Abstract
As data technologies advance, a growing number of data extraction tools that encompass a diverse range of information are becoming accessible. Online libraries, general and department-specific search engines, and online resources are becoming increasingly prevalent among students as their primary sources of knowledge. In this study, information-gathering methods were examined as potential indications for employing digital information, and four research questions were developed to guide the research. For the exploration, a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches was employed.
Two distinct groups, one consisting of 10 postgraduate students studying the English language and the other composed of 10 doctoral students studying Islamic studies, were interviewed. Information retrieval, as the determinant for data resource use, was the name given to the questionnaire used as a data collection tool. The study found that because the Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) and internet resources are difficult to access, data supplies must be fully utilized. According to additional research, the academic staff used internet-based search engines more frequently than the OPAC and internet databases.
Introduction
The academic library is the core of higher education, vocational schools, and colleges. They select, gather, and share knowledge to support teaching, learning, and scientific research. Academic libraries support academic processes and serve as information specialists; therefore, they provide information in various formats for easy retrieval and access (Fagbola, 2018). Access to information is different from availability. Effective library use is as important as its holdings, facilities, and other services.
Retrieval tools allow library patrons to discover, access, and use information from a manuscript or document. Online search engines help with education, business, decision-making, and societal growth (Rout et al., 2018). The academic library serves the informational requirements of faculty, academics, and researchers. The library’s purpose is preserved only if all assets are utilized (Singh & Sharma, 2018).
This article explores IRTs as predictors of data resource use in university libraries. The present research will assess the knowledge and usage of these tools among KAU graduate students and investigate variations in their use between English language and Islamic studies doctoral students.
The following study probes were used to conduct the research:
- Do postgraduate students have good knowledge of IRTs?
- Are there differences between English language and Islamic studies doctoral students in their familiarity with IRTs?
- Does taking information organization courses help students use IRTs?
- Does mastering the English language help students become familiar with IRTs?
Literature Review
The collection must have effective data retrieval tools. Data retrieval techniques might be printed or digital. Content retrieval tools use and extract data from publications in information repositories. Data-gathering tools are simple gadgets or procedures that help library clients discover, identify, and utilize books, papers, and other materials (Joudrey et al., 2018). Online public access, records, databases, and search engines are choices. As technology advances, customers have more ways to find data.
The rapid development of data technology has led to the emergence of more data retrieval techniques with diverse content. Due to its bulk, academic information is often difficult to locate. Selecting the right information extraction strategies is vital to fulfilling user requests for academic data. Due to the increasing availability of online resources and archives, many students use these tools to find data rapidly. Due to the Internet’s rapid and free access to a vast amount of information, many choose to utilize it over library books.
Google is the most popular search engine worldwide. Users like how simple and informative it is. Google symbolizes the research. Recent data demonstrates that students prefer Google over library directories and other digital citation sources to locate information. Global search results are often the most effective academic search tools, but they also include millions of non-scientific resources. Time is wasted picking the correct resources.
Since not all restricted and membership-required sites are accessible by universal content retrieval tools, many major and compelling material sources are missing. General information-gathering approaches help identify popular and amusing items (David-West, 2020). Searching for scientific information requires certain data-gathering instruments.
When considering search and retrieval techniques, consider the following. Entities, information centers, worldwide publishing companies, international offices, and others produce data capture technologies, which can be displayed in thematic, textual, and geographical settings. Most of these strategies target a certain format, form, group, or academic field.
Standard search engines are less effective in searching database material than specialist information-seeking engines. To better serve consumers, specialized media extraction systems look for specific content. Google Scholar is the most widely used specialized academic publications retrieval software (Pulikowski & Matysek, 2021). Google Scholar is a quick and easy tool for conducting thorough searches of peer-reviewed literature.
One can browse various fields and resources from a single location, including scholarly presses, professional associations, online archives, institutions, and other relevant sites. These materials include articles, research papers, books, dissertations, and court judgments. In the realm of scholarly research, Google Scholar facilitates the discovery of relevant materials (David-West, 2020). Google Scholar strives to rate articles the same way scholars do by considering each one’s complete text, the location of its publication, and other factors.
Libraries worldwide began to actively include businesses in the massive digitization of their holdings. Google began scanning books in 2004 and signed agreements with numerous institutions, with the ultimate goal of making human understanding accessible on the Internet. Google has developed a comprehensive set of technological solutions, aligning with its innovative approach to addressing complex issues, and demonstrating that the time for widespread digital access has indeed arrived.
