The relationship between students’ subject preferences and their information behavior

This is a pre-publication version of the paper. An open source version of the published version is available at
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JD-07-2017-0097
https://pan.baidu.com/s/18e4xbrHKNHGGEMiVAwpY0g
Title: The relationship between students’ subject
preferences and their information behaviour
Abstract
Purpose
This paper investigates the relationship between preferred choice of school subject and student Information
Behaviour (IB).
Design/methodology/approach
Mixed methods were employed. 152 students, teachers and librarians participated in interviews or focus
groups. 1375 students, Key Stage 3 (11-13 years) to postgraduate, responded to a questionnaire. The
research population was drawn from eight schools, two Further Education colleges and three universities.
Insights from the literature review and the qualitative research phase led to a hypothesis which was
investigated using the questionnaire: that students studying Hard subjects are less likely to engage in deep
IB than students studying Soft subjects.
Findings
Results support the hypothesis that preferences for subjects at school affect choice of university degree. The
hypothesis that a preference for Hard or Soft subjects affects IB is supported by results of an analysis in
which like or dislike of Maths/ICT is correlated with responses to the survey. Interviewees’ comments led to
the proposal that academic subjects can be classified according to whether a subject helps students to
acquire a “tool of the Mind” or to apply such a tool. A model suggesting how IB may differ depending on
whether intellectual tools are being acquired or applied is proposed.
Practical implications
The “inner logic” of certain subjects and their pedagogies appears closely linked to IB. This should be
considered when developing teaching programmes.
Originality/value
The findings offer a new perspective on subject classification and its association with IB, and a new model of
the association between IB and tool acquisition or application is proposed, incorporating the perspectives of
both teacher and student..
Keywords
Information behaviour, disciplines, critical thinking, students, information research, schools, universities
1

1. Introduction
This paper reports selected findings from a study funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council
(AHRC) entitled “Developing Deep Critical Information Behaviour”. The project ran from 2010 - 2012 and
investigated the nature, extent and pattern of occurrence of deep and surface Information Behaviours (IBs)
amongst students at secondary school and university, studying in England. It also sought to investigate the
extent to which, in the view of key stakeholders (i.e. educators, librarians and administrators), the
development of deep IB could be enabled and fostered. The project used a mixed-methods approach: stage
1 comprised interviews and focus groups with learners and stakeholders; and stage 2 consisted of a
questionnaire-based survey carried out in schools, colleges and universities in South Yorkshire and the
Midlands.
The analysis reported here focuses on the relationship between students’ preferred choice of school subject
and their IB (as self-reported, or reported by stakeholders). As well as probing respondents’ attitudes
towards using information for their school work, the questionnaire survey asked them to nominate the
subjects they most liked and disliked on the English National Curriculum. Thus this paper connects two areas
of IB research: learners’ IB in formal education, and differences in IB relating to academic discipline.
The underlying research problem is that of young people’s critical engagement with information. Julien and
Barker (2009, p. 12) noted that:
“Widespread concern about a lack of searching skills and critical information evaluation skills,
particularly among students, is evident in the literature. ... Taken as a whole, then, the research
literature on information literacy skills among students demonstrates that students' skills are
generally lacking.”
These concerns have not abated in the intervening years (Goldman et al., 2016). For example Coiro et al.
(2015) found that only 25% of a stratified random sample of North American 12-13 year olds used
appropriate criteria to judge information quality. Indeed, the information landscape has become more
complex and problematic: recent studies have indicated that people cede critical judgements to search
engines (Sundin et al., 2017) and lack critical awareness of news filtering (Powers, 2017).
Definition of terms
In the context of this study, information is held to be “a stimulus which ... amends the World View of the
informed” (Madden, 2004, p. 9). In other words, when students see or hear something that alters their
understanding of the world and/or their place within it, they are considered to be receiving information.
This understanding of information accords well with prevailing views of IB. Wilson, who originally coined the
term Information Behaviour (Wilson, 1981), defined it as:
"the totality of human behavior in relation to sources and channels of information, including both
active and passive information seeking, and information use. Thus, it includes face-to-face
communication with others, as well as the passive reception of information as in, for example,
watching TV advertisements, without any intention to act on the information given.” (Wilson, 2000, p.
49).
