The value for the libraries practitioners of a knowledge of Information Behaviour

Introduction Information behavior (IB) often described as the way people need, seek, manage, give and use information in different contexts (Savolainen 2007 p.112) still is today, after more than six decades, a controversial and continuously developing topic. It can be simply considered as a broad concept framed within the individuals life world and subsuming narrower concepts (Wilson 1999) as Information seeking behavior (intentional activities of looking for information to solve a problem), which in turn subsumes Information search behavior or Information retrieval (the micro level of seeking information within some information systems where information sources are stored) (Wilson 2000, Meadow et al. 1999). In this essay we will try to outline the importance of this knowledge for librarians, with a specific cut toward those who operate in college and academic libraries. Users satisfaction is at the core of all libraries and we will see how this goal can be achieved by the understanding of the ways and reasons why people relate to information, which is the main objective of Information Behavior, meant as an academic sub-discipline of Library and Information Science (Bates 2010).

1. Theoretical Overview: perspectives, targets, focus and models of IB. Theoretical research in information behavior has seen important shifts over the last 60 years in relation to perspectives, target1 and focus of research. This, in turn has led to relevant changes in methods of investigation, way of presenting results and models and theories framing IB. Focus of the research has become increasingly wider. Starting from the information retrieval side of the Wilsons nested model of IB, in the 1990s and 2000s (following the growth of the ISIC community), researchers begun considering social contexts as essential to the understanding of the information seeking (Cool 2001, Courtright 2007), adopting consequently research methods increasingly qualitative in nature.

Target of early programmes (in the 50s and 60s) shifted from needs and behaviors of STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and

medicine) academics and practitioners to those of social sciences academics, embedding also ordinary people, to further wide n the research in the 90s to practitioners in the arts and humanities (Bawden and Robinson 2012).

It is in this period that the shift to the holistic cognitive view (focused on individuals) occurred attributing to the user, with its needs, motives and knowledge, the pivotant role in the IB research. Although the range of academic studies now greatly widens, studies related to information retrieval continue to be carried out (Ingwersen 1992, 1996; Belkin 1996, Saracevic 1996, 1997) recognizing the dynamic nature of information and the crucial importance of the user and its cognitive structures for designing retrieval systems (Xie 2008). First efforts to set users information needs in clear theoretical frameworks and founded models were done in the 80s with merely descriptive models of IB, highlighting the main components of IB (Wilson 1981; Ellis 1989); these were followed by more articulated process models (Wilson 1981; Leckie et al. 1996; Bates 1989), where order of the steps involved in IB was outlined2. Arguably one of the most notable contribute of Wilsons first model is the consideration of the users life world as an important aspect for the understanding of IB (Bawden 2006). In the 90s3 more developed models, integrating actions with peoples thoughts and motivations, known as cognitive models, were built. Current trends reveal a greater interest toward the relationship between individuals personality traits and personal cognitive/learning and information styles. A more detailed description of IB models, developments and application will enable us to have a clearer idea of the importance they assume for information practitioners.

2.1 Models and theories and their application in college and academic libraries: early developments. One of the most valuable cognitive model was proposed by Kuhlthau : the information search process model (ISP). This model focused on the subjective experience user has along the search process. By identifying six stages of a search process, each linked to physical actions, cognitive thoughts and affective feelings4 the author reveals how confusion and problems characterize the searching for information aimed at the finalization of a project or a paper (Khulthau 1991, Swain 1996). Awareness of the research process improved students perception of the process and
2

A more specific contribution comes from researches conducted by Bates (1989), who identified six typical information seeking strategies (footnote chasing; citation searching; journal run; area scanning; subject searches in bibliographies and abstracting and indexing; author searching) highlighting how a given documents references can be followed for seeking further information. 3 In this period many of Wilsons ideas revealed particularly productive, as the bidirectional flow of information, the addition of contextual and cognitive elements as crucial components of IB (Wilson and Walsh 1996) and the essential role that real needs (work roles among the most important) play in motivating information seeking (Wilson 1994). 4 Steps of information search associated with feelings are: initiation, selection (dominated by optimism), exploration (confusion/frustration/doubt), formulation (clarity), collection (confidence) and presentation (relief/satisfaction or disappointment) (Khulthau 1991)

