Research Article
Advancing the Reference Narrative: Assessing Student
Learning in Research Consultations
Doreen R. Bradley
Director of Learning
Programs and Initiatives
University of Michigan
Library
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United
States of America
Email: dbradley@umich.edu
Angie Oehrli
Learning Librarian
University of Michigan
Library
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United
States of America
Email: jooerhli@umich.edu
Soo Young Rieh
Professor and Associate Dean
for Education
School of Information,
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas, United States
of America
Email: rieh@ischool.utexas.edu
Elizabeth Hanley
Post Graduate Fellow
Academic Innovation,
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United
States of America
Email: hanleyel@umich.edu
Brian S. Matzke
Digital Humanities Librarian
Central Connecticut State
University Library
New Britain, Connecticut,
United States of America
Email: bmatzke@ccsu.edu
Received: 30 Aug. 2019 Accepted: 9 Jan. 2020
2020 Bradley, Oehrli, Rieh, Hanley, and Matzke. This is an Open
Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29634
Abstract
Objective – As reference services continue to
evolve, libraries must make evidence based decisions
about their services. This study seeks to determine the value of reference
services in relation to student learning acquired during research
consultations, by soliciting students’ and librarians’ perceptions of
consultation success and examining the degree of alignment between them.
Methods
–
The alignment of students’ learning outcomes (reported skills and knowledge
acquired) with librarians’ expectations for student learning during
consultations was assessed. An online questionnaire was conducted to gather
responses from students who had sought consultation services; 20 students
participated. In-person interviews took place with eight librarians who had
provided these consultations. The online questionnaire for students included
questions about students’ assessments of their self-identified learning goals
through consultation with a librarian and their success at applying the
knowledge and skills gained. Librarian interviews elicited responses about
students’ prior research experience, librarians’ objectives for student
learning, librarians’ perceptions of student learning outcomes, and perceived
consultation success. The responses of both the students and the librarians
were coded, matched, and compared.
Results –
Students and librarians both considered the consultation process to be
successful in advancing learning objectives and research skills. All students
reported that the consultations met their expectations, and most reported that
the skills acquired were applicable to their projects and significantly
improved the quality of their work. Librarians expressed confidence that
students had gained competency in the following skill sets: finding sources,
search strategy development, topic exploration, specific tool use, and library
organization and access. A high degree of alignment was observed in the
identification by both students and librarians of “finding sources” as the
skill set most in need of enhancement or assistance, while some disparity was
noted in the ranking of “search strategy development,” which librarians ranked
second and students ranked last.
Conclusion
–
The data demonstrate that both students and librarians perceived individual
research consultations as an effective means to meet student learning
expectations. Study findings suggest that as reference models continue to
change and reference desk usage declines, research consultations remain a
valuable element in a library’s service model and an efficient use of human
resources.
Introduction
Librarians are increasingly expected to demonstrate the value of their
services for improving student learning and success, and to make informed
decisions based on empirical data. While research consultation services have
been shown to be useful for students (Butler & Byrd, 2016), and although
users report satisfaction with such services (Ishaq
& Cornick, 1978; Magi & Mardeusz, 2013;
Martin & Park, 2010; Rogers & Carrier, 2017), most previous studies
evaluating research consultation services have tended to focus on the usage or
effectiveness of the service (e.g., Attebury,
Sprague, & Young, 2009; Watts & Mahfood,
2015). We still know little about the extent to which these services affect
student learning in academic library settings specifically and in higher
education more generally.
Our study investigated the value and contributions of research
consultation services with respect to student-centered learning objectives. We
sought to understand students’ experience beyond the use of the service or the
evaluation of the quality of the service. Therefore, we conducted an empirical
study to examine the value of research consultation services to assess student
learning and the direct implications of that learning for student success.
This study was conducted in a U.S. research university with 45,000
students, comprising 30,000 undergraduates and 15,000 graduate students. The
University’s library offers various consultation services through which
students can meet one-on-one with a librarian for approximately 30 minutes.
While the library provides specialist consultation services whereby users can
receive assistance from an expert in an academic discipline or technological
field, the library also offers a general research consultation service staffed
by librarians identified as generalists who have some knowledge in many fields.
This study focuses on the consultations provided through this general service.
