Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Transitioning from Academia to the Workplace: Information Literacy Experiences of Business Students - Heather Howard, Margaret Phillips & Garrett Brewster

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 17 Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Similaire à Transitioning from Academia to the Workplace: Information Literacy Experiences of Business Students - Heather Howard, Margaret Phillips & Garrett Brewster (20)

Plus par IL Group (CILIP Information Literacy Group) (20)

Publicité

Plus récents (20)

Transitioning from Academia to the Workplace: Information Literacy Experiences of Business Students - Heather Howard, Margaret Phillips & Garrett Brewster

  1. 1. Transitioning from Academia to the Workplace: Information Literacy Experiences of Business Students Heather Howard, Associate Professor & Business Information Specialist Margaret Phillips, Associate Professor & Engineering Information Specialist Garrett Brewster, Undergraduate Business Student & Office of Undergraduate Research (OUR) Scholar LILAC April 11-12, 2022 Manchester, UK
  2. 2. About Purdue 2 27 Astronauts Purdue University • West Lafayette, IN • Public research university, founded 1869 • ~50,000 students • ~200 undergraduate programs; >80 graduate programs
  3. 3. Krannert School of Management Enrollment: 4,040 (2,809 undergraduate, 1,231 graduate) #30 US News & World Report Overall Best Undergraduate Program 2021 7 undergraduate programs 9 specialized master’s programs 5 MBA program options 3 Ph.D. Programs (Economics, Management, & Organizational Behavior - with multiple options to specialize) 3
  4. 4. Research Team 4 Margaret Phillips Associate Professor Engineering Librarian Heather Howard Associate Professor Business Librarian Garrett Brewster Undergraduate Business Student OUR Scholar
  5. 5. Scope of Research ◎ Investigate past and present Krannert School of Management students' experiences with information in the workplace ◎ Acquire insight into their information experiences during internships & co-ops ◎ Designed after similar research conducted with engineering co-op students at University of Minnesota in 2010 (Jeffryes & Lafferty, 2012) Jeffryes, J. & Lafferty, M. 2012. Gauging Workplace Readiness: Assessing the Information Needs of Engineering Co-op Students. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship. 5
  6. 6. Theoretical Framing Lloyd, A. (2010). Framing information literacy as information practice: Site ontology and practice theory. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011023643 Sandstrom, P. E. (1994). An optimal foraging approach to information seeking and use. Library Quarterly, 64(4), 414–449. Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106(4), 643–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.643 6
  7. 7. Research Questions RQ1: What types of information tasks do undergraduate business students complete during co-ops and internships? RQ2: What types of information sources do undergraduate business students use during co- ops and internships? How did they first learn about these sources and what is their perceived difficulty in finding these sources? 7
  8. 8. Survey Krannert undergraduate and graduate students that have completed a/an internship(s) and/or co-op(s) via several mediums ◎ Targeted emails ◎ In-person recruiting in the business library ◎ LinkedIn Methods Survey included questions regarding: ◎ Types of business information searched ◎ Types of information tasks ◎ Where students learned search methods Purdue IRB #2021-1361 8
  9. 9. Preliminary Results 9 Current Classification # of Students % First Year 0 0% Sophomore 4 10% Junior 8 21% Senior 22 56% Graduate Student 3 8% Alumni 2 5% TOTAL 39 100% Undergraduate Major # of Students * % Accounting 10 20% Economics 2 4% Finance 8 16% IB and Engineering 5 10% Management 5 10% Marketing 6 12% Supply Chain 9 18% Other 5 10% *n > 39 due to students with multiple majors
  10. 10. Preliminary Results 10 100% of respondents reported having to complete at least one information task in their internship/co-op. 1 Task 41% 2 Tasks 26% 3 Tasks 23% 4 Tasks 10% NUMBER OF INFORMATION TASKS COMPLETED 1 Task 2 Tasks 3 Tasks 4 Tasks
  11. 11. Preliminary Results 11 0% 3% 3% 5% 13% 26% 33% 33% 36% 38% 77% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Court Cases or law reviews Patents None Books/ebooks Other Technical reports/white papers Laws and regulations Market and industry research reports Articles Industry standards Company Information Types of Information Sources Required to Find
  12. 12. Preliminary Results 12 8% 26% 31% 36% 38% 67% Write a literature review as part of a report Research information about a specific city/country or other locality Find and or use secondary market research Other Research competitors Look up information on business news or trends Types of Information Tasks Completed n = 39
  13. 13. Preliminary Results 13 Prior Related Work: Phillips, M., Howard, H., Vaaler, A., & Hubbard, D. E. (2019). Mapping industry standards and integration opportunities in business management curricula. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 24(1–2), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2019.1638662 6 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Accounting Supply Chain Finance IB and Engineering Management Other Economics Marketing Students by Major who used Industry Standards
  14. 14. Limitations - Pilot study - One institution - Small sample, not generalizable 14
  15. 15. Initial Insights 15 - Implications for librarians and IL practice - High use of company information & industry standards - Developed and integrated an industry standards module into MGMT 110 - a first year IL related management course taught by the Libraries - More research needed on student employment information experiences & learning and business employer expectations
  16. 16. Next Steps - Complete full analysis and publish results in a journal article - 2022-23 OUR Project: Using Head’s (2012) IL workplace protocol as a guide, interview employers of business students in internships/co-ops or new graduates Head, A. (2012). Learning curve: How college graduates solve information problems once they join the workplace (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2165031). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2165031 16
  17. 17. Heather Howard Associate Professor Business Librarian Purdue University Email: howar198@purdue.edu Twitter: @hidingheather Margaret Phillips Associate Professor Engineering Librarian Purdue University Email: phill201@purdue.edu