helped them understand and cope with the feelings of uncertainty, confusion and frustration (Kuhlthau 1993). Following Kuhlthaus work and Likertype instrument to measure library anxiety, Kracker (2002) conducted a research over 4 years with the same college students. Findings demonstrate how a 30-minute presentation of the ISP model can relieve anxiety levels associated with the research and improve understanding and general satisfaction with the process. Longitudinal studies showed that awareness of ones personal style of research, in terms of the ISP model, had concrete benefits. Although the presentation of the ISP model increased awareness of emotional states, it showed little effect on other two feelings meta-groups: perceptions of the process (difficult or easy) and affinity to research (dislike or interest); consequently the new insights about feelings categorization can lead librarians to design more effective presentation of the ISP model taking into consideration all the three dimensions of feelings (Kracker 2002). Further suggestions for academic reference librarians comes from another research based on Kuhlthaus ISP. It involved undergraduates and highlighted the way their information-seeking behavior is affected by their epistemological beliefs (Whitmere 2003): the way students conceive knowledge and its relation to learning affected topic, the use of mediators, search techniques, the evaluation of information and also several stages of the ISP model: topic selection, prefocus formulation, focus formulation, and collection (Whitmire 2003). Besides undergraduates did not appear to know how to conduct very advanced catalogue searches and relied a great deal on keyword searching; the skill of searching for journals also appeared to be unfamiliar. These results make librarians aware of the stage (pre-focus exploration stage) and proportion of reference assistance they are likely to be asked in order to help find information sources for academic assignments. Furthermore the necessity of helping students to be more familiar with catalogs and journals search is evident.

Apart from more elaborate models considering a greater context and perspectives capturing the complexity of IB (features which inevitably have limited their employability) (Foster 2004; Johnson 1997; Johnson et al. 2001; Niedzwiedzka 2003; Godbold 2006, quoted in Bawden and Robinson 2012) a further development for explaining IB it has been offered by theories that focus on the subjective perceptions of individuals when address information. Users now are attributed an even

more central role in the research, and greater attention to their internal motivations and needs is paid (Wilson 1994). In particular, Dervins conception of sense-making (Dervin 1983, Dervin 1992), referring to the attitude of people to make sense of many aspects of their lives through information seeking and use, has been a driving concept in recent research on IB (Dervin 2005, Dervin and ForemanWernet 2003; Savolainen 2006a). Undergraduate students sense-making in searching a full-text database was investigated by Jacobson (1991) using Dervins approach of question-asking during the session to conceptualize info seeking5. According to the author students try to bridge the gaps (caused by an information need) by questioning. Interestingly questions were not limited to moments during the session in which movements trough time and space (Dervin 2005) of the users was impeded by a gap. Once problematic topics are identified, responses regarding navigation could be interpreted to definitely improve user training or documentation in specific ways. Adopting a sense making approach can enable researchers to provide a detailed account of the search process describing the interaction between people and system, with a focus in information needs, verbalized in user questions. These account can be used also in system evaluation and in the creation of training materials for users to get information.

A more holistic framework covering the totality of IB was proposed by Savolainen (1995) according to whom in order to understand IB we need to look at people s every day life, at the social and psychological factors underlying the way people use information in their life. The author acknowledges that affecting practices of information seeking is a combination of way of life, master of life, situational elements, social class, the character of a persons informational orientation, as well as the social and cultural aspects on which this orientation is built. One study worth mentioning for librarians taking account of this theory was carried out last year (Connaway et al. 2011). Savolainen had showed that time factors are nowadays affecting and constraining information seeking (Savolainen 2006b). Authors of the article pointed out that even academic information seeking is one of those contexts affected by convenience (codetermined by assessment of a resource as good enough; ease of access to source, time constraints). Since today everyone can privately seek information on the Web, in order to attract people it would be appropriate for librarians to purchase information systems similar to the familiar Web interfaces
5

This methodology aimed at understanding how people derive meaning from information greatly widened the perspective of the whole sub-discipline not only by offering a theoretical foundation but also by providing a systematic way to conduct studies.

