This study investigated undergraduates’ source selection behaviour: what sources they use frequently, what criteria they consider important for source selection, how they perceive different sources, and whether their source selection behaviour is related to what they know about selection criteria. Semantic differential rating scales and correspondence analyses were used to capture the participants’ perception of source characteristics. Five hundred and seventy-six undergraduate students from a public university participated in the study. The study found discrepancies between what students know and what they do regarding source selection. Spearman’s rank correlation results imply that participants did not apply the criteria they considered important (e.g. accuracy, currency) frequently when selecting sources. Sources perceived to be ‘accessible’ in economical, physical, and psychological senses tended to be used often. Suggestions were made to refine information literacy programmes to support the selection of quality sources.
OCLC, Information format trends content, not containers (2004). Available at: www.oclc.org/reports/2004format.htm (accessed 18 July 2010).
2.
L. Johnson, et al., 2010 horizon report (2010). Available at: www.nmc.org/pdf/2010-Horizon-Report.pdf (accessed 8 July 2010).
3.
American Library Association, Presidential committee on information literacy: final report ( 1989). Available at: www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential.cfm (accessed 8 July 2010).
4.
Association of College and Research Libraries , Information literacy competency standards for higher education (2000). Available at: www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standards.pdf (accessed 8 July 2010).
5.
Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework: principles, standards and practice (2004). Available at: www.library.unisa.edu.au/infoskills/infolit/infolit-2nd-edition.pdf (accessed 8 July 2010).
6.
S. Webber and B. Johnston, Conceptions of information literacy: new perspectives and implications, Journal of Information Science26(6) (2000) 381-397.
7.
SCONUL Advisory Committee on Information Literacy , Information skills in higher education: a SCONUL position paper (1999). Available at: www.sconul.ac.uk/groups/information_literacy/papers/Seven_pillars.html (accessed 15 Nov 2010).
8.
M.J. Metzger , Making sense of credibility on the Web: models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research , Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology58(13) (2007) 2078-2091.
9.
E.A. Chatman , Framing social life in theory and research, New Review of Information Behaviour Research1 (2000) 3-17.
10.
R. Savolainen , Source preferences in the context of seeking problem-specific information, Information Processing and Management44(1) ( 2008) 274-293.
11.
P.M. Davis , The effect of the Web on undergraduate citation behavior: a 2000 update, College & Research Libraries63(1) ( 2002) 53-60.
12.
J. Martin , The information seeking behavior of undergraduate education majors: does library instruction play a role?, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice3(4) (2008) 4-17.
13.
N.G. Tomaiuolo , Faculty views of open Web resource use by college students, The Journal of Academic Librarianship31(6) (2005) 559-566.
14.
G. de Alwis , S. Majid and A.S. Chaudhry, Transformation in managers’ information seeking behaviour: a review of the literature, Journal of Information Science32(4) (2006) 362-377.
15.
Oclc, Perceptions of libraries and information resources (2005). Available at: www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/Percept_all.pdf (accessed 8 July 2010).
16.
Internet World Stats, Internet usage statistics: the internet big picture - world internet users and population stats (2010). Available at: www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (accessed 15 Nov, 2010).
17.
S. Jones and S. Fox, Generations online in 2009 (2009). Available at: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Generations-Online-in-2009.aspx (accessed 10 July 2010).
18.
A.J. Head and M. Eisenberg, Lessons learned: how college students seek information in the digital age (2009). Available at: http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2009_Year1Report_12_2009.pdf (accessed 10 July 2010).
19.
D.J. Grimes and C.H. Boening, Worries with the Web: a look at student use of Web resources, College & Research Libraries62(1) (2001) 11-23.
20.
M.J. Metzger , A.J. Flanagin, and L. Zwarun, College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior, Computers and Education41(3) (2003) 271-290.
21.
K.-S. Kim and S.-C.J. Sin , Perception and selection of information sources by undergraduate students: effects of avoidant style, confidence, and personal control in problem-solving, The Journal of Academic Librarianship33(6) ( 2007) 655-665.
22.
H.-L. Lee , Information structures and undergraduate students , The Journal of Academic Librarianship34(3) (2008) 211-219.
23.
A.M. Van Scoyoc and C. Cason, The electronic academic library: undergraduate research behavior in a library without books, Portal: Libraries and the Academy6(1) (2006) 47-58.
24.
M. Meola, Chucking the checklist: a contextual approach to teaching undergraduates web-site evaluation, Portal: Libraries and the Academy4(3) (2004) 331-44.
25.
P. Suber, Open access overview (2010). Available at: www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm (accessed 8 July 2010 ).
26.
W3C, W3C SWEO linking open data community project (2010). Available at: http://esw.w3.org/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData (accessed 8 July 2010).
27.
V.T. Burton and S.A. Chadwick, Investigating the practices of student researchers: patterns of use and criteria for use of internet and library sources, Computers and Composition17(3) (2000) 309-328.
28.
M. Gross and D. Latham, Undergraduate perceptions of information literacy: defining, attaining, and self-assessing skills, College & Research Libraries70(4) (2009) 336-350.
29.
