ASK A QUESTION
My hypothetical study involves college freshmen and their perceptions of information literacy. Though largely adroit in terms of communication technologies, this multifaceted group may lack information literacy proficiency (Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005; Gross & Latha, 2013; Jones, 2007). They can be described as having inflated perceptions of their ability to locate, synthesize and critically assess information. College students’ “self-taught” media skills often do not match the level at which they scrutinize content (Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005; Gross & Latham, 2013; Jones, 2007). Furthermore, it can be argued that college freshmen view the academic library as a place to propel them in their self-guided pursuits as opposed to a resource by which they can receive instruction or training with—perish the thought—a librarian as the facilitator. In this vein, competency theory (Kruger, J., & Dunning, D., 1999), which posits that individuals with some domain knowledge are often unable to recognize their deficiencies and therefore tend to overestimate their skill level, is used as the theoretical framework herein.
My research question are: How do FSU freshmen rate their information-literacy skills? How do students’ perceptions compare to their abilities?
PICK A CASE
The particular case that I will study is FSU freshman students who reported their information-literacy skills to be moderate to high. I will investigate the logic and information by which the students assessed themselves. The purpose is to understand how students perceive information literacy; their experience or exposure (if any) to K-12 information literacy instruction; and their current information technology proficiency. I will not set a limit on the number of students that I will interview, which leads me to the next point.
DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF CASE
I have chosen the holistic multiple-case replication design. Thus, I will replicate the “experiment” or inquiry by continuing to study students until I have reached a point of saturation. I will choose participants, or cases, based on student demographic information. My aim is to obtain a group that is representative of the population parameter. In terms of technique, I will utilize the in-depth interview and will have a questionnaire. Since I am aiming for “the replication of an experiment” (Yin, p. 52), the case study research must be standardized or formal. Thus, based on our previous interview readings, I must strike a balance between conversation and interrogation. Though a multiple-case design requires more resources and time, my research question and desired outcome calls for a comprehensive description; the multiple-case design is the way to derive exhaustive information.
TYPE OF DATA AND ANALYSIS
When it comes to data, I must first ask assessment questions in order to see if students self-perceived moderate-to-high information skills are accurate. Students should be able to briefly employ information literacy skills. Afterward, I will probe to distinguish whether the participants earnestly understand the definition and concepts of information literacy. It is also important for me to distinguish the students K-12 information literacy education. Regarding the analysis technique, I will use the constant comparative method in order to synthesize, examine, compare, conceptualize and categorize data.
HOW COULD THE FINDINGS DIFFER FROM WHAT THEY WOULD BE IF I DID A STUDY ON THE SAME QUESTION BUT WITH MORE PARTICIPANTS/SITES/DATA AND FEWER DATA TYPES?
Another way to approach this same study is via a survey study. However, survey research is often superficial and lends itself to the very phenomenon that I intend to study: college freshman’s inflated perceptions of their information literacy skills. A trajectory involving multiple case study design utilizing in-depth interviews and constant comparative analysis will allow for deep exploration and skills assessment. As Yin mentioned, “the evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust.” (p.41)