and d) information retrieval
system designers in offering useful features for different reading needs and styles. While our study
focused on the the influences of the information-seeking process and resources on reading, it is also
important to extend this research and examine the impact of reading on task completion and learning.
Future work needs to validate students' adoption of and satisfaction with digital texts in their academic
pursuits as well as examine the effect of reading media on information retention and learning outcomes.

6 References
Adler, A., Gujar, A., Harrison, B. L., O'Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1998). A diary study of work-related reading:
design implications for digital reading devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '98) (pp. 241-248). New York, NY: ACM.
Barrett, A. (2005). The information-seeking habits of graduate student researchers in the humanities.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(4), 324-331.
Bates, M. J. (2002). Toward an integrated model of information-seeking and searching. New Review of
Information Behaviour Research, 3, 1–15.
Bilal, D. (2013). Comparing Google’s readability of search results to the flesch readability formulae: a
preliminary analysis on children's search queries. Proceedings of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 50(1), 1-9.
Catalano, A. (2013). Patterns of graduate students’ information-seeking behavior: a meta-synthesis of the
literature. Journal of Documentation, 69, 243–274.
Coiro, J. (2007). Exploring changes to reading comprehension on the internet: paradoxes and possibilities
for diverse adolescent readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut,
Mansfield, CT.
Dervin, B. (1983, May). An overview of sense-making research: concepts, methods and results to date.
Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX.
Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 21, 3–33. New York, NY: Knowledge Industry
Publications, Inc.
Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioral approach to information retrieval design. Journal of Documentation, 46, 318-
338.
Foster, A. (2004). A nonlinear model of information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 55(3). 228-237. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.10359/pdf.
Foster, A.E. (2006). A non‐linear perspective on information-seeking. In A. Spink & C. Cole (Eds.), New
directions in human information behaviour (pp. 155‐170). New York: Spring.
Hock, M. & Mellard, D. (2011). Efficacy of learning strategies instruction in adult basic education. Journal
of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(2), 134-153.
Holschuh, J.P. (2000). Do as I say, not as I do: high, average, and low-performing students’ strategy use
in biology. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 31(1), 94-108.

8
 Hubbard, B. & Simpson, M. (2003). Developing self-regulated learners: putting theory into practice.
Reading Research and Instruction, 42(4), 62-89.
Jabr, F. (2013). The reading brain in the digital age: the science of paper versus screens. Scientific
American, 11. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens
Kacherki, U., & Thombare, M. J. (2010). Print vs. e-journal and information-seeking patterns of users: a
case study of SPJIMR.DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 30(1), 22.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research: The logic of methods.
Waveland Press.
Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991). Inside the search process: information-seeking from the user's perspective.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 361-371.
Leckie, G.J., Pettigrew, K.E., & Sylvain, C. (1996). Modeling the information-seeking of professionals: a
general model derived from research on engineers, health care professionals and lawyers.
Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161-193.
Liu, F. (2010). Reading abilities and strategies: a short introduction. International Education Studies, 3(3),
153-157.
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: changes in reading behavior over the past ten
years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700-712.
Liu, Z. (2006). Print vs. electronic resources: A study of user perceptions, preferences, and use.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

Information Processing & Management, 42(2), 583-592.

Lopatovska, I., Slater, A., Beauregard, C., El Mimouni, H., Lange, L., & Orlofsky, V. L. (2014). In
transition: academic e-book reading in an institution without e-books. Library Review, 63(4/5),
261-275.
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information-seeking in electronic environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Marchionini, G. & White, R. (2007). Find what you need, understand what you find. International Journal
of Human-Computer Interaction, 23(3), 205-237.
Noyes, J. M. & Garland, K. J. (2003). VDT versus paper-based text: reply to Mayes, Sims and Koonce.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31(6), 411-423.
Rayner, K., Smith, T.J., Malcolm, G.L., Henderson, J.M. (2009). Eye movements and visual encoding
during scene perception. Psychological Science, 20(1), 6–10.
Roberts, J. C., & Roberts, K. A. (2008). Deep reading, cost/benefit, and the construction of meaning:
enhancing reading comprehension and deep learning in sociology courses. Teaching Sociology,
36(2), 125-140.
Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information-seeking: approaching information-seeking in the context
of ‘way of life.’ Library & Information Science Research, 17(3), 259-294.
White, S., Chen, J., & Forsyth, B. (2010). Reading-related literacy activities of American adults: time
spent, task types, and cognitive skills used. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 276-307.
Wilson, T. D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 37(1), 3-15.
Wilson, T.D. & Walsh, C. (1996), Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective, University of
Sheffield Department of Information Studies, Sheffield, U.K.
Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249-
270.

9
 Biographical information
Irene Lopatovska is an Associate Professor at the Pratt Institute School of Information. Dr. Lopatovska
graduated from Rutgers in 2009 with a Ph.D. in Information Science. Her research interests include
decision making and emotions in information seeking contexts; economics of information; structure, use,
evaluation and management of print and digital information resources; and research methods.
Deanna Sessions is an Educational Technologist at the New York University. She received her Master in
Library and Information Science degree from Pratt Institute in 2014. Her professional interests include
information literacy and technology in higher education.