As Case (2016, p. 6) notes, IB therefore includes browsing and encountering information; and the study of
IB addresses "how people need, seek, give and use information in different contexts” (Pettigrew, Fidel and
2

Bruce, 2001, p. 44). These contexts may be everyday life, life out of the ordinary (e.g. transition or crisis), the
workplace, or formal education. This paper considers aspects of IB that relate to the latter and explores the
question of whether students’ subject preferences and choices impact on the extent to which they seek for,
evaluate and use information and the ways in which they go about it.
2. Literature review
This review focuses on three key areas:
(1) Research which provides frameworks for analysing students’ critical thinking, IB and learning;
(2) Research into learners’ epistemological understandings;
(3) Disciplinarity, and research into disciplinary differences in students’ IB and learning, and in teachers’
approaches to teaching.
The review finishes by describing key features of the context for the research study: i.e. the English
secondary and tertiary education systems.
2.1 Frameworks for students’ critical thinking, Information Behaviour and learning
This section identifies research-based frameworks which can be used to categorise students’ approaches to
critical thinking, IB and learning: in particular those of Ford (1986), Marton and Saljo (1976, 1984), Newble
and Entwistle (1986), and Entwistle et al (2004). This work informed development of the project aims and
was used to frame survey questions relating to students’ approaches to engagement with information for
school work.
In a study of learners’ ways of thinking about their learning, Ford (1986) interviewed 34 education students
and proposed a model which focused on learners’ engagement with differing viewpoints on a topic. His
findings suggest that students may engage in deep and/or surface levels of critical thinking and that different
IBs are associated with different levels of critical thinking.
The categories Ford identified were:
● Sub critical thinking: the learner is either unaware of alternative viewpoints (unconscious sub critical
thinking), or is aware of them but does not evaluate them (conscious sub critical thinking). Ford’s data
suggested a number of possible reasons, including a lack of intellectual development; the perception that
evaluation is not required for an assignment; lack of interest, or that the subject of study may be purely
factual.
● Surface critical thinking: the learner evaluates different viewpoints, but “clinically, without personal
involvement” (Ford, 1986: 55). Such learners use criteria which they judge to be most acceptable to those
marking an assignment. Possible reasons for taking this approach include time pressure, a focus on marks
and a lack of interest in the subject.
● Deep critical thinking: the learner evaluates varying viewpoints “to a personally satisfying level” using a
number of information sources. Learners engaged in such thinking focus on working out their own viewpoint
based on criteria that are satisfying to them. The criteria espoused by students may vary from the criteria
used by assessors: in such cases a learner may adhere to his or her own perspectives even if it results in
lower marks.
3

The whole information search process is implicated in Ford's categorisation. Although his focus is on
evaluating alternative viewpoints, this is only possible if someone has recognised that they may exist; has
selected search sites which may reveal them, and has chosen candidate sources from the material found.
Thus an orientation to deep critical thinking will tend to be associated with relatively wide independent
information seeking. This is in contrast to the IB of students wishing to find what they perceive to be a
factually correct answer (sub critical) or students focusing on reproducing what they think their teachers
want them to say (surface critical). The IB of students in the latter categories is likely to be more dependent
on reading lists and/or other specific direction by teachers.
Ford related his research to earlier work into deep and surface approaches to learning. Marton and Saljo
(1976, 1984) investigated the approaches to learning of Swedish social science students by asking them to
read a text. The students were then interviewed about their understanding of the text and their approach to
the task. Using what to was become known as the phenomenographic approach, Marton and Saljo (1984)
categorised learners as having either a deep approach to learning (seeking to understand the meaning of the
text by engaging with it holistically) or a surface approach (atomistic, snatching at parts of the meaning and
not attempting to see the whole picture). Entwistle (1998) has linked a deep approach to learning with
intrinsic motivation of the learner (motivated by feelings of personal satisfaction).
2.2 Deep critical thinking and deep critical IB
Ford (1986) concluded that the types of thinking and their associated IBs which emerged from his study are
likely to be influenced by personal (learner) variables. These include learning style, personality,
epistemological levels, and strategic choices linked to extrinsic or intrinsic motivational orientations.
Although the description of Ford’s deep critical thinking category above, implies deep critical IB, in being
open to acquiring, selecting and engaging with information that contributes to different perspectives, the two
activities need not be synchronous. We elaborate this relationship in Table 1.