(convenient and handy), provide more authoritative resources and emerging services. Advertising the own librarys style and promoting collections and services becomes subsequently necessary. At this point however, it would be maybe appropriate to report the final remarks of a study related to Web behavior of young people (Nicholas et al. 2010). Their findings show how the current propensity to rush of the Google generation, along with increasing unwilling ness to struggle with uncertainties and difficulties to evaluate information keeps the youngstuck on the surface of the information age, too often sacricing depth for breadth (Nicholas et al. 2010, p. 44). 2.2 Models and theories and their application in college and academic libraries: current directions. Information research has always focused on groups of users studied by occupation, by role, or by demographic aspects (Case 2006; 2007; 2012). Although the above discussed models take into consideration motivations and thoughts of users, currently there is a challenging further development aimed at determining the relationship between individuals personality traits and cognitive styles, and typical patterns of information behavior or personal information style. Unfortunately the trend of avoiding the division between users and not users makes more difficult to achieve an agreement about the way of assessing individuals differences, which personality or learning style is appropriately linked to IB, and about the set of information style. 2.2.1 Cognitive style and Personality traits The approach to associate information behavior with cognitive and personality traits measured by an already existing typology, not specifically created ad hoc for the LIS field, have been quite few. The notable quality of this researches consists in allowing the findings to be related to wider aspects of individual behaviors and practices, and not only to those specifically information related. Much of the work on cognitive analysis are based on the two basic Gordon Pasks (serialist/holist) and Witkinns (field dependant/independent) cognitive styles (Ford 2000). Associations between cognitive styles and searching behavior were found during a relevant study (Ford et al. 2003, 2005a,2005b) whose results led to group search behavior against 3 dimensions of study style: deep (aiming at the understanding of information); surface (aiming at the reproduction of info); strategic/organized (aiming either understanding or reproduction as

necessary success in the context)6. Besides, It has been shown that different cognitive styles were associated with different search strategies (Ford et al. 1994); with a variety of features of searching (Wood et al. 1996); with differences in strategies used for navigation (with field dependent/analytic style relying more on the systems main menu than others) (Korthaeur and Koubek 1994; Chen and Ford 1998; Ford and Chen 2000). Individual differences in the use of three web directories have been explained by Chen (Chen et al 2005) with field dependant individuals opting for a larger number of main categories with resources arranged by relevance, while those field independent prefer a smaller number of categories with numerous subgroups. Vilar and Zumer (2008), by using the Sternbergs 13 thinking styles, pointed out differences between disciplinary groups in their use of three e-journal interfaces. Scientists, unlike humanists, for instance, prefer interfaces allowing access to several databases simultaneously and more complex interfaces generally; besides a relation was found between cognitive styles and interface preferences (those with global dimension, viewing the world holistically, prefer the science direct interface, while those with a weak global tendency preferred the EBSCO Host interface). These last two studies can definitely suggest librarians not only what kind of interfaces may be more adapt to different kind of academic departments, but also again how tutorials and tools can be arranged according to the way users are more keen to solve problems. Differences among information behaviors related to the nature of discipline are highlighted also by Ming-der Wu and Shih-chuan Chen (2012). In particular graduate students of science and technology perceive electronic resources to be considerably more important to their research than students of other disciplines do. Based on the findings of this study, university libraries could build collection development policies to reflect the varied usage patterns of students from different disciplines. Furthermore they noticed how professors influence graduate student usage of electronic resources, therefore libraries may need to arrange special bibliographical instructional programs for academic staff to keep them informed on services and the development of library electronic collections.

Another pattern emerges from this study: wholist/imagers (preferring Boolean) and analytic/verbalisers (preferring best match).