Consultation topics are patron driven, typically centering on questions
that students have about research-based academic projects. The consultation
format is flexible, determined by students’ self-identified learning
objectives. With the purpose of evaluating the extent to which students
perceived their learning objectives had been achieved and to better understand
the students’ self-identified learning objectives, an online questionnaire was
initiated by contacting those students who had used the consultation service.
To obtain librarians’ perceptions of those same consultations, all of the
librarians who had provided the service to those students who responded to the
online questionnaire were interviewed. This method enabled examination of the
alignment between students’ reported acquisition of knowledge and skills and
the librarians’ expectations and perceptions of student learning during the
consultation process.
Literature Review
The literature on library research consultations dates back to the
1970s, when academic libraries began to offer appointment-based consultation
services. In their early study of consultations at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ishaq and Cornick (1978)
found high degrees of satisfaction with the program; all of the 49
questionnaire respondents who had utilized the service indicated that they
would use the service again and recommend it to others. Later studies found
similarly high levels of satisfaction with library consultation services at
other institutions. For example, a study of the University of Idaho’s library
research consultations found that an average of 115 students per year utilized
the service, a number that remained relatively stable over the 10-year study
period and that represented a wide array of departments and levels of study (Attebury et al., 2009). In addition, in a recent
questionnaire of 80 students, 86% described their consultations as “very
useful” and 14% described them as “somewhat useful” (Butler & Byrd, 2016,
p. 85).
Much of the recent literature on consultation services focuses on the
role of technology in facilitating research consultations. Online appointment
tools like Google Calendar and YouCanBook.me have been found to decrease
student wait times and mitigate library anxiety by enabling students to make
appointments without having to contact a librarian directly (Cole & Reiter,
2017; Kuglitsch, Tingle, & Watkins, 2017). At the
same time, employing online note-taking tools like Evernote during
consultations has been found to help students organize information and provide
a research narrative that students can refer back to (Kani,
2017).
Despite the usefulness of digital tools in
consultation sessions, many students describe face-to-face consultations as the
easiest and most efficient method for getting help, in comparison to forms of
virtual reference such as chat (Magi & Mardeusz,
2013). For example, when working in collaboration with their university writing
center, Meyer, Forbes, and Bowers (2010) described the importance of providing
a dedicated, highly visible space for research consultations; having a physical
space that served as the “research center” eased students’ anxiety about asking
for help and facilitated the promotion of the library’s research services.
Similarly, Rogers and Carrier (2017) found that students appreciated the
opportunity to meet in a private consultation environment as opposed to the
“open” environment of the reference desk.
Many research consultation studies center
on specific student populations or circumstances. For example, Isbell (2009)
focused on honors students’ perceptions of a consultation service because such
students are highly motivated, study a wide range of disciplines, and tend to
overestimate their research abilities. Faix,
MacDonald, and Taxakis (2014) surveyed students from
both a senior capstone class and a freshman seminar who were required to attend
a library research consultation. The study found that upper-level students
benefited more from the consultations than freshmen, who were sometimes
overwhelmed by the number of resources that consultation sessions helped them
locate. In addition, Kolendo (2016) identified the
extra-credit consultation as a unique circumstance, in which students schedule
sessions for the credit only, usually after having already completed their
papers.
A persistent challenge is measuring the effectiveness of research
consultations. Fournier and Sikora (2015, 2017) discussed the lack of
assessment in scholarly literature, finding that most libraries either practice
no form of assessment or rely solely on informal feedback from users. However,
the literature demonstrates that more sophisticated analyses have been
attempted. Sikora, Fournier, and Rebner (2019)
administered pre- and post-consultation tests, demonstrating statistically
significant improvements in students’ search abilities and confidence in their
research skills after consultations. Reinsfelder
(2012) used citation analysis to show that consultations positively impacted
the quality and quantity of sources that students used in their papers.