Deep critical thinking may take place in the absence of deep critical IB if information is not explicitly sought or
encountered in relation to that thinking. This may happen, for example, when a person engages in deep
reflection about the logic of different ideas or arguments, isolated from information sources, even though the
ideas may have been acquired by past IB.
Table 1. Characteristics of deep critical thinking and deep critical IB
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
A person may think critically about an argument they have encountered, but may not critically evaluate the
information source that provided the argument. Conversely, a person may critically evaluate the reliability of
an information source and question its representation of a particular argument, whilst accepting the argument
in an uncritical way.
2.3 Other studies linking IB with approaches to learning and thinking
Limberg (1999) worked with 25 Swedish high school students who had been given the task of researching
the consequences of a possible Swedish EU membership. After interviewing the students about their
information seeking, she identified three qualitatively different categories of information seeking experience.
In category A (labelled ”Fact–finding” by Limberg), ease of access was regarded as important and few
4

sources were used. This accords with Ford's (1986) subcritical approach. By contrast, students with
Category C information seeking experiences (”Scrutinizing and analysing”) engaged with a variety of sources
in order to understand a topic. Limberg (with reference to Marton and Saljo, 1976) related these categories to
a surface/deep learning approach to research: “Students made efforts to relate information sources to one
another, to interpret information with regard to underlying motives and values and to relate parts to whole in
order to discern patterns and construct their understanding of the topic” (Limberg, 1999: 126). This focus on
their own understanding indicates a deep critical approach to the information task.
Students with Limberg’s category B experiences (“Balancing information in order to choose right”, Limberg,
1999, p. 126), did not engage critically with the ideas. As a result, they found it difficult to identify materials
relevant to both sides of the argument and thus present the “balanced” view they thought necessary. Thus, in
Ford’s (1986) categorisation, they might be described as actually engaging in sub-critical thinking (not
evaluating arguments) but oriented to trying to engage with critical thinking (realising that some evaluation is
necessary, whilst failing to achieve this). Their inability to identify the bias and nuances in the material they
examined meant that they could not even achieve a surface critical approach.
Connaway et al. (2011), in a mixed methods, multi-phase investigation into IB and sense-making, found that
both student and faculty respondents identified convenience (both in terms of access and time) as a critical
factor in shaping their searches. One strand of the IB literature identifies the widespread practice amongst
students of this “least effort” approach to information seeking, evaluation and use, with relevance being
judged on the basis of convenience, rather than critical evaluation of the information available (Dresang,
2005; Heinström, 2006; O’Brien and Symons, 2005; Urquhart and Rowley, 2007).
There is evidence that such a “least effort” principle covers different stages of the information seeking
process: failing to identify information needs (Walraven et al., 2008); selecting only familiar search tools (with
reliance on major search engines: establishing what Olsen and Diekema (2012) describe as an “information
comfort zone”); adopting unsophisticated search strategies (Timmers and Glas, 2010); failing to reduce large
volumes of information; spending little time assessing the accuracy, authority or relevance of sources before
drawing on them for academic work; and accepting poor quality information (e.g. Georgas, 2014; University
College London, 2008; Julien and Barker, 2009; Branch, 2003).
In many studies there is implicit or explicit criticism of the sources that learners turn to as convenient and
familiar, notably when these sources are Google and Wikipedia. For example, Judd and Kennedy (2011), in
their study of medical students' IB at a North American university, noted that first year students used Google
and Wikipedia for nearly 80% of their searches. They suggest that
“students' reliance on and familiarity with known tools such as Google and Wikipedia may be contributing to
underlying information literacy problems” (Judd and Kennedy, 2011, p. 359).
Julien and Barker however, report an “uneasy tension” (Julien and Barker,2009, p3) amongst high school
students using Wikipedia, suggesting that IB associated with its use is more nuanced than some
commentators imply, In particular, activities in which students engage in critiquing and editing Wikipedia
have been identified as improving learners’ critical abilities (e.g. Walker and Li, 2016).
So far the focus has been on learners' characteristics: however, in a formal education context, learners are
normally seeking information for a specific academic task, in a given learning and teaching context. Newble
5

and Entwistle (1986) added a third approach to learning, in addition to "surface" and "deep": the strategic
approach. This is
“much more influenced by the context than by the nature of the task itself. In any given learning
situation there may be some difficulty in distinguishing them from students using deep and surface
approaches because they use whatever process they believe is likely to achieve high grades.”
