Information Seeking Behaviors of Music Students
I. Introduction
Library resources are far from the only tools students use to conduct
research. Google, Wikipedia, Google Books, and other sites have quickly taken
their place next to library catalogs and subscription databases. In part this is due
to the fact that studies have shown that if an information system (website,
database, library shelving arrangement, etc.) is hard to use, most people will quit
before finding what they need and/or will turn to a perceived alternative,
simpler, source such as Google or Wikipedia (Connaway et al, 2011).
Some resource types pose even greater challenges to researchers. Music is
a perfect example of this. Musicians need materials beyond books and journals.
Musical scores and recordings are of primary importance to performing
musicians and music scholars, and come with their own inherent discovery
difficulties. The multitude of formats, such as LPs and CDs for recordings and
full, vocal, and miniature scores for printed music scores (not to mention parts),
versions that have been orchestrated or arranged for different
instruments/voices, the high occurrence of foreign languages, the frequent
presence of both generic (e.g., sonata) and nickname titles (e.g., “Eroica”
Symphony), and the resulting need for uniform titles in catalog records, and the
frequent need to find a smaller item in a larger context, such as one song in an
anthology, CD, or collected works edition, make finding music scores and
recordings a tricky subject to navigate for the average patron. This is why even a
“known item” music search can be quite involved and why many music
reference interactions involve a high level of instruction (Dougan, 2013).
This study explores how and via what tools music students are
identifying, locating, and accessing music materials—specifically, scores and
recordings—for use in their music studies. Among the questions examined are
whether students in the early stages of their academic careers differ in their
music information seeking behavior from those in later stages; whether the
student’s field of study (e.g., performance or musicology) affects his/her search
choices; and what information is important to them as they seek music in its
various formats. Additional questions asked whether and why students get
frustrated in the search process and whether and from where they seek help.
II. Background
In spring 2011 the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign School of
Music had an enrollment of 718 students (243 doctoral, 107 masters, and 368
undergraduates). Of these, 367 students listed their area of specialization as
performance (including conducting and accompanying), 204 as education
(including piano pedagogy), 38 as musicology or music history, and 29 as music
theory or composition. Eighty students listed no specific area of study. The
2
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Music and Performing Arts Library
houses almost 750,000 music, dance, and theatre items in almost all print and
audio-visual formats encompassing all types of music from around the world.
III. Literature Review
There have been numerous studies of information seeking behavior in the
past 25 years. Some of these have focused on faculty, students at the
undergraduate or graduate level (Head and Eisenberg, 2009), or scholars in a
particular discipline. Marcia Bates noted in 1996 the lack of studies on
information seeking in the arts (Bates, 1996). In 1985 Susan Clegg advocated for
user research in music so that decisions are made based on users’ needs and not
librarians’ perceptions of them (Clegg, 1985). Several studies have looked at use
issues related to finding music materials in library catalogs (Drone, 1984;
Gardinier, 2004; King, 2005; Snyder, 2010) or have looked at the information
seeking behavior of specific music communities (Hunter, 2006; Liew and Siong,
2006), but none have examined the general habits of music students.
Lai and Chan (2010) discuss the findings of a survey of faculty and
students in their music department about the importance of and frequency with
which they use different score types and other library resources in their work,
their satisfaction with the current content coverage of the music collection across
all formats, and preferences in score collection development directions. Students
3
found scores to be more important than other material types and used them most
frequently, with multimedia a close second (Lai and Chan, 2010, p. 65). They also
found that performers use scores and multimedia more than academics do (Lai
and Chan, 2010, p. 68).
A separate field, music information retrieval, has several facets, one of
which concentrates on information seeking behaviors of individuals in
“everyday life” in recreational contexts (i.e., not for scholarly use) (Laplante and
Downie, 2011). One area these studies investigate is what types of music
information seeking queries are posted to non-library tools like Google Answers
(Lee, 2010). These studies are not limited to popular music, but are focused on
“real-life” information needs asked outside of a library setting. Of course, this
could include music students, but also includes a wider range of queries.