In addition to quantitative metrics, qualitative research methods such
as questionnaires (Butler & Byrd, 2016), interviews (Rogers & Carrier,
2017), focus groups (Watts & Mahfood, 2015), and
analyses of librarians’ consultation notes (Suarez, 2013) provide valuable
insights into what students learn during consultation sessions. Studies have
found that confusion about library terminology can impede student learning
(Butler & Byrd, 2016), but that students value the individualized attention
from in-depth engagement with the librarian, as well as the librarians’ perceived
subject expertise (Rogers & Carrier, 2017). Relatedly, students who
participate in consultations have reported a higher degree of confidence in
their research abilities, believing that their research has become more
efficient and feeling that they have developed good relationships with the
librarian as an educator (Watts & Mahfood, 2015).
However, others have found that students tend to overestimate their
information-seeking abilities even when they still struggle to develop search
strategies or generate keywords beyond those that are laid out in the
assignment prompt (Suarez, 2013). In this manner, students in research
consultations appear to evince the Dunning-Kruger effect, the cognitive bias
whereby people are unable to recognize their own incompetence (Suarez, 2013).
On the other hand, librarians have sometimes been found to underestimate the
effectiveness of the consultation, a phenomenon known as provider pessimism
(Butler & Byrd, 2016).
Aims
This study therefore aims to contribute to this growing body of
literature on student learning through research consultations, by providing a more complete and nuanced picture of students’ and
librarians’ perceptions of the consultation process. Specifically, three
research questions are addressed:
1.
How do students who participated in a library
consultation perceive their learning objectives and experience?
2.
How do librarians who provided a library consultation
conceptualize the student learning from this service?
3.
How aligned are students and librarians in their perceptions
of the degree of success of the consultation?
Methods
Study data was collected using a student questionnaire
and in-person interviews with librarians. First, a questionnaire was sent to
students who had participated in consultations during the Fall 2017 and Winter
2018 semesters. The questionnaire had three main foci: (1) understanding
students’ self-identified learning objectives; (2) evaluating the degree to
which students perceived that these learning objectives were achieved; and (3)
understanding students’ perceptions of how they applied the knowledge and
skills acquired in the consultations to their course projects. After the
student questionnaires were completed, the librarians were interviewed. In
order to minimize potential biases, neither the students nor the librarians
were informed about the study prior to the consultations.
Part 1: Student Perspectives
Participants
During the Winter 2018 semester, questionnaires were sent to the 38
students who had participated in research consultations during the Fall 2017 or
Winter 2018 semesters (see Appendix A). Of those 38, 20 questionnaires were
completed for a 53% response rate. Researchers administered the questionnaire
several months after the consultations occurred in order to permit students
sufficient time to complete projects, to receive feedback on their projects,
and to reflect upon their learning. Students required approximately 30 minutes
to complete the questionnaire. A $30 Amazon gift card was offered as an
incentive to increase the response rate and to motivate students to provide
thoughtful and accurate responses.
Measures
The questionnaire was distributed via email using
Qualtrics software and was comprised of 31 items in total, although not all
questions were visible to all students due to the use of skip logic. In
addition to demographic questions there were open-ended items asking about the
students’ self-identified learning objectives (“What did you hope to learn from
the consultation?”) and student perceptions of the learning that took place
(“What, if anything, did you discuss that was new to you?”). Closed-ended items
asked about student perceptions of the success of the consultations (“Do you
feel that the consultation met your expectations?” “To what extent did this service
improve the quality of your project/assignment?”). We also asked for specific
feedback that students may have received from course instructors on their
projects. Although student emails were solicited in the questionnaire for
possible future contact, follow-up interviews were not conducted.
Student learning objectives and student perceptions of
learning were coded using four categories as follows:
1.
Library tools (use of research tools such as specific
databases)
2.
Library organization and access (understanding how to
access print and digital resources within the library, including the physical
library buildings and library website)
3.
Research process (topic exploration, search strategy
development, and finding, evaluating, and citing sources)
4.
Other (goals not covered above, such as earning extra
credit for meeting with a librarian)
Student perceptions of success were coded along two dimensions using a
four-point Likert scale:
1.
Success, ranging from one (not at all) to four
(significantly)
2.
Met expectations, ranging from one (not at all) to
four (significantly)
After the questionnaire closed, the responses were downloaded from
Qualtrics in CSV format. Two researchers then coded the open-ended responses
using NVivo software.
Part 2: Librarian Perspectives
Participants
After students submitted their questionnaires, the
librarians who had conducted the consultations were contacted for interviews.