Google Books is a reliable method for finding eBooks. Books of various publishing dates, genres, and themes can be found in the database because publishers, writers, or institutions supply them. It is possible to give details on publications, book snippets, or the complete text of a magazine.
Through nationwide memberships agreed upon, the internet information collection provides unrestricted and persistent access to relevant articles from hundreds of scientific publications and digital electronic books from several of the most significant content sources to study and educational organizations. It began running in March 2005 and has provided access to many scientific articles. It is now a benchmark for universal access to professional knowledge (Rahoo et al., 2019).
It links together organizations of various kinds, including higher education, technical innovation and development, healthcare, and governmental and commercial non-profit management. Only subscribers to this knowledge-gathering system are allowed access. A variety of specialized knowledge gateways and virtual bookstores have been created due to the Internet’s vast array of digital resources and capabilities.
Virtual bookstores are designed to serve the requirements of a real organization, a community, or an academic field (Jakutienė & Civilkienė, 2021). They offer the retrieval of data from many sources. Information extraction is a collaborative activity, and the effectiveness of the method relies on the user’s learning and expertise in the field, the nature and kind of data needed, and the tools that are best suited for the job.
After thoroughly reviewing behavioral information and information retrieval tools, I investigated the behavior of postgraduate students at KAU in relation to these tools. First, I came across Joudrey & Taylor’s book “The Organization of Information.” In Chapter 3, the authors explained different retrieval tools, which I learned about after their introduction.
After reviewing various definitions of IRTs in Wikipedia and Google Scholar articles, I became curious about students’ behavior toward it. Thus, I went on Google Scholar and typed ‘retrieval tools and students. I came across different articles that searched students’ usage of IRTs; many of these studies were conducted on postgraduate students. Therefore, I decided to conduct my research on KAU postgraduate students to uncover the level of knowledge they have about IRTs.
After selecting the research topic, I logged in to the digital library at King Abdul-Aziz University to find related studies. While searching for articles, I stumbled upon a comparative study of students’ behavior toward IR tools. The students were from two different nationalities. I searched for comparative studies that examined students’ behavior towards IRTs and tried to find ones that focused on students from other majors. More specifically, studies that explore the differences in knowledge of IRTs between English language and Islamic studies master’s students. However, I understand this research gap has yet to be filled. Thus, I chose to conduct my research on these two groups.
To achieve the research objectives, I distributed a survey to the respondents. I read several other types of research to find a suitable survey to adapt. Fortunately, I found a study conducted on Pakistani postgraduate students that used a survey to collect the data. The survey will be edited to better understand students’ familiarity with IRTs. The following are examples of the studies collected for my proposed topic.
Methodology
The researcher will employ a combined quantitative and qualitative approach to address the study’s issues. The researcher will first choose two separate groups. Ten postgraduate students studying the English language comprise one group, while ten doctoral students studying Islamic studies comprise the other. After that, each respondent will receive an online survey. The replies will then be compiled and subjected to quantitative and qualitative analysis to find answers to the two study questions.
Data and Results
The online survey replies of the targeted populations will be used to gather information for the study. 20 postgraduate students will be given internet tests, with 10 taking English language courses and the other 10 taking Islamic studies classes (SurveyMonkey, 2022). These participants will be advanced learners who have completed at least one year of master’s coursework and many scholarly research projects.
The following data results demonstrate how the samples answered the question of whether or not having a strong command of the English language is necessary to get the most out of information-gathering tools: Yes, 61.11%, which is equivalent to 11 responses; no, 11.11%, which is equivalent to 2 respondents; perhaps, 27.78%, which corresponds to 5 responses. The results make it abundantly evident that a command of the English language is necessary for effective information retrieval.
Rahoo et al.’s (2019) study showed that Search Engines had a 40% response rate with 8 respondents. In comparison, the Library Catalog had a 0% response rate with 0 respondents. Online Databases and Digital Libraries had a 30% response rate with 6 respondents each. Results indicate that Internet search engines are the primary IRTs used by participants.
Additionally, the survey’s findings showed that using the tools had a positive impact on the participants’ social and academic lives. They increased their overall understanding of various subjects. The Internet browser engines are the primary IRTs used by the participants, according to secondary data (Rahoo et al., 2019). The study’s results also showed that using the tools had a positive effect on the participants’ social and academic lives, increasing their general awareness of various problems.
