THE GOOGLE GENERATION STEREOTYPE

Natasha Choolhun usefully defines ‘Google generation’ as “a term widely used to refer to young people who are completely au fait with the internet and rely on Google for their information seeking”Footnote ⁴.

There is a popular conception among the general public that because the Google generation are au fait with the internet they are information literate. There is a popular conception among librarians and information literacy professionals, however, that because the Google generation are au fait with the internet they are not information literate. This is supported by many articles and studies. The Google generation are often characterised by:

• • carrying out fewer searches, viewing fewer pages and relying on cutting and pasting to formulate search statements more than older generationsFootnote ⁵;

• • relying heavily on search engines, viewing rather than reading, not possessing critical and analytical skills to assess the info they find on the webFootnote ⁶;

• • focusing on quantity of info and having a disregard for critical and meaningful interpretation of informationFootnote ⁷; and

• • not being careful discerning users of the internet, being unable to find the info they are looking for, or trusting the first thing they seeFootnote ⁸.

Choolhun notes that a report from the British Library and Joint Information Systems Committee found that the characteristics of the Google generation are not actually age specific, but more a “digital mindset”Footnote ⁹. Choolhun also cites a JISC report which states that “information literacies, including searching, retrieving, critically evaluating information from a range of appropriate sources and also attributing it – represent a significant and growing deficit area”Footnote ¹⁰.

So if this is the broader problem, how do we measure and if necessary improve standards of information literacy at sixth-form level?

INFORMATION LITERACY STANDARDS

Several standards of information literacy have been developed, the key ones in this sector are probably the BIALL Information Literacy Statement and the ACLR 2000:

BIALL Legal Information Literacy StatementFootnote ¹¹

• • Research skill 1 - Demonstrate an understanding of the need for the thorough investigation of all relevant factual and legal issues involved in a research task

• • Research skill 2 - Demonstrate the ability to undertake systematic and comprehensive legal research

• • Research skill 3 - Demonstrate the ability to analyse research findings effectively

• • Research skill 4 - Demonstrate the ability to present the results of research in an appropriate and effective manner

• • Research skill 5 – Continuing Professional Development – refreshing the legal research skills required of a modern lawyer

ACLR Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher EducationFootnote ¹²

• • Determine the extent of information needed

• • Access the needed information effectively and efficiently

• • Evaluate information and its sources critically

• • Incorporate selected information into one's knowledge base

• • Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose

• • Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally

These may not be appropriate for sixth-formers however. Most standards are aimed at students of at least undergraduate level so useful standards can be difficult to find. Miller and Bartlett address information literacy in young people in general, however, and include a survey of secondary school teachers in the UKFootnote ¹³. The authors challenge the relevancy of information literacy standards such as the ACLR and SCONULFootnote ¹⁴ and argue that the debate should be focused more on criticality; the ability to critically evaluate the information found. The authors quote Paul Gilster who defines this in layman's terms as “the ability to make informed judgments about what you find online”Footnote ¹⁵. This seems to be a more realistic standard to measure school students against.

Miller and Bartlett go on to suggest using the concept of ‘digital fluency’ rather than digital literacy or information literacy and break this down into three components:

1. 1. net-savviness: e.g. how search engines return results, how identity can be established and faked;

2. 2. critical evaluative techniques: assessing the trustworthiness and accuracy of information; and

3. 3. diversity: use of broad, varied and diverse sources.

Again, this could be used at school level.

So how did the students at Shearman & Sterling fare against these standards?

THE SHEARMAN & STERLING SESSIONS

The aim was to equip the students with the information literacy skills needed at HE level (and possibly at ‘A’ level), by looking at:

1. 1. authority/reliability of websites, including discussion of primary and secondary sources and of not everything being on Google (reference books were provided);

2. 2. ‘the hidden web’ – it may not be possible to Google an answer, it may be necessary to Google a source and then search that source for the answer (e.g. statistical information within a spreadsheet, searching a library catalogue). This was also an opportunity to demonstrate union library catalogues (e.g. COPAC) and discuss access and inter library loans in preparation for HE;

3. 3. the concept of Boolean searching and narrowing down a search, including field searching and placing terms in parenthesis (nesting);

4. 4. identifying key concepts and search terms in a research brief rather than relying on natural language; and

5. 5. how to cite sources.

The sessions were delivered in two parts of one hour each. Part 1 was a taught session with demonstrations, some hands-on examples and audience interaction. Part 2 was a hands-on session with students being given research questions. Time was allowed for information literacy online games at the end of Part 2, selected to test the students' understanding (see Appendix).

THE RESULTS

1. 1 Authority

   1. (a) The students were shown three URLs for money laundering websites and asked to say which they thought were more authoritative:

      http://www.laundryman.u-net.com/

      http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/scandals/launder.html

      http://www.jmlsg.org.uk/.

      The students did know what the domain descriptors were, but the concept of authority of websites and looking at domains appeared completely new. On looking at URLs all rated the academic webpage highly even though the URL made it clear this was an individual's personal webpage within the university website. On looking at the actual websites they rated them by the look and feel. This approach is not wrong (e.g. there are likely to be fewer if any adverts on official websites) but the students thought this more important than domain.

   2. (b) The students were asked to find a definition of estoppel in English law and a description of the ‘newspaper rule’ in libel using Google or the books provided, and to say which they thought was the most authoritative sources.

      None showed much inclination to use the books provided when they couldn't find an answer using Google, but when reminded did check the table of contents and index to successfully find the answer.