We sought to understand what the librarians believed the students had needed to
learn in order to complete their projects and to compare this to the students’
own perceptions of what they themselves needed to learn. Therefore, the
interviews focused on (1) understanding librarians’ perceptions of student
learning needs and (2) evaluating the degree to which librarians believed these
learning needs were achieved.
Using consultation scheduling software, we identified
the names of eight librarians who provided the consultations for all 20
students were identified using consultation scheduling software. One of the
eight librarians provided approximately half of the consultations, while each
of the other librarians conducted between one and three consultations. All
eight librarians were interviewed during the Winter 2018 semester. Student and
librarian responses were matched based on library records of the research
consultations. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and were audio
recorded and transcribed for coding purposes.
Measures
To assess librarians’ perspectives of student learning, an interview
protocol was developed that contained questions about the students’ prior
research experience (“What was your impression of the student’s research skills
at the start of the session?”); librarian learning objectives (“What goals did
you have for the session? That is, what did you want the students to walk away
from the session having learned?”); librarian perceptions of student learning
outcomes (“What [skills and concepts] did the student learn?”); and
consultation success (“On a scale of one to ten, ten being highly successful,
one being not successful, how successful was the session?”) (see Appendix B).
The interview questions were coded along the same four dimensions outlined for
student learning objectives and student perceptions of learning: library tools,
library organization and access, research process, and other. The question
about consultation success asked librarians to provide a rating on a scale from
1 (very unsuccessful) to 10 (very successful). The transcribed interviews were
coded by two researchers using NVivo software. A codebook was developed
focusing on the following themes: library organization and access, specific
tools, and the research process. We test coded five interviews to assess the
feasibility of the coding scheme, to facilitate consensus on the application of
the codes, and to ensure inter-coder reliability.
Demographic Background and
Consultation Length
Of the 20 students who had received consultations, 16 were undergraduate
students, one was a master’s student, one was a PhD student, and two students
self-identified as “other.” The students represented a total of 14 disciplines
including nursing, economics, social work, political science, history, computer
science, international studies, kinesiology, biochemistry, and several other
disciplines that included five students with undeclared majors. The duration of
the consultations varied; four consultations lasted over 30 minutes, nine were
20–30 minutes long, six were 10–20 minutes long, and one lasted less than 10
minutes. The majority, 15 of the sessions, were in the 10–30
minute range. All of the students responded that they were working on a
project; of these, 15 projects were for a course and five were not course
related. All consultations were sought to meet immediate, short-term objectives
rather than for longer-term projects. The eight librarians had between two and
30 years of reference service experience in academic libraries.
Eighteen students reported that they remembered the consultation “well,”
while only two reported remembering it “a little.” Therefore, although students completed the
questionnaire several months after the consultations occurred, they were able
to provide a good level of detail in their responses. Likewise, for the
librarians, most remembered the consultations well with some having sent
follow-up email messages to students. In one case, a librarian was not able to
recall enough information about the consultation to assess its level of
success.
Results
In this section, we examine the results of our study from two
perspectives: student perceptions about their own learning and their
assessments of the success of the consultations versus librarian perspectives
on student learning and consultation success.
Student Learning: Student Perspectives
In general, students reported that their self-identified learning
objectives were met during the consultations, responding consistently that the
consultations had helped them to learn new skills for their projects; the fact
that the consultations provided them with search tactics that they could use in
the future was appreciated. The students also reported that the consultations
had helped them to locate higher quality sources. One respondent wrote, “I was
completely lost on where to go. The topic was a little bit peculiar and doing a
simple Google search was not helping much. The consultation helped me gain more
trustworthy sources, which was key.” There were no discernible differences
between undergraduate and graduate student participants’ expectations or
perceptions about consultation outcomes.
Students identified their top four learning objectives as (1) finding
sources (n = 19); (2) using specific
tools/databases (n = 10); (3) library
organization and access, which included navigating both the physical space of
the library and the library website (n
= 7); and (4) search strategy development (n
= 3).
One interesting finding is that students reported that they applied what
they had learned to their projects. Sharing feedback received from their course
instructors, respondents stated: “My instructor said my sources were extremely
strong and made my argument more well-rounded”; “my compilation of data was
outstanding and everything they were looking for”; and “I got good feedback and
a good grade in part because of the thoroughness to which I worked to find
meaningful resources.”