Appendix A. Copy of an online structured diary

1. In the past 24 hours, I spent most of my time working on the following course
assignment [please choose one]:
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

● Reading for class (from textbook or other assigned material)

● Research paper
● Essay or other short writing assignment
● Brief report
● Test prep
● Presentation
● Lab report
● Creative writing
● Problem sets
● Design project
● Studio project
● Other (please specify)

2. For this course assignment, I am currently [check all that apply]:

● Figuring out the topic
● Narrowing or expanding the scope of the topic
● Identifying and selecting information resources
● Searching for keywords or finding specific facts
● Browsing or exploring a resource(s) to see what I find and learn
● Monitoring specific resources to keep up-to-date on a topic
● Tracking down resources based on footnotes and citations
● Pulling relevant information from a resource(s)
● Verifying the accuracy of information
● Synthesising information
● Finishing the assignment (e.g., presentation, paper, project, etc.)
● Other (please specify)

10
 3. Is it an individual or group assignment?
● Individual
● Group

4. For this assignment, I have been primarily using [choose one]:

● Textbook
● Monograph
● Scholarly journal articles
● Newspaper articles
● Search engine
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

● Library database
● Social media
● Blog posts
● Personal notes
● MS Office or other text-editing software
● Other (please specify)

5. When I access the resource chosen above, I primarily use:

● Print
● Digital

6. When I read this material, I [please check all that apply]:

● Connect this text to previous readings and knowledge

● Predict upcoming themes/arguments
● Think of questions
● Quickly skim all of the material at once
● Re-read to memorise information or definitions
● Look for specific facts, such as dates or names
● Revisit significant parts of the text
● Read continuously without revisiting previous text
● Read only section headings, titles, summaries and emphasised text
● Skip large portions of the text
● Skip over unfamiliar words

11
 ● Other (please specify)

7. If you use the following features when working with this material, please indicate your level
of satisfaction [please check all that apply]:
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Don't use

Annotate
Annotate Annotate Satisfied Annotate Neutral Annotate Don't use
Dissatisfied

Bookmark Bookmark Bookmark Don't

Bookmark Bookmark Neutral
Satisfied Dissatisfied use

Highlight
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

Highlight Highlight Satisfied Highlight Neutral Highlight Don't use

Dissatisfied

Take notes Take notes Take notes Don't

Take notes Take notes Neutral
Satisfied Dissatisfied use

Share documents Share documents Share documents Share documents

Share documents
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Don't use

Share comments Share comments Share comments Share comments

Share comments
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Don't use

View other View other View other View other View other
people’s people’s people’s people’s people’s
annotations/com annotations/comm annotations/comm annotations/comm annotations/comm
ments ents Satisfied ents Neutral ents Dissatisfied ents Don't use

Examine multiple Examine multiple Examine multiple Examine multiple Examine multiple
documents at a documents at a documents at a documents at a documents at a
time time Satisfied time Neutral time Dissatisfied time Don't use

Use interactive
Use interactive Use interactive Use interactive Use interactive
features
features features Satisfied features Neutral features Don't use
Dissatisfied

Make copies or Make copies or Make copies or Make copies or

Make copies or
duplicate files duplicate files duplicate files duplicate files
duplicate files
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Don't use

Print Print Satisfied Print Neutral Print Dissatisfied Print Don't use

12
 Search text Search text Search text Search text Don't
Search text
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied use

Other (please specify)

8. How often do you download (or use) e-books from your academic library?

● More than 5 times/ semester

● Less than 5 times/ semester
● Never

9. I usually learn about availability of e-books in my academic library collection through the
following [choose all that apply]:
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

● Professor
● Librarian
● Classmates
● Catalogue search
● Library website
● Other (please specify)

10. Are you satisfied with your library's provision of e-books?

● Satisfied
● Neutral
● Dissatisfied
● Do not use

11. Is there anything that you would like to share regarding the provision of electronic
materials by your school's library?

12. Which of the following devices do you own and/or use for academic reading [please
check all that apply]:
Use for academic Do not use for
Own Do not Own reading academic reading

Laptop Do not use

Laptop Do not Laptop Use for
Laptop Laptop Own for academic
Own academic reading
reading

Desktop Do not Desktop Use for Desktop Do not

Desktop Desktop Own
Own academic reading use for academic

13
 reading

E-reader Do not
E-reader Do not E-reader Use for
E-reader E-reader Own use for academic
Own academic reading
reading

Tablet Do not use

Tablet Use for
Tablet Tablet Own Tablet Do not Own for academic
academic reading
reading

Mobile phone Use Mobile phone Do

Mobile phone Do
Mobile phone Mobile phone Own for academic not use for
not Own
reading academic reading
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

13. How much time do you spend commuting to campus?

● Less than thirty minutes

● Up to one hour
● Up to two hours
● Three hours or more

14. Do you work on course assignments during your commute/on the go?
● Never
● Sometimes
● Often

15. Academic major/discipline:

16. Please select an academic year/rank:

● Freshman
● Sophomore
● Junior
● Senior
● Master's Candidate
● Doctoral Candidate
● Other (please specify)

17. Please select a gender:

14
 ● Female
● Male

Authors’ biographical information

Irene Lopatovska is an Associate Professor at the Pratt Institute School of Information. Dr. Lopatovska
graduated from Rutgers in 2009 with a Ph.D. in Information Science. Her research interests include
decision making and emotions in information seeking contexts; economics of information; structure, use,
evaluation and management of print and digital information resources; and research methods.
Deanna Sessions is an Educational Technologist at the New York University. She received her Master in
Library and Information Science degree from Pratt Institute in 2014. Her professional interests include
information literacy and technology in higher education.
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 09:04 02 October 2016 (PT)

15