The importance of library instruction is not only related to a better understanding and use of electronic resources. An evidence summary carried out by Cooke and Rosenthal (2011) indicates that library instruction sessions have a deep impact on the amount of books used and resources cited, and a very small impact on the number of scholarly sources cited. Journal articles in fact appeared to be much more in use among those who had not received a library tutorial. Halder, Roy and Chakraborty (2010), with a sample of 600 students from Universities of West Bengal students found relationships between personality and Information seeking behavior, information need, mode of information use, diversity in search, cognitive nature of search, resource utilized, level of satisfaction, level of perceived obstacle. The findings have numerous educational implications aiming at developing database information about the personal variables for facilitating information seeking climates in the university system, documentation centres as well as library and information services. More specific suggestions to effectively design tutorials for multiple learning styles have been given by studies conducted by Mestre. Based on the authors findings, across all learning preferences, students performed much better in recreating tasks when using a static web page with screen shots rather than after a screen casting tutorial. He recommends that librarians incorporate a variety of multimedia into their tutorials so to have the potential to engage visual, auditory and kinesthetic learners, as well as to accommodate students who learn best through observation, listening, or by engaging in hands-on activities (Mestre 2012). It is also pointed out that learning styles need to be considered in order to make a learning object in a culturally responsive and pedagogically sound way (Mestre 2010). Strongly intertwined with the importance of shape information services in a culturally responsive way is the research done by Nujoud Al-Muomen, Anne Morris, Sally Maynard (2012) among graduate students at Kuwait University. Here, among factors influencing students informationseeking behavior, demographics aspects play a determining role (specifically gender and nationality) since in a developing country these can entail very different information behaviors compared to western countries. Academic librarians and educators need to investigate and understand thus the information needs, strategies and problems of local and international students in order to improve academic library resources, service quality and teaching efficiency. Besides it is suggested to integrate international students (who take the most of resources in

English) and Arabic students (who sometimes complain about the lack of database in Arabic) to enhance students success. Hints to the importance of taking into consideration cognitive development associated with particular kinds of intelligence (analytical, creative and practical) have been given by Denison and Montgomery (Denison and Montgomery 2012). Their findings suggest how information literacy instruction seminars should be thought to fit in college students' stages of cognitive development and to educate students according to each type of intelligence viewpoint. Besides, because many students, tend to choose subjects that align with coursework, librarians should be aware of subjects covered in classes so that they are able to assist students in finding practical solutions to problems when students do ask for assistance; providing opportunities to practice research skills. Additional suggestions were offered by the results of a research focusing on students perception of online and in class library tutorial (Harkins et al. 2011). Much more engagement it has been shown for in class tutorial, suggesting the importance of a stronger collaboration between librarians and course instructors. Consideration of different learning styles revealed important in the delivery of a library research session, which may include practical demonstration, opportunity for hands-on practice, and the availability of printed and online handouts. We think that one of the most judicious advice from the authors refer to the importance of conducting constant research about users perception and to the use of the information literacy sessions as an opportunity to begin building long term connections with students. (Harkins et al. 2011, p.43).

According to Heinstrom there are always exceptions to the general pattern of IB, and personality differences is one of those factors that can explain them. By analyzing 305 postgraduates behavior has been showed how personal psychological traits7, interacting with contextual factors, influence IB (Heinstrom 2003). These results led to generate 3 categories of IB, related to high or low levels of the personality dimensions: fast surfing users (rapid search for a few highly relevant documents, associated with a surface study approach and the trait of nervousness), broad scanning (few problems in relevance judgment, minor experience of time pressure and effort in information seeking, connected to a strategic approach and conscientiousness), deep diving (connected to a deep study approach and openness) (Heinstrom 2005; 2006). Nonetheless it

The five factors model delineates five broad traits--extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience--that encapsulate most of the differences in personality across individuals (Costae and McCrae 1992).

would be fair to underline that personality is not proposed as determining information-seeking behavior, but as creating boundaries and possibilities for the way information seeking is carried out. Interesting but not in accordance with Heinstroms results, the analysis of 261 nursing students carried out by Stokes and Urquhart (2010). According to their findings deep learners prefer browser, explorations of broad areas, and the sifting of volumes of information; strategic learners focus on thorough problem definition and keyword searching; surface learners, rely on networking and on the reviewing of information to hand. Maybe as Vilar and Zumer pointed out (2008), while is important to investigate characteristics of individual users, relevance of selecting well defined users groups to be studied continues to be high. 2.2.2 Information Styles Studies aimed at identifying Information styles per se have been sporadic, and not very clear is the way new findings in this area can be successfully employed in providing better library services. We will mention here two main studies. The first one is a research carried out by Hannel (2011) among information professional, staff members and students. Three dimensions expressed each by pairs of opposite characteristics (Entrepreneurial-Cautious; Fast-Thin; Browser-Hunter) give the possibility of having a detailed frame of individual learning style. The most common types in all groups were EFB and ETH with library students showing more of the cautious dimension than the professional groups. The second effort in proposing information styles comes from Heinstrom (2005), who presented 5 information styles linked to personality traits: invitational, exploring, purposeful, passive, avoiding. Conclusion In conclusion we would like to highlight how evidences provided by researches conducted within the academic subdiscipline of IB can (and should) be applied in any possible real information environment. The importance of models, studies, and evidences reported by librarians carrying