P.G. Gerstberger and T.J. Allen, Criteria used by research and development engineers in the selection of an information source, Journal of Applied Psychology52(4) (1968) 272-279.
30.
D. Bawden and L. Robinson, The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies, Journal of Information Science35(2) (2009) 180-191.
31.
G.K. Zipf, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: an Introduction to Human Ecology (Addison-Wesley Press, Cambridge, MA, 1949).
32.
J. Krikelas , Information-seeking behaviour: patterns and concepts, Drexel Library Quarterly19(2) (1983) 5-20.
33.
J. Bronstein and S. Baruchson-Arbib, The application of cost-benefit and least effort theories in studies of information seeking behavior of humanities scholars: the case of Jewish studies scholars in Israel, Journal of Information Science34(2) (2008) 131-144.
34.
C. Warwick , et al., Cognitive economy and satisficing in information seeking: a longitudinal study of undergraduate information behavior , Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology60(12) (2009) 2402-2415.
35.
B. Johnston and S. Webber, Information literacy in higher education: a review and case study, Studies in Higher Education28(3) (2003) 335-352.
36.
A.M. Fiegen , B. Cherry, and K. Watson, Reflections on collaboration: learning outcomes and information literacy assessment in the business curriculum, Reference Services Review30(4) (2002) 307-318.
37.
J.W. DaCosta , Is there an information literacy skills gap to be bridged? An examination of faculty perceptions and activities relating to information literacy in the United States and England, College & Research Libraries71(3) (2010) 203-222.
38.
L.C. Abroms and E.W. Maibach, The effectiveness of mass communication to change public behavior, Annual Review of Public Health29(2008) 219-234.
39.
I.E. Berger and A.A. Mitchell, The effect of advertising on attitude accessibility, attitude confidence, and the attitude-behavior relationship , Journal of Consumer Research16(3) (1989) 269-279.
40.
C.E. Osgood , Studies on the generality of affective meaning systems, American Psychologist17(1) (1962) 10-28.
41.
S. Lim , How and why do college students use Wikipedia? , Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology60(11) (2009) 2189-2202.
42.
J.F. Hair, Multivariate data analysis (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2010).
43.
L. Hamilton, Embedding information literacy into the prehospital care curriculum ( 2008). Available at: www.jephc.com/uploads/LH990278.pdf (accessed 8 July 2010).
44.
K. Simons , J. Young, and C. Gibson, The learning library in context: community, integration, and influence, Research Strategies17(2-3) (2000) 123-132.
45.
C.L. Borgman , Why are online catalogs still hard to use?, Journal of the American Society for Information Science47(7) (1996) 493-503.
46.
E. Novotny , I don’t think I click: a protocol analysis study of use of a library online catalog in the internet age, College & Research Libraries65(6) (2004) 525-537.
47.
C. Cox , Hitting the spot: marketing federated searching tools to students and faculty, The Serials Librarian53(3) (2007) 147-64.
48.
B. Ruddock and D. Hartley, How UK academic libraries choose metasearch systems, Aslib Proceedings62(1) (2010) 85-105.
49.
A.Y.K. Chua and D.H. Goh , A study of web 2.0 applications in library websites , Library & Information Science Research32(2010) 203-211.
50.
LibraryThing, LTFL: libraries using Library Thing for libraries (2010). Available at: www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/LTFL:Libraries_using_LibraryThing_for_Libraries (accessed 28 July 2010).
51.
National Archives, US national archives records on footnote (2010). Available at: http://go.footnote.com/nara/ (accessed 28 July 2010 ).
52.
A. Scholz-Crane , Evaluating the future: a preliminary study of the process of how undergraduate students evaluate web sources, Reference Services Review26(3) (1998) 53-60.
53.
G. Eysenbach and C. Köhler, How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews, BMJ324(7337) (2002) 573-577.
54.
S. Wilder, Information literacy makes all the wrong assumptions, The Chronicle of Higher Education51(18) (January 2005) B13.
55.
K. Whitston, Key skills and curriculum reform, Studies in Higher Education23(3) ( 1998) 307-19.
56.
C. Bruce, The Seven Faces of Information Literacy (Auslib Press, Adelaide, 1997).
57.
C. Bruce, Workplace experiences of information literacy, International Journal of Information Management19(1) (1999) 33-47.
58.
A. Mutch, Information literacy: an exploration, International Journal of Information Management17(5) (1997) 377-386.
59.
D.O. Case, Principle of least effort. In: K.E. Fisher , S. Erdelez, and L. McKechnie (eds), Theories of Information Behavior (Information Today, Medford, NJ, 2005).
60.
J.M. Berryman , Judgements during information seeking: a naturalistic approach to understanding the assessment of enough information, Journal of Information Science34(2) (2008) 196-206.
61.
H.A. Simon, Rational choice and the structure of the environment (1956). In: H.A. Simon (ed.), Models of thought (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1979).
62.
D.H. Mill , Undergraduate information resource choices, College & Research Libraries69(4) (2008) 342-355.
63.
G. Bin , Moderating effects of task characteristics on information source use: an individual-level analysis of R&D professionals in new product development, Journal of Information Science35(5) ( 2009) 527-547.