One of the questions we asked in the questionnaire was whether students
had used skills learned during the consultations to enhance their work on any
subsequent projects, as this would demonstrate transferable skills learned.
Half of the survey respondents (n =
10), indicated that they were able to apply something they discussed during the
consultations to a project other than the one that led them to schedule the
consultation. One student commented, “I have since used the methods [the
librarian] taught me to aid my research in my new political science research
assistant job. I have also used them in other courses for other essays and
projects.” Another offered, “I’m working on a psych project now that I
regularly use my database research skills to find articles for.”
Some students reported that they shared what they learned from the
consultation service with others, such as one respondent who indicated, “I was
able to teach these techniques to my research partner to find other sources for
our project.” Such responses strongly suggest that student-librarian
consultations pay themselves forward by helping students to use their enhanced
skills and knowledge in subsequent research projects, and by enabling students
to teach these skills to others, which extends the impact of consultations
beyond a single-project application.
Student Learning: Librarian Perspectives
At the beginning of each interview, we asked
librarians to rate each student’s pre-consultation level of research
experience. Most students (n = 12)
were rated “low” in previous research experience, while only two students were
identified as having “high” skill levels. Data analysis revealed that the
librarians identified four main skill sets that students needed to acquire or
enhance in order to successfully complete work on their projects, with
individual students requiring help in several of these skill areas: (1) finding
sources (n = 19); search strategy
development (n = 15); (3) topic
exploration (n = 5); and (4) using
specific tools (n = 3).
Librarians described in detail how they felt that
students displayed their understanding of the concepts covered in the
consultation, describing how students suggested synonyms to create better
search strategies and used new search strategies and new databases while
searching alongside the librarian. While librarians recognized that the
students had requested help with specific databases, they felt that students
would benefit from more broad-based help, for example, with formulating search
strategies or exploring topics through using filters to refine search results.
Librarians expressed confidence that the students had gained competency in the
top learning needs that they had identified (Table 1).
Table
1
Librarian
and Student Assessment of the Top Four Student Learning Needs
|
Librarian
Perceptions |
Student
Perceptions |
|
1. Finding sources |
1. Finding sources |
|
2. Search strategy development |
2. Using specific tools/databases |
|
3. Topic exploration |
3. Library organization and access |
|
4. Using specific tools |
4. Search strategy development |
Consultation Success: Student and Librarian Perspectives
Using a scale of significantly,
somewhat, a little, and not at all,
all 20 students reported that the consultations had met their expectations,
with 15 rating that their expectations had been significantly met and five rating that their expectations had been somewhat met. No students reported that
the consultation met their expectations a
little or not at all. Using a
similar scale to assess whether the consultations had any impact on the
participants’ projects, 19 students out of 20 felt that the consultations
improved their project to some degree. Fourteen students responded that the
consultations improved their projects significantly,
three somewhat, and two a little.
Only one reported that the consultation did not improve their project at all;
this student had already explored a significant amount of resources and was
referred to a subject specialist outside of the general reference consultation
service.
Figure
1
Agreement
on consultation success between librarians and students.
Librarians’ assessments of the success of consultations were similar to
those of the students. Using a scale of 1–10, ranging from 1 (very unsuccessful) to 10 (very successful), librarians reported
that they felt 13 of the consultations were very
successful (rated 8–10), and that six were somewhat successful (rated 4–7). None of the librarians considered
any consultations to be very unsuccessful
(rated 1–3), although one librarian revealed that they could not remember
enough details to rate the success of one consultation.
The rates at which the librarians and students agreed on the degree of
success were measured using the same scale as above. For 14 consultations, both
groups agreed on the level of success. Of interest, the librarians rated four
consultations as having been more successful than the students rated those
consultations. Although, one student did rate a consultation as more successful
than the librarian did. For the instance in which the librarian could not
remember enough about the consultation to attach a level of success, we decided
not to compare it with the student-reported level of success (Figure 1).
Discussion
This study was designed to address three questions: how did students who
accessed the library consultation service perceive their learning objectives
and experience? How did librarians who provided the library consultation
service conceptualize the student learning from this service? How aligned were
students and librarians in their perceptions of the degree of success of the
consultations?