The study on the usage of IRTs among Lithuanian and Portuguese students showed the following: Search Engines (e.g., Google) at 45% with 9 respondents, Book and Card Catalog at 0% with 0 respondents, Online Databases (e.g., university digital library) at 55% with 11 respondents, and OPAC at 0% with 0 respondents. This survey found that students increasingly use online libraries as their primary sources of knowledge.
Google Scholar was recognized as the most significant search engine for retrieving scientific material by every research survey interviewee. It is crucial to select IRTs that are suited for the job to ensure reliable scientific information sources and meet user information requests. The quest for scientific data is far more effective than popular, entertaining data, according to universal information retrieval systems.
David-West (2020) findings showed the following results: It is hard to deal with the vast amounts of information available at 10% with 2 respondents, it is hard to index my information needs at 0% with 0 respondent, it’s hard to know where the information that are related to the topic I’m interested in at 30% with 6 respondents, some sources of information are difficult to access at 35% with 7 respondents. Lack of appropriate skills and sufficient knowledge of IRTs at 25% with 5 respondents, Difficulty understanding existing information at 0% with 0 respondents, and financial difficulties at 0% with 0 respondents.
This study examined how faculty members used various retrieval methods, including the OPAC, online databases, and web search engines. The results demonstrate the beneficial effects of online databases, search engines, and virtual databases on information extraction among the faculty of the Institution of Higher Education in Port Harcourt. The research found that because the OPAC and internet sources are difficult to access, data sources are underused. Additional research revealed that academic employees used web-based search engines more frequently than the OPAC and digital libraries (David-West, 2020).
The enhancement of students’ academic performance is a direct result of the use of IR tools in their everyday lives. 90% is the highest ratio. The absolute minimum ratio is 5%, which results in a stronger connection to career and study prospects worldwide, as well as a solid understanding of the latest global events. In addition to this, the research outcomes showed that their overall academic performance has improved as a result of using the tools mentioned earlier.
Conclusion
To conclude, information extraction is a dynamic operation, and the procedure’s effectiveness relies on the skills and expertise of knowledge discovery, the nature and type of the required material, and well-chosen content retrieval tools. When seeking the entire database, universal knowledge retrieval techniques are helpful. Consequently, the query results produced by specific content extraction systems effectively fit the demands of the consumers. Google Scholar is among the most widely used expert data capture platforms.
The majority of learners struggle with the abundance of data available online, making it challenging for them to utilize it effectively. More instruction is required for students who use electronic tools to advance their academic skills. The bookstore should arrange for informational training on its offerings. The instructor should encourage the student to utilize resources for acquiring information.
The most popular comprehensive retrieval tool is a web search engine. OPAC is a crucial tool to employ in the library to discover what materials are accessible, whether they are in hard copy or electronic form. In the survey, a large percentage of graduate students were concerned about using online resources to conduct information searches.
References
David-West, B. T. (2020). Information retrieval tools are predictors for resource utilization in academic libraries in Nigeria. International Journal of Knowledge Content. Development & Technology, 10(3), 21-31
Fagbola, O. O. (2018). Indexing and abstracting as tools for information retrieval in digital libraries. Information Retrieval and Management, 3(35), 905–927. Web.
Jakutienė, R., & Civilkienė, D. (2021). The Use of Information Retrieval Tools: Differences between Lithuanian and Portuguese Students. Professional Studies: Theory and Practice, 23(8), 23-31.
Joudrey, D. N., Taylor, A. G., & Wisser, K. M. (2018). The organization of information. Libraries Unlimited.
Pulikowski, A., & Matysek, A. (2021). Searching for LIS scholarly publications: A comparison of search results from Google, Google Scholar, EDS, and Lisa. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(5), 102417. Web.
Rahoo, L. A., Nagar, M. A., & Bhutto, A. (2019). The use of information retrieval tools by the postgraduate students of Higher Educational Institutes of Pakistan. Asian Journal of Contemporary Education, 3(1), 59–64. Web.
Rout, R., Panigrahi, P., & Bandyopadhyay, R. (2018). An ontology-based subject searching framework for the Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC). Journal of Library and Information Communication Technology, 7(1), 20. Web.
Singh, A., & Sharma, A. (2018). Web semantics for personalized information retrieval. Information Retrieval and Management, 5(25), 795–810. Web.
Student searching behavior and the web: Use of academic resources and… (n.d.). Web.
SurveyMonkey. (n.d.). Survey results. Welcome to SurveyMonkey! Web.