Notes de l'éditeur

  • Lloyd (2010) describes information landscapes as the local environment in which information literacy is practiced. In the academy, the dominant information landscape centers around scholarly literature embodied in peer-reviewed articles and other scholarly products. In the workplace, sources of information are much more fluid, with technical reports and internal and external standards and procedures just as important as their scholarly counterparts. An individual might need to determine whether they need to do an experiment themselves instead of finding a prior work, or to consult with a more experienced co-worker or mentor to navigate the landscape. They need to be able to communicate their insights in a manner appropriate to their workplace culture, either to acquire resources to continue a project, or to determine if another line of inquiry could be more fruitful. In terms of investigating actual strategies used to gather information, the socioecological theories pioneered by Sandstrom (1994) and expanded by Pirolli and Card (1999) as Information Foraging Theory (IFT) animate our approach. The premise of the theories is that an individual will attempt to maximize the yield from the information landscape in which they are embedded. The individual’s behaviors are formed by a number of factors- such as abundance/scarcity of resources, accessibility, and the opportunity costs of not investigating other resources- so their information gathering teeters between exploring a particular information source and looking for new sources of information. IFT is an especially robust model for information gathering in the workplace, since the information gathered is assigned value based on its ability to assist in completing a particular task. This contrasts with a typical ‘research paper’ model taught by librarians, which values a more formal and exhaustive information gathering process. With the time- and task-based nature of the workplace, efficiency and effectiveness is more important than comprehensiveness.The IFT model introduces concepts such as ‘diet selection’-the mix of information sources utilized by problem solvers; the concept of ‘within-patch’ and ‘between-patch’ foraging- how long you spend exploring one source before switching to another; and the resource and opportunity costs of investing in a particular source. There are also ‘enrichment’ activities that searchers can utilize to make their foraging more efficient, from organizational systems (e.g., citation management, bookmarking sites, physical filing systems), to ‘push’ technologies, or just learning how to search a database more efficiently. Information ‘scent’ describes cues used by the searcher to determine whether a source is likely to be relevant or not. By considering IFT concepts and integrating them into our approach to surveys and interviews, we will ask questions that better resonate with our subjects (employers and employees), as well as help contextualize our understanding of the responses from a task-focused, optimization standpoint. Having recently introduced the ‘foraging’ model in librarian-taughtcourses for both first-year undergraduates and graduate students as a way to consider how their information gathering habits need to change as they transition to a new academic/workplace setting, we have found it to be intuitive and well-received by both groups
  • Male 17 43.59%
    Female 22 56.41%
    Non-Binary 0 0.00%
    Other 0 0.00
    Classification During Internship/Co-op
    Undergraduate 37 94.87%
    Master's 3 7.69%
    PhD 0 0.00%
  • Male 17 43.59%
    Female 22 56.41%
    Non-Binary 0 0.00%
    Other 0 0.00
    Classification During Internship/Co-op
    Undergraduate 37 94.87%
    Master's 3 7.69%
    PhD 0 0.00%
  • Male 17 43.59%
    Female 22 56.41%
    Non-Binary 0 0.00%
    Other 0 0.00
    Classification During Internship/Co-op
    Undergraduate 37 94.87%
    Master's 3 7.69%
    PhD 0 0.00%

×