Christine Brown’s 2002 study examined faculty music scholars and their
research process. While students are not yet scholars in the true sense, her
findings that recordings are more important than scores and are used at different
stages of research (Brown, 2002, p. 82) are applicable to them. Ben Hunter’s 2006
look at graduate student composers of electro-acoustic music highlighted the
interdisciplinary nature of that field. Their use of hardware and software beyond
what a traditional musician would use means they utilize different resources
(Hunter, 2006, p. 7). It exposed how they use scores and recordings to learn the
4
physical and sound capabilities of instruments (Hunter, 2006, p. 9) and how
their location in relation to the library determines their information seeking
behaviors (Hunter, 2006, pp. 6-7). Chern Li Liew and Ngor Ng Siong’s 2006 study
of New Zealand faculty ethnomusicologists found that recordings are also of
utmost importance to them and that these can include field recordings or foreign
recordings not available in their institution’s library (Liew and Siong, 2006, p.
66). They also found that ethnomusicologists value public libraries’ recording
collections because they are often arranged in a way that makes discovery easier
(Liew and Siong, 2006, p. 62).
Librarians’ classroom information literacy efforts impact information
seeking in students more than in other user groups (although anecdotally,
faculty frequently comment that they learn as much from those sessions as their
students do). Cary and Sampsel’s 2006 article discusses how the Music Library
Association created a set of information literacy instructional objectives for
undergraduate music majors based on ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education. Two additional articles, Abromeit and Vaughan
(2004), and Christensen (2004), articulate how to approach curriculum-based
music information literacy. All of these articles focus on undergraduate
instruction and not graduate information needs.
IV. Methodology
5
In the first phase of this study, conducted during the spring semester of
2011, undergraduate and graduate music students at the University were invited
to complete an online survey. The survey (See Appendix A) was linked from the
Music and Performing Arts Library (MPAL) home page, which is the default
home page on all MPAL computer browsers, for three weeks. For one week a
pop-up box also appeared the first time anyone logged into a browser, pointing
them to the survey. Respondents were required to log in using their University
NetID, which verified that they were affiliated with the university and prevented
them from taking the survey more than once. Twenty questions were designed to
collect feedback about how often music students look for music scores and
recordings in the course of their music studies, what tools they use to find music
scores and recordings, what data elements are important to them when searching
for scores and recordings, how they learned about various online tools, whether
they get frustrated when searching for scores and recordings, and if they seek
help when they encounter difficulties.
In the second phase of the study, conducted in the fall semester of 2011,
students were recruited to participate in focus groups to discuss their music
information seeking behavior. (See Appendix B for list of focus group questions).
The first focus group consisted of three graduate students, while the second was
comprised of seven undergraduate music students. Each group was asked the
6
same set of questions, but the conversation was allowed to go into other, related,
topics as the participants wished. A student in the University’s Graduate School
of Library and Information Science, who was completing a reference practicum
in MPAL at the time, led the focus groups in the hopes that participants might be
more candid with her than they might with a librarian. The sessions were
recorded with a digital voice recorder, and both the graduate student and the
author listened to the recordings and made and compared notes.
V. Findings
Phase One: Web Survey
There were 79 responses to the survey (one of which was incomplete),
which amounts to 11% of the School of Music student population. Graduate
students and 3rd year or above undergraduates each comprised 39% of
respondents (31 each), while 16 1st or 2nd year undergraduates comprised 20%
of the responses. Performance and Education were the most common fields of
study, which mirrors the enrollment profile for the School of Music (participants
could choose more than one, so percentage is greater than 100%). (See Table 1)
Table 1 Survey respondents' field of study
Graduate
Undergraduate
Percent of
total responses
Music Performance
13
22
44%
Music Education
5
24
37%
Music History/Musicology
9
3
15%
Field of study
7
Composition/Theory
3
3
8%
Ethnomusicology
5
0
6%
Music minor
0
2
3%
Other
0
1
1%
To provide some context for the other questions in the survey, students
were asked how often they search for scores and recordings for their studies. (See
Figure 1) Students look for recordings more frequently than scores. Of the
students who indicated that they sought recordings frequently (more than three
times a week), eleven were graduate students and five were undergraduates. Of
these, 75% were performers.
Figure 1 How often in an average week do you need to find recordings or scores?
8
The two students who indicated that they never search for recordings are
undergraduate performers.
Respondents who said that they search for scores frequently (more than
three times a week) were evenly split between undergraduates (four) and
graduates (five), with 78% being performers. The student who indicated that s/he
never searches for scores is a music education graduate student.