(Newble and Entwistle, 1986, p. 168)
Newble and Entwistle (1986) note that the context for learning (notably, how the teachers teach) will have an
impact on the learners’ approach to learning. Both Newble and Entwistle’s (1986) strategic approach to
learning and Ford’s (1986) surface critical approach can be identified as extrinsically motivated strategies
(e.g. motivated by external rewards). This brings into the picture the learning task, the teacher setting the
task, and the educational context in which it is set. Influential on all these elements is the nature of the
discipline or subject to which the task relates.
This relationship was elaborated in the research-based model that emerged from the large scale project
investigating Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses (Entwistle et al., 2004). This
identifies the teacher, and his/her subject knowledge and pedagogical beliefs, and the influence of the
(disciplinary) academic community, as well as learners’ characteristics, experience and approach to study,
as important determinants of the quality of learning (Entwistle et al., 2004). These elements will be
elaborated in the following sections.
2.4 Learners’ epistemological understandings
The epistemological beliefs of students (i.e. beliefs about learning and knowing) also appear to affect their
Information Behaviour. Schommer (1990) proposed five dimensions of personal epistemology: “(a)
"Knowledge is simple rather than complex" (Simple Knowledge), (b) "Knowledge is handed down by
authority rather than derived from reason" (Omniscient Authority), (c) "Knowledge is certain rather than
tentative" (Certain Knowledge), (d) "The ability to learn is innate rather than acquired" (Innate Ability), and (e)
"Learning is quick or not at all" (Quick Learning).” (Schommer, 1990: 499).
Schommer (1990) tested her ideas by administering a questionnaire with items relating to each dimension,
and following this up with comprehension experiments. She found that the learners’ epistemological beliefs
seemed to affect how they interpreted the information they found. Thus for example, when students with
“strong beliefs in the certainty of knowledge” (who would map well onto Ford’s (1986) sub-critical or surface
categories) came across more ambiguous content, their view of knowledge lead “to the distortion of
information in order to be consistent with this belief” (Schommer, 1990: 503).
Such distortions may have an impact on the way that students search for information. A sample of 290
Iranian undergraduate students who completed an Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (based on Schommer’s work),
together with a questionnaire on IB based on the model developed by Wilson (2000) showed a positive
correlation between the sophistication of their epistemic beliefs and their searching behaviour: i.e. those with
more complex epistemic beliefs also had more complex approaches to IB (Mokhtari, 2014).
2.5 Critiquing the theoretical framework adopted for this study
The deep/surface distinction used as the theoretical framework for this study has arguably become widely
accepted and well established. It has been the subject of numerous studies across different levels of
6

education (e.g. Booth, Luckett, and Mladenovic, 1999; Dart et al., 2000) and has been tested for validity and
reliability (e.g. Wong, Lin and Watkins, 1996).
However, the deep/surface dichotomy – particularly its normative associations whereby deep is deemed
preferable to surface – has been criticised as too simplistic, and as emanating and being sustained from a
limited Western perspective. Biggs (1994) noted the paradox whereby Chinese students emanating from
learning environments emphasising rote learning and memorisation in fact can display high levels of
achievement. In this context memorisation may be an integral part of coming to understand at a deep level.
Other authors have suggested that it may be a misconception to assume a dichotomous distinction between
deep and surface elements of learning, particularly in the case of high achieving Asian students (e.g.
Kember, 2000; Hung, Cheng and Wan, 2016; Webb, 1997).
Marton and Booth (1997, p. 39), however, drew on a study of teacher educators to identify that the Chinese
learner’s experience of memorisation may differ from that of a Western student
“For them, the process of repetition contributes to understanding because different aspects of the
text are in focus with each repetition, which is different from the mechanical memorization which
characterises rote learning.”
Webb (1997, p. 207), in his critique of phenomenography, goes further in suggesting that from a hermeneutic
perspective, a dichotomous distinction between deep and surface may not map onto the real world
complexity of learning:
“Learning, in this view, may be interpreted as the constant movement from part to whole. A simple
example for illustration may be seen in the relationship between understanding the words of a
sentence and the sentence itself. The idea of the hermeneutical circle describes movement from the
word to the sentence, back and forth, in a constant search of understanding and greater illumination.