With regard to learning objectives, there was almost complete agreement
(19 cases) between both librarians and students that “finding sources” was the
most important area requiring new and additional skills in a general
consultation. However, both groups diverged when ranking the other learning
objectives (see Table 1).
Perhaps most striking is the discrepancy in the ranking of “search
strategy development,” which was ranked second in importance by librarians but
last by students, whereas “specific tools and databases” was ranked second in
importance by students and last by librarians. “Topic exploration” was third in
importance for the librarians, but was not named among the top four learning
needs by students. “Library organization and access,” named third in importance
by students, was not mentioned by librarians among their top four.
When describing gaps in students’ skill sets, the librarians were more
likely to discuss broader concepts such as critical thinking, as well as
universally applicable competencies like search strategy development and topic
exploration. By contrast, students tended to discuss basic needs with concrete
outcomes, wanting to learn how to use a particular tool or to find a specific
source at the library. This discrepancy is an opportunity for librarians to
expand students’ awareness of their own learning needs and to encourage
self-reflection.
Some research suggests that while students report a higher degree of
confidence in their research abilities after a consultation (Watts & Mahfood, 2015), they may overestimate their
information-seeking abilities overall (Suarez, 2013). A higher degree of
confidence after a consultation may be an indicator of student success for the
consultation. Librarians have underestimated their effectiveness in
consultations in general (Butler & Byrd, 2016), and it might be concluded
that librarians should be more confident than they are about the impact of
their work. These prior studies indicate that there is a possible mismatch
between what students rate as successful and what librarians perceive as
impactful. The findings of this study also show that students and librarians
interpret the success of research consultations in slightly different ways.
While most of the librarians and students agreed on the level of success of the
consultations in this study, in four instances the librarians rated the
consultations as more successful than did the students involved in those
consultations, a finding that is seemingly inconsistent with Butler and Byrd’s
(2016) work. There was only one case in which the student’s rating of the
consultation’s success was higher than the librarian’s.
While the discrepancy in perceptions of success among these five cases is
interesting, more noteworthy is the fact that some degree of success was
indicated by both librarians and students in all cases. We interpret this
finding as suggesting the potential benefit of incorporating two routine
practices into the consultation process: having students and librarians
identify clear learning objectives at the outset of the consultation; and
following up consultations by asking students about their level of satisfaction
with the process and their success at applying newly developed library skills
to additional projects. We believe that these practices are likely to improve
student-librarian consensus of perceived success, enhance communication between
students and librarians, and provide feedback to aid the ongoing improvement of
consultation services.
By a very large measure, both librarians and students felt that the time
and effort put forth in the consultations was worthwhile. Nearly all students,
19 out of 20, reported that the consultations improved their projects to some
degree, while all responded that the consultations met their expectations.
Consistent with Butler and Byrd’s (2016) work, the librarians reported feeling
that slightly fewer of the consultations (17 out of 20) were very successful.
However, when assessing how well the self-identified learning objectives were
met during the consultations, the data illustrate that half of the student
respondents were able to apply something that they had discussed during the
consultations to projects other than the one for which they had scheduled the
consultation. This finding indicates the acquisition of transferable skills and
demonstrates both the short- and long-term value of consultations for improving
students’ research skills.
The consultations in this study were initiated for
immediate, short-term needs associated with required projects, rather than for
self-directed, longer-term projects. A valuable extension of this study might
include consultations with undergraduates who are completing long-term
projects, such as honor theses, or consultations with a sampling of graduate
students. While the learning objectives in these cases might differ from those
in the present study, the measures of perceived consultation success
(applicability of new or improved skills, transferability of skills to other
contexts, and alignment between librarian and student perceptions of success)
would still pertain, thus offering a more complete picture of student learning
through consultations.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to assess student
learning from research consultations in the academic library by identifying the
students’ own learning goals and measuring the success in achieving those goals
in relationship to librarian perceptions of the work completed in those
consultations. Students and librarians in this study had the same primary goal
in these consultations: to find sources for a research project. Though there
were some differences in perceptions of learning outcomes outside of that
primary goal, in most cases, both students and librarians interpreted the
degree of success in the consultation similarly. The findings clearly
demonstrate that individual research consultations are effective and impactful
in meeting student learning needs. As reference models continue to change and
reference desk usage declines, general research consultations are a valuable
element in librarians’ service model and an efficient use of human resources.