When searching for recordings, the most important elements to students
are performer (96%) and ensemble(s) (87%), followed by conductor (66%). Other
variables respondents indicated as important included length, year, and price (if
9
applicable). Overall, most students (44%) rarely look for a specific performance
(24% of the time or less), 37% of students do so sometimes (25% to 49% of the
time), and only 11% (primarily music educators and performers) do so
frequently (more than 50% of the time), while 8% (primarily 3rd year and above
performers) never look for a specific performance. When searching for scores
38% of students are frequently looking for a specific edition or version, while
55% are only sometimes or rarely being so particular. (See Figure 2)
Figure 2 How often do you search for a specific recording or version of a score?
Of the six respondents who stated that they never search for a specific edition or
version of a score, half were performers.
10
When asked what tools they used to find scores and recordings, 96% of
respondents indicated that they use the Library catalog (in a multiple choice list).
The University has had two online catalog interfaces since 2009 and both are
offered as choices from the catalog page on the web site. It is not surprising that
the 1st-2nd year undergraduates use Classic Voyager least, as VUFind was
adopted as the default interface at about the time these students would have
started at the University. Graduate students are almost equally split between
using one of the catalogs or both as the need arises. The reasons participants
listed for using a particular interface generally fell into four broad categories:
functionality, ease of use, familiarity, and interface (look and feel).
When asked whether they use the Library’s locally developed federated
search tool Easy Search, over half of respondents (61%) said no, 23% said they
use it for finding music scores, recordings, or videos and 30% of respondents
indicated that they use it for finding books and journals. There is wide variation
in who is using Easy Search as represented by percentage of user group in Table
2.
Table 2 Easy Search Use as percentage of respondent group
Books and journals
Music scores,
recordings, or videos
Undergraduates 1 -2 year
19%
6%
Undergraduates 3rd year+
42%
29%
Graduates
26%
23%
st
nd
11
The music librarians do not currently introduce this tool in information literacy
sessions, so students would need to have discovered it on their own or from a
teacher or friend. However, the upperclass students and graduate students seem
to have discovered its usefulness. MPAL implemented its own Easy Search
module for searching music resources in spring 2012, and this feature is now
prominently featured on our home page.
Although MPAL has had access to various subscription streaming audio
resources since subscribing to Alexander Street Press’ Classical Music Library in
2003, the students participating in this survey did not use them extensively (See
Table 3).
Table 3 Percentage of respondents who have used online streaming audio resources
Online Resource
% of respondents
who have used
Classical Music Library
44%
DRAM (American Music)
22%
Smithsonian Global Sound
9%
Jazz Music Library
4%
Don’t use at all
34%
Don’t know if use
11%
Classical Music Library has been used by 67% of the musicologists, 57% of the
performers, and 28% of the music educators. MPAL had subscribed to Jazz
Music Library for only about a year, which may explain its low usage. Of the
12
seven students who had used Smithsonian Global Sound, only one indicated
ethnomusicology as his/her area of focus. Students learn of these resources from
various sources, with their instructor topping the list (see Table 4).
Table 4 Source of knowledge of audio streaming resources
Learned of them from …
% of all
respondents
Instructor
30%
Found them on their own
28%
Librarian
20%
Another student
14%
The 27 students who indicated that they don’t use any of these resources include
60% of the ethnomusicologists, 45% of the music educators, 29% of the
performers, 25% of the musicologists, and 17% of the theory/composition
students.
Students frequently look beyond the library to access sound recordings.
YouTube is used by 95% of survey respondents, while 72% indicated they use
iTunes. Sixteen people stated they used “Other” sources, citing guvera.com,
rhapsody.com, emusic.com, Classical Archives, Pandora, GrooveShark,
medici.tv, and “music websites and blogs” as alternate sources for recordings.
MPAL offers links to Library Music Source, CPDL, and IMSLP from its
web site to assist patrons who are looking for music scores and these are used
frequently (see Table 5).