It could just as easily be applied to the movement from surface (signifier) to deep (signified), back
and forth, in the quest for understanding. Such movement would, of course, be equally possible for
the Western and Chinese learner.”
However, it can be noted that a deep learning approach does not preclude paying attention to detail, and
may well involve examination of part and whole in a similar iterative way. It is also feasible that deep critical
and surface critical information behaviour could coexist and be intertwined; deployed by an individual in such
a hermeneutic circle.
It should also be noted that the well researched and established status, and relatively well developed
measures of the deep and surface learning constructs are not shared by the deep critical and surface critical
constructs which form the basis of the current paper. The former relate to understanding information, the
latter to seeking and critically evaluating alternative pieces of information. Information deeply understood
may not necessarily be subjected to the critical evaluation of its accuracy and value. Compared to deep and
surface understanding, deep and surface critical information behaviour have been the focus of less research
effort.. In this context, the current paper reports what is essentially an exploratory rather than definitive study,
offering tentative – though evidence-based – ideas to be further tested and refined in future research. Future
research could usefully investigate further alternative conceptualisations and measurements of deep and
surface critical information behaviour.
7

2.6 Disciplinarity in relation to IB and teaching
Two ways of categorising disciplines have been particularly influential: those of Biglan, in particular as
adopted by Becher and Trowler (2001) and those of Whitley (2000). We chose to use the Becher/Biglan
approach to categorisation of disciplines for this study’s analysis as Whitley’s approach is more centrally
focused on the discipline’s research community, and less focused on the discipline’s epistemology.
In Biglan’s 1973 study, faculty members at the University of Illinois and at a small liberal arts college were
asked to make judgements about the similarity of academic areas. Their judgements were subjected to a
multivariate analysis from which Biglan identified the now familiar dimensions of Hard / Soft and Pure /
Applied. According to this classification, a Hard Pure discipline (e.g. physics) has strong predictability and
consensus about the most important research questions, and new knowledge emerges through discovery;
whilst a Hard Applied discipline (e.g. engineering) draws on hard pure knowledge but applies it in a practical
context so that the importance of research questions may be driven by real-world needs, and new knowledge
may be experienced as outcomes or products deemed useful.
By contrast a Soft Pure discipline (e.g. history) is likely to develop more recursively, with the field of
knowledge consisting of clusters of ideas rather than evident ‘building blocks’, and with a lack of consensus
on what constitutes an authentic contribution to knowledge. A Soft Applied discipline (e.g. education) draws
on other knowledge domains to interpret and understand situations, and the outcomes of research may be
protocols or procedures which aim to enhance social or personal life in some way (Webber, 2003: Becher
and Trowler, 2001).
Neither Becher and Trowler (2001) nor Whitley (2000) saw these as straightforward categorisations. All
considered the context of research (for example, the structure and politics of the higher education system) to
be crucial, and the problems of categorising a discipline (which may consist of varied and changing sub-
disciplines) were recognised. In the volume which succeeds Becher and Trowler (2001), Trowler et al. (2014)
debate the nature of disciplines in the 21st century, from a social practice perspective. They note increasing
impact from cross-disciplinary factors (e.g. economic pressures and a managerialist Higher Education
environment) which may mute disciplinary difference. However, they assert that “seismic shifts are not all in
one direction” (Trowler, 2014 p.38) with movement towards disciplinary silos as well as away from them,
towards interdisciplinarity. Trowler et al. (2014) conclude that there are still important differences in the way
that teaching and research is carried out in different disciplines,
Hjørland’s socio-cultural perspective has relevance here: he claims that
“tools, concepts, meaning, information structures, information needs, and relevance criteria are
shaped in discourse communities, for example, in scientific disciplines, which are parts of society’s
division of labor” (Hjørland, 2002, 258).
Whilst disciplinary discourse communities open to learners as well as teachers have tended to exist at
tertiary education levels, there is increasing interest, particularly in North America, in “Disciplinary Literacy”
for students at pre-University level. This movement fosters “reading for understanding”, and recognises the
multi-modal way in which young people read information, with “a focus on the specific ways a content area
thinks, uses language, and shares information” (Mongillo, 2017, p.331), even in the elementary classroom.
Goldman et al. (2016) outline a theoretical framework of learning goals for disciplinary literacy in history,
science and literature, and envisage formation of “classroom disciplinary communities” (Goldman et al., p.
8