   3. (c) The students were asked to give examples of primary and secondary sources which they did fairly successfully; they had been taught about this at school.

2. 2 The hidden web

   The idea that Google will not necessarily search within websites which have their own search function was also new, the most obvious example being using a library catalogue to locate a book. When asked to find a particular book at a local library it became clear that they were used to using textbooks but not identifying and locating copies themselves. Other examples discussed were user-generated statistics within websites such as the Office for National Statistics, for example, or a case database such as BAILII.

3. 3 Narrowing down/Boolean searching

   The students were given demonstrations of how to find articles on graduate recruitment in the UK on Google Advanced, HeinOnline and IngentaConnect, including using Boolean operators and searching specific fields (title only v title and abstract v full text). They were later asked to find articles on delay claims and extensions of time in construction law.

   The students appeared completely unfamiliar with concept of narrowing down a search to achieve fewer more relevant results (I pointed to the decreasing no. of results on Google to astonishment; they had never noticed the number of results before). They had not heard of relevance ranking and seemed unaware that many sites are optimised to appear artificially high up in the list of results.

   They appeared genuinely interested in Google Advanced and the site/domain restrictor which they had never seen (e.g. site: ac.uk). There was a mixture of results in the information literacy games used to test this at the end of Part 2; some did well but some still did not appear to have understood how to narrow a search.

   They appeared completely unfamiliar with the concept of field searching.

4. 4 Identifying key concepts

   The students were able to identify key search terms in a paragraph about construction law yet did not always appear good at reading a question carefully. Using the example of finding out which university Judge Peter Clark attended, some of the students found a university webpage for another Peter Clark and thought they had found the answer. Others used natural language rather than search terms, actually typing ‘Which university did Judge Peter Clark attend?’ in Google.

5. 5 Citations

   The students were shown a list of 5 citations and asked to say which type of source each referred to (act, book, guidelines on a website, journal article, case). They could not tell which was a book and which was a journal, though they could identify a website, an act and a case. The students found the information literacy game on correctly citing sources the hardest.

At the end of the session at least one student was looking for journal articles on IngentaConnect for his physics ‘A’ level: not a planned outcome of the training sessions but a very pleasing one.

WERE THE STUDENTS INFORMATION LITERATE ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS?

While these students were sixth formers, not undergraduates let alone LPC students or trainee solicitors, the results do support the Google generation stereotype of low levels of information literacy. Their information-seeking behaviour was characterised by natural language searching, viewing rather than reading (for example lack of attention to detail in reading a person's name), not being careful discerning users of the internet and trusting the first thing they saw (the Judge Peter Clark example and website authority in general). They did not think to consider the concepts of authority or reliability of a website, and narrowing down a search on Google was completely new to them.

They did find answers in books when prompted but were slow to choose books over Google.

Using the BIALL and ACLR criteria my students were definitely not information literate: at the beginning of the sessions their written comprehension, search strategies and evaluation and citing of sources were not up to the standards.

Using Miller and Bartlett's three components of digital fluency, the students fared better but were still not completely digitally fluent: they did not know how to check who hosts a website (or rather did not think of checking) (‘net-savviness’); they did not know how Google ranks results (also ‘net-savviness’); and they relied on look and feel of a website for its trustworthiness (‘critical evaluative techniques’). By the end of the sessions they were beginning to make informed judgments about what they found online (Gilster). Though not tested here, the authors also note that diversity of information is an issue as people filter sources through social media, thereby surrounding themselves with like-minded people and not exposing themselves to a diversity of sources. The students in these sessions were all Facebook users.

TEACHING THE LAW STUDENTS AND TRAINEE SOLICITORS OF THE FUTURE

It seems lack of information literacy is an issue at school level. Most of the information literacy standards considered are aimed at HE level but even using Miller and Bartlett's concept of digital fluency and Gilster's criticality, the students were not very fluent. The issue seems to be with the evaluation of sources rather than the inability to find information in the first place, but there is still a lack of understanding of how to narrow down a search. This fits with the characteristics of the Google generation.

That said, the students were quick to learn and appeared genuinely interested in new search techniques. So while there are implications in these students' state of information literacy for the law students and lawyers of the future, these can be addressed by new ways of teaching. Cmor and LiFootnote ¹⁶ suggest a shift to a use of ‘discovery’ systemsFootnote ¹⁷ and away from the “historical focus on explanatory searching and citing, towards exploratory higher level thinking in relation to evaluating and using information itself”. Witec and Grettano believe Facebook has functions (feeds, share and comment) which can and should be used in information literacy training. ‘Feeds’ can correlate to access and control; ‘Share’ to evaluation and synthesis; and ‘Comment’ to collaboration and discourseFootnote ¹⁸ These approaches are valid as information retrieval moves away from traditional search screens and operators, but there is still a need to teach concepts such as narrowing down a search and using advanced search techniques.

It is worth noting that today's trainee solicitors are not part of the Google generation or digital natives based on the British Library/JISC definition of being born after 1993, so the Google generation effect on law students and trainees is likely to become more marked in the future.

Bartlett & Miller recommend that digital fluency be taught more widely in schools and found 88% of teachers in their survey supported this. The students in these sessions had been taught the difference between primary and secondary sources and could use the index in a book but still took a fairly unstructured approach to actual searching. If information literacy is taught in schools, and if we adapt our training sessions (Cmor and Li, Witek and Grettano) but retain a focus on the key concepts of the information literacy standards, we can ensure an information literate generation of lawyers in the future.