References
Attebury, R., Sprague,
N., & Young, N. J. (2009). A decade of personalized research assistance. Reference Services Review, 37(2), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320910957233
Butler, K., & Byrd, J. (2016). Research
consultation assessment: Perceptions of students and librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(1), 83–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.10.011
Cole, C., & Reiter, L. (2017). Online
appointment-scheduling for optimizing a high volume of research consultations. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research &
Practice, 5(2), 138–143. https://doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2017.155
Faix, A., MacDonald,
A., & Taxakis, B. (2014). Research consultation
effectiveness for freshman and senior undergraduate students. Reference Services Review, 42(1), 4–15.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-05-2013-0024
Fournier, K., & Sikora, L. (2015). Individualized
research consultations in academic libraries: A scoping review of practice and
evaluation methods. Evidence Based
Library & Information Practice, 10(4),
247–267.
https://doi.org/10.18438/B8ZC7W
Fournier, K., & Sikora, L. (2017). How Canadian librarians practice and assess individualized research
consultations in academic libraries: A nationwide survey. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-05-2017-0022
Isbell, D. (2009). A librarian research consultation
requirement for university honors students beginning their theses. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 16(1), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691310902754072
Ishaq, M. R., &
Cornick, D. P. (1978). Library and research consultations (LaRC):
A service for graduate students. RQ, 18(2), 168–176. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/25826127
Kani, J. (2017).
Evernote in the research consultation: A feasibility study. Reference Services Review, 45(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-05-2016-0034
Kolendo, J. (2016). The
extra credit consultation in two academic settings. The Reference Librarian, 57(3),
247–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2016.1129246
Kuglitsch, R. Z., Tingle,
N., & Watkins, A. (2017). Facilitating research consultations using cloud
services: Experiences, preferences, and best practices. Information Technology and Libraries, 36(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v36i1.8923
Magi, T. J., & Mardeusz,
P. E. (2013). Why some students continue to value individual, face-to-face
research consultations in a technology-rich world. College & Research Libraries, 74(6), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl12-363
Martin, P. N., & Park, L. (2010). Reference desk
consultation assignment: An exploratory study of students’ perceptions of
reference service. Reference & User
Services Quarterly, 49(4),
333–340. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.49n4.333
Meyer, E., Forbes, C., & Bowers, J. (2010). The
research center: Creating an environment for interactive research
consultations. Reference Services Review,
38(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321011020725
Reinsfelder, T. L. (2012).
Citation analysis as a tool to measure the impact of individual research
consultations. College & Research
Libraries, 73(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-261
Rogers, E., & Carrier, H. S. (2017). A qualitative
investigation of patrons’ experiences with academic library research
consultations. Reference Services Review,
45(1), 18-37.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-04-2016-0029
Sikora, L., Fournier, K., & Rebner,
J. (2019). Exploring the impact of individualized research consultations using
pre and posttesting in an academic library: A mixed
methods study. Evidence Based Library
& Information Practice, 14(1),
2–21. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29500
Suarez, D. (2013). Making sense of liaison
consultations: Using reflection to understand information-seeking behavior. New Library World, 114(11/12), 527-541.
https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-04-2013-0036
Watts, J., & Mahfood, S. (2015).
Collaborating with faculty to assess research consultations for graduate
students. Behavioral & Social Sciences
Librarian, 34(2), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2015.1042819
Appendix A
Student Consultation
Questionnaire Questions
Hello, you had a research consultation with a U-M librarian this past
winter semester. How well do you remember this consultation?
●
Not at all
●
A little
●
Fairly well
●
Very well
Approximately how long did your consultation take?
●
0–10 Minutes
●
10–20 Minutes
●
20–30 Minutes
●
30+ Minutes
What was your program of study at the time of your consultation?
●
Bachelor’s
●
Master’s
●
PhD
●
Postdoc
●
Other
What is your expected year of graduation?
What major, program, or department were you
affiliated with at the time of your consultation?
Was this for a class?