13
Table 5 Online Music Score Source Use
Online music score source
% of respondents who use
International Music Score Library Project
(Petrucci) (non-subscription)
65%
Library Music Source (subscription)
42%
Choral Public Domain Library (nonsubscription)
28%
A surprising 15% (five graduate students, four 3rd year and above
undergraduates, and three 1st or 2nd year undergraduates) say they don’t use any
of these online score sources at all (although only one actually selected just
“Catalog” and none of the other choices). Other sources cited include Google,
Werner Icking, Oliver’s (Mostly) Clarinet Music Page, IU’s Variations Project,
Scribd (an online social publishing site), and the publisher Boosey and Hawkes’
online perusal scores.
In another question asking about external score and recording resources,
students again showed that they use many sources beyond the Library (See Table
6). Multiple-choice selection was allowed, so responses don’t total 100%.
Table 6 Which tools do you use to find scores and recordings?
Tool
% of
1st-2nd year
undergraduates
% of
3rd year
& above
undergraduates
% of
graduates
% of total
YouTube
75%
74%
74%
73%
Non-Library search
engine (Google, Yahoo,
31%
61%
77%
61%
14
Bing, etc.)
Amazon
25%
39%
55%
42%
Wikipedia
19%
39%
32%
32%
Ten respondents indicated that they use sources other than those listed and
indicated iTunes, arkivmusic.com, The Petrucci Project (IMSLP), Choral Public
Domain Library, and Organ Historical Society Catalog. In a similar question 24%
of students claimed to only use the Library for recordings, but only one student
did not then also select YouTube or iTunes. Interestingly, in the two questions
that asked about YouTube use, one question indicated a 95% use rate while the
second indicated a 73% use rate.
While we know that individuals use tools such as Amazon.com to
discover books and then look for them at their library (Connaway et al, 2011), the
practice is not widespread among music students looking for scores and
recordings. One student explained, “Sometimes, if not all information is present,
then I’ll double check Amazon or another source to see if this is the CD I want.”
Although 22% responded that they do this frequently (more than 50% of the
time) and 23% said they do this sometimes (25% to 49% of the time), 43% said
they do this rarely (24% of the time or less), and 13% said they never do this.
Students vary in their frustration triggers and help-seeking habits. The
open responses from graduate students indicated three main areas of frustration:
15
inability to limit searches to CDs (instead of LPs), searches that result in no or
limited holdings (e.g., recording only on LP or not with preferred performers),
and difficulties with foreign languages in searching. Other elements that induce
frustration include slowness of the old catalog, difficulty in understanding or
manipulating search results, and difficulty using search operators (such as
Boolean and quotation marks). One student indicated frustration with the
inability to sort search results by year, but this is possible in both catalog
interfaces.
Undergraduates generally show more frustration with searching than
graduate students. They show the most frustration when they encounter limited
holdings (items are checked out or the specific edition/version they want is not
available), and are also frustrated by manipulating an overwhelming number of
results. There were also several respondents who indicated an overall sense of
frustration with searching but who did not provide details. A few students also
noted the difficulty in finding things on the shelf and the confusion with the fact
that MPAL uses both Dewey Decimal and LC classification systems, which is an
issue for finding books and scores on the shelf, but not for finding them in the
catalog. One frustrated student said, “There are things in the library that don't
show up on the search. Things that show up when you search in the catalog are
16
completely unrelated to what you're looking for. It's easier to just bypass the
catalogs and just go hunting around for what you're looking for.”
Responses to the question that asked where students go for help finding
scores and recordings were generally encouraging (See Table 7).
Table 7 Sources of help in finding scores or audio or visual recordings
% of 1st-2nd
year undergraduates
% of 3rd year
& above undergraduates
% of
graduates
% of total
Ask a librarian
81%
84%
74%
78%
Ask another student
44%
52%
26%
39%
Ask an instructor
13%
16%
13%
14%
Use an MPAL help
guide
13%
13%
10%
11%
<1%
3%
Help Source
Other
More than 75% indicated that they ask a librarian for help, with graduate
students being the least likely to do so. More than a third (39%) of respondents
also indicated that they sought help from other students. The wording of the
question allowed for the “help” to include both finding items in the catalog and
on the shelves and respondents could chose more than one option. Only one
student listed another help source and s/he cited Google search.
Classroom instruction sessions conducted by the music and performing
arts librarian for undergraduate and graduate music classes generally focus on
the tools available to students and how to conduct searches in those tools—
17
including issues with uniform titles, how to limