Impetuses for First and Third Year Law Student Information Seeking Behavior and Plagiarism

摘要

In this poster presentation, I describe an ongoingrnethnographic study that is examining how first and thirdrnyear law students’ age, comprehension of plagiarism, andrnprevious exposure to information literacy training affectsrnthe information sources law students select, and their choicernof whether or not to give appropriate attribution to utilizedrninformation sources. Although law student informationrnseeking behavior has previously been analyzed, pastrnresearch did not examine the above-mentioned factors andrnhow these factors affected law student information seekingrnbehavior and potential plagiaristic behavior.rnPrevious research indicated law students’ informationrnseeking behavior was affected by academic task and thernrelevant substantive area (Leckie, Pettigrew, & Sylvain,rn1996). Some tasks assigned to law students consist ofrndrafting memos, briefs, and complaints. Additionally, lawrnstudents are often required to complete multiple draftingrnassignments during one academic period. Thus, timernrestrictions and task assignment often determine whichrnsources a law student selects when completing assignments.rnSome of the sources law students consult are commonlyrnreferred to by the law school community as primaryrnsources, and they include items such as federal and staternstatutes, case law, and regulations (Chandler, 2000, p. 158).rnAdditionally, law students also consult materials commonlyrnreferred to as secondary sources, which consist of lawrnreview articles, bar journals, legal encyclopedias, legalrndictionaries, Restatements of the Law, form guides, andrnpractice guides (Chandler, 2000, p. 159). These primary andrnsecondary sources generally provide more reliable and validrninformation; however, law students may not consult thesernitems because locating and extracting information fromrnthem is more time consuming compared to using a tertiaryrnsource, such as Google. For example, in our age ofrnexpecting instant access to information, a law student canrnaccess some type of legal information in less than a minuternvia a search engine (tertiary source), whereas, locating legalrninformation via an electronic legal database or from a printrnsource (primary or secondary source) could take an hour orrnmore. However, the conundrum created when juxtaposingrninformation found via a search engine and informationrnmined from a primary or secondary information source, isrnthat the information extracted from the primary orrnsecondary source is probably more valid and reliable.rnDespite locating more valid and reliable information via arnprimary or secondary source, using the path of leastrnresistance (e.g., a search engine) to locate neededrninformation is not restricted to law students. Regardless ofrnthe substantive area, human nature often dictates thernutilization of the most efficiently located sources to findrnneeded information, regardless of the validity and reliabilityrnof the content included in those quickly obtainedrninformation sources. For example, Zipf (1949)rndemonstrated how humans tended to complete the leastrnamount of work possible to finalize various tasks. Zipfrnillustrated his point via linguistic studies and showed thatrnhumans preferred to choose short and common words for asrnmany communication tasks as possible, rather thanrnselecting esoteric, bigger words to make their point. Zipfrntermed this type of behavior as a case for least effortrnharmonic distribution. Zipf’s research has been replicatedrnby other researchers. For example, Case (2012) showed thatrnlibrary patrons tended to use 20% of the books located inrnthe library to complete 80% of their information need tasks.rnLeckie et al. (1996) additionally conveyed that some of thernmost frequent motivators of using information sourcesrnincluded convenience, timeliness, and the accessibility ofrnthe source.rnThis ethnographic study uses Zipf’s least effort harmonicrndistribution paradigm and the Lecki et al. (1996)rninformation seeking behavior model as a guide to learningrnmore about what information sources law students utilize tornobtain needed information. For example, are they usingrnsources that obtain the most reliable and valid information?rnOr, are they simply using the most easily obtainablerninformation? Further, how does their age, understanding ofrnplagiarism, and previous exposure to information literacyrntraining affect their information behavior seeking process?rnPlagiaristic behavior of law students is also examined inrnthis study because recent research suggests academicrnplagiarism is increasing. For example, Austin et al. (2006)rnfound 80% of respondents to a questionnaire of selfreportingrnplagiarism confessed to committing plagiarism atrnleast one time. Therefore, while also examining how age,rnunderstanding of plagiarism, and previous exposure torninformation literacy affect law student information seeking;rnthe researcher is also seeking to discover how these factorsrnaffect students’ choices of when to and not to givernattribution to the information sources they utilize. Exposurernto information literacy is examined because most lawrnstudents participate in an information literacy course suchrnas Legal Research and Writing in their first year of classes.rnSubsequently, law students usually participate in an ethicsrnclass, which discusses plagiarism, in their second year ofrnstudy. Thus, it is interesting to determine the effect of thesernclasses and any other information literacy training has onrnplagiaristic behavior.rnThe methodology used in this study consists of arnquantitative and qualitative approach utilizing surveys andrnfocus groups. The subjects included in this study includernfirst and third year law students from four separate lawrnschools in the state of Texas (Baylor Law School, thernUniversity of Texas School of Law, Texas A&M UniversityrnSchool of Law, and Thurgood Marshall School of Law). Arnpreliminary survey gathers information to help craft surveyrnquestions. Subsequently, an online survey is delivered tornfirst and third year law students at the four abovementionedrnlaw schools. Then, based on the data collectedrnfrom the online surveys, two focus groups are conducted atrneach law school (one focus group consisting of first yearrnlaws students, and one consisting of third year law students)rnin an attempt to corroborate the information garnered in thernonline survey. The gathered data is then analyzed via SPSS,rnNVivo, and a thematic approach. In essence, at least 100rnsubjects from each school, for a total of 400 subjects, arernincluded in the law student survey pool. Additionally, eachrnfocus group will have at least six subjects participating.rnHaving such a multitude of subjects from schools thatrnmatriculate students of diverse race an age increases thernrepresentativeness of the study.rnTherefore, in sum, this study discovers how age,rncomprehension of plagiarism, and previous exposure torninformation literacy training affects the information seekingrnbehavior of law students, and whether they decide to givernappropriate attribution to the information sources utilized.