out small scale studies in their library8 becomes evident with refer, as we have seen, to the possibility of providing suitable tutorial both to use libraries resources and to teach how evaluate resources, training materials and programmes; of delivering tailored information services according to the individual; of inspiring programmers for tailored interfaces. All these aspects can be summarized as support in the most appropriate way in order to develop their (users) abilities as information savvy researchers (Harkins et al. 2011 p.42). In fact, although technological environments, times, social and educational frameworks are doomed to change (Bawden and Robinson 2009), we agree with Mizrachi (2010) in believing that information practitioners should always bear in mind that all their effort must have as a aim to promote awareness about critical thinking skills, evaluation strategies for an intelligent use and consume of information and emphasizing to faculty why requiring their students to use the library and library sources in their assignments is so important for both their academic success and their growth as scholars.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
8

See Hjorland 2001 for a review of criticisms toward the EBL concept (according to which evidences coming from academic researches top the reliability pyramid to which librarians should refer to when making decisions) seen as too narrow to fit the complex and variegated field of users needs.

10

Al-Muomen, N., Morris and A., Maynard, S. (2012). Modelling information-seeking behaviour of graduate students at Kuwait University. Journal of Documentation, 68 (4), pp. 430-459. Bawden, D. (2006). Users, user studies, and human information behavior: A three-decade perspective on Tom Wilson's On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 62 (6), pp. 671679. Bawden,D.andRobinson,L.(2009). Thedarksideofinformation:overload,anxietyandother paradoxesandpathologies.JournalofInformationScience, 35 (2), pp. 180191. Bawden, D and Robinson, L. (2011). Individual Differences in Information-Related Behaviour: What Do We Know About Information Styles? Spink, A. and Heinstrm J. (ed.) New Directions in Information Behaviour (Library and Information Science, Volume 1), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.127-158. Bawden, D. and Robinson, L. (2012). Introduction to information science. Facet: London.

Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berry-picking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13 (5), pp. 407-424. Bates, M. J. (2010). Information Behavior. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 3rd Ed. Bates, M.J. and Maack, M. N., Eds. New York: CRC Press, 3, pp. 2381-2391. Belkin, N.J. (1996). Intelligent information retrieval: whose intelligence? Krause, J., Herfurth, M., Marx, J. (Eds.), Harausforderungen an die Informationswirtschaft. Informationsverdichtung, Informationsbewertung und Datenvisualisierung. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium for Information Science (ISI 96), pp. 25-31. Konstanz: Universittsverlag Konstanz. Case, D. O. (2006). Information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, pp. 293-327. Case, D.O. (2007). Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. 2nd Ed.; Elsevier/Academic Press: Amsterdam, Boston, 2007. Case, D. O. (2012). Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs and behavior. 3rd. Ed, Bingley: Emerald. Chen, S. Y and Ford, N. I. (1998). Modelling user navigation behaviours in a hypermedia-based learning system: An individual differences approach. International journal of Knowledge Organization, 25 (3), pp. 6778. Chen, S. Y., Magoulas, G. D. and Dimakopoulos, D. (2005). A flexible interface design for Web directories to accommodate different cognitive styles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (1), pp. 7083. Cool, C. (2001). The concept of situation in information science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 35, pp. 5-42.

11

Connaway, L.S., Dickey T. J. and Radford, M.L. (2011). If it is too inconvenient I'm not going after it: Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors. Library & Information Science Research, 33, pp. 179190. Cooke, R. and Rosenthal, D. (2011). Students use more books after library instruction: An analysis of undergraduate paper citations. College & Research Libraries, 72 (4), pp. 334-343. Costa, P. T. Jr. and McRae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Courtright, C. (2007). Context in information behavior research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, pp. 273-306. Denison, D.R. and Montgomery, D. (2012). Annoyance or Delight? College Students' Perspectives on Looking for Information. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38 (6), pp. 380-390. Dervin, B. (1983). 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. (1992). From the minds eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative quantitative methodology. In J. D. Glazier & R. R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative research in information management, pp. 61-84. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Dervin, B. (2005). What Methodology does to theory: Sense-Making methodology as exemplar. In Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S. and McKechnie, L. E. F. (eds), Theories of information behavior, Medford NJ: Information Today, pp. 25-30. B. Dervin and Foreman-Wernet, L. (with E. Lauterbach) (Eds.). (2003). Sense-Making Methodology reader: Selected writings of Brenda Dervin, pp. 165-194. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation, 45 (3), pp. 171-212. Ford, N. (2000). Cognitive styles and virtual environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 (6), pp. 543-557. Ford, N. and Chen, S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and learning: an empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9 (4), pp. 281312. Ford, N., Miller, D. and Moss, N. (2003). Web search strategies and approaches to studying. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (6), pp. 473-489. Ford, N., Miller, D., and Moss, N. (2005a). Web search strategies and human individual differences: A combined analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (7), pp. 757-764.

12

Ford, N., Wood, F. and Walsh, C. (1994). Cognitive styles and searching. Online and CD-ROM review, 18 (2), pp. 79-86. Ford, N., Miller, D., and Moss, N. (2005b). Web search strategies and human individual differences: Cognitive and demographic factors, Internet attitudes and approaches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (7), pp. 741-756. Foster, A. (2004). A non-linear model of information seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55 (3), pp. 228-237.

Godbold, N. (2006). Beyond information seeking: towards a general model of information behavior. Information Research, 11 (4) paper 269. Available: http://InformationR.net/ir/11-4/paper269.html [28 November 2012] Harkins, M., Rodrigues, D., & Orlov, S. (2011). Where to start?: Considerations for faculty and librarians in delivering information literacy instruction for graduate students. Practical Academic Librarianship: The International Journal Of The SLA Academic Division, 1 (1), pp. 28-50. Halder, S., Roy, A. and Chakraborty, P.K. (2010). The influence of personality traits on information seeking behavior of students. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 15 (1), pp. 41-53. Hannel, A. (2011). Personality and Information Handling: Is there a link? Unpublished MSc dissertation, Department of Information Studies, City University London. Heinstrm, J. (2003). Five personality dimensions and their influence on information behavior. Information Research, 9 (1). Available: http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper165.html [25 November 2012]. Heinstrm, J. (2005). Fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving: The influence of personality and study approach on students' information-seeking behavior. Journal of Documentation, 61 (2), pp. 228247. Heinstrm, J. (2006). Fast surfing for availability or deep diving into quality - motivation and information seeking among middle and high school students. Information Research, 11 (4). Available: http://InformationR.net/ir/11-4/paper265.html [20 November 2012] Hjrland, B. (2011). Evidence-Based Practice: An Analysis Based on the Philosophy of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (7), pp. 1301-1310. Ingwersen, P. (1992). The user-oriented IR research approach. Information retrieval Interaction, pp. 83-122. London: Taylor. Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52 (1), pp. 3-50. Jacobson, T. L. (1991). Sense-making in a database environment. Information Processing & Management, 27 (6), pp. 647-657. 13

Johnson, J. D. (1997). Cancer-related Information Seeking, Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Johnson J. D., Andrews, J.E. and Allard, S. (2001). A model for understanding and affecting cancer genetics information seeking. Library and Information Science Research, 23 (4), pp. 335-349. Korthaeur, R. D., and Koubek, R. J. (1994): An empirical evaluation of knowledge, cognitive style and structure upon the performance of a hypertext task. International journal of human-computer interaction, 6(4), pp. 373-390. Kracker, J. (2002). Research Anxiety and Students Perceptions of Research: An Experiment. Part I. Effect of Teaching Kuhlthaus ISP Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(42), pp. 282294. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991). Inside the Search Process: Information Seeking from the Users Perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42 (5), pp. 361-371. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Leckie, G. J., Pettigrew, K. E. and Sylvain, C. (1996). Modeling the information seeking of professionals: a general model derived from research on engineers, health care and professionals, and lawyers. Library Quarterly, 66 (2), pp. 161-93. Meadow, C. T., Boyce, B. R. and Kraft, D. H. (1999). Text information retrieval systems (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mestre, L.S. (2010). Matching up learning styles with learning objects: whats effective?. Journal of Library Administration, 50 (7-8), pp. 808-829. Mestre, L.S. (2012). Student preference for tutorial design: a usability study. Reference Services Review, 40 (2), pp. 258-276. Ming-der Wu, Shih-chuan Chen (2012). How graduate students perceive, use, and manage electronic resources. Aslib Proceedings, 64 (6), pp. 641 652. Mizrachi, D. (2010). Undergraduates' academic information and library behaviors: preliminary results. Reference Services Review, 38 (4), pp. 571580. Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Clark, D., Williams, P. (2011). Google Generation II: web behaviour experiments with the BBC. Aslib Proceedings, 63 (1), pp.28 45. Niedzwiedzka, B. (2003). A proposed general model of information behavior. Information Research, 9 (1), paper 164, available at http://informationr.net/ir/9-1/paper164.html [18 November 2012] Saracevic, T. (1996). Modeling interaction in information retrieval (IR): A review and proposal. In S. Harden (Ed.), Proceedings of the 59th ASIS Annual Meeting, 33, pp. 3-9. Medford, NJ: Information Today. Saracevic, T. (1997). The stratified model of information retrieval interaction: Extension and applications. In C. Schwartz & M. E. Rorvig (Eds.), Proceedings of the 60th ASIS Annual Meeting, 34, pp. 313-327. Medford, NJ: Information Today. 14

Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking, in Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S. and McKechnie, L. E. F. (eds), Theories of information behavior, Medford NJ: Information Today, 143-148. Savolainen, R. (2006a). Information use as gap-bridging: the viewpoint of Sense-Making methodology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (8), 1116-1125. Savolainen, R. (2006b). Time as a context of information seeking. Library & Information Science Research, 28, pp. 110127. Savolainen, R. (2007). Information behavior and information practice: reviewing the umbrella concepts of information-seeking studies. The Library Quarterly, 77 (2), pp. 109-127. Stokes,P.andUrquhart,C.(2010). Profilinginformationbehaviourofnursingstudents:Part1: quantitativefindings, submittedforpublication. Swain, D. E. (1996). Information search process model: How freshmen begin research. In S. Hardin (Ed.), Proceedings of the 59th ASIS Annual Meeting, 33, pp. 95-99. Medford, NJ: Information Today. Vilar, P. and umer, M. (2008). Perceptions and importance of user friendliness of IR systems according to users' individual characteristics and academic discipline. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (12), pp 19952007. Xie, I. (2008). Interactive information retrieval in digital environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. [Online] Available:http://kutuphane.ankara.edu.tr/igi/Interactive%20Information%20Retrieval%20in%20Digital%20 Environments.pdf [visited 24th November 2012] Whitmere, E. (2003). Epistemological beliefs and the information-seeking behavior of undergraduates. Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 25, pp. 127142. Wilson, T.D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation,37 (1), pp. 315. Wilson, T.D. (1994). Information needs and uses: 50 years of progress? in Vickery, B.C. (Ed.), Fifty Years of Information Progress: A Journal of Documentation Review, Aslib, London, pp. 15-51. Wilson, T.D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55 (3), pp. 249270. Wilson, T.D. (2000). Human Information behavior. Informing Science, 3 (2), pp. 49-55.

Wilson, T.D. and Walsh, C. (1996). Information Behaviour: an Interdisciplinary Perspective. University of Sheffield Department of Information Studies, Sheffield.

Wood, F., Ford, N., Miller, D., Sobczyk, G. and Duffin, R. (1996). Information skills, searching behaviour and cognitive styles for student-centred learning: a computer-assisted learning approach. Journal of Information Science, 22 (2), pp. 79-92.

15