●
Yes
●
No
(If “Was this for a class? Yes”) What class was this for? (e.g., ENGLISH
125) [Optional]
Can you briefly summarize what your consultation was about?
What did you hope to learn from the consultation?
Thinking about your answer above, do you feel that the consultation met
your expectations?
●
Significantly
●
Somewhat
●
A little
●
Not at all
(If “Thinking about your answer above, do you feel that the consultation
met your expectations? NOT Not at all”) In what ways
did the consultation meet your expectations?
(If “Thinking about your answer above, do you feel that the consultation
met your expectations? Not at all”) Please tell us why the consultation service
did not meet your expectations.
What, if anything, did you discuss during the consultation that was new
to you?
Were you working on a project/assignment when you scheduled your
consultation?
●
Yes
●
No
(If “Were you working on a project/assignment when you scheduled your
consultation? Yes”) To what extent did this service improve the quality of your
project/assignment?
●
Significantly
●
Somewhat
●
A little
●
Not at all
(If “To what extent did this service improve the quality of your
project/assignment? NOT Not at all”) In what ways did
the consultation service improve the quality of your project/assignment?
(If “To what extent did this service improve the quality of your
project/assignment? Not at all”) Please tell us why you didn’t think that the
consultation service improved the quality of your project/assignment.
Did you come to this consultation because you needed sources (e.g.,
materials such as books or articles to use for your research)?
●
Yes
●
No
(If “Did you come to this consultation because you needed sources (e.g.,
materials such as books or articles to use for your research)? Yes”) Were you
able to locate higher quality sources than before the consultation?
●
Yes
●
No
(If “Did you come to this consultation because you needed sources (e.g.,
materials such as books or articles to use for your research)? No”) Please
explain why not.
(If “Did you come to this consultation because you needed sources (e.g.,
materials such as books or articles to use for your research)? Yes”) What made
these sources better for your project/assignment?
(If “Were you working on a project/assignment when you scheduled your
consultation? Yes”) Did you get any feedback related to your project/assignment
from your instructor or supervisor?
●
Yes
●
No
(If “Did you get any feedback related to your project/assignment from
your instructor or supervisor? Yes”) What feedback did you receive from your
instructor or supervisor?
Were you able to use something that you discussed during your
consultation for your project/assignment?
●
Yes
●
No
(If “Were you able to use something that you discussed during your
consultation for your project/assignment? Yes”) How were you able to apply what
you discussed?
Were you able to apply something that you discussed during your
consultation to OTHER projects/assignments (i.e., different
projects/assignments than the one for which you scheduled a consultation)?
●
Yes
●
No
(If “Were you able to apply something that you discussed during your
consultation to OTHER projects/assignments (i.e., different
projects/assignments than the one for which you scheduled a consultation)?
Yes”) How were you able to apply what you discussed?
How would you describe the consultation service to a friend?
Would you recommend the consultation service to a friend?
●
Yes
●
No
(If “Would you recommend the consultation service to a friend? No”) Why
not?
If you would be willing to let us contact you with potential follow-up
questions, please enter your email address.
Appendix B
Librarian Consultation
Interview Questions
Introductions
[Ask the librarian what they know about the project, then fill in gaps
based on what they don’t know yet. If they don’t know about the project, read
the summary below.]
For those who conducted multiple consultations, do they want to talk
about each consultation individually or all at the same time?
1.
What was the student’s project?
2.
Did the research consultation take the full half hour?
Otherwise, how long did it take?
3.
What prior research on the topic had the student
conducted?
4.
What was your impression of the student’s research
skills at the start of the session?
5.
What goals did you have for the session? That is, what
did you want the students to walk away from the session having learned?
6.
What steps did you take to help the student answer
their questions?
7.
What did the student learn?
a.
Skills
b.
Concepts
8.
On a scale of one to ten, ten being highly successful,
one being not successful, how successful was the session? Why did you give them this rating?
9.
Did the student contact you after the consultation?
10.
In your estimation, was the research consultation
service the most appropriate mode for what the student needed to learn?
a.
If no, what other mode might have been more
appropriate?
b.
If yes, what did the student learn from this session
that would have been difficult to teach in another mode?
11.
Is there anything that you wish that the student had
learned during the consultation?
12.
May we contact you with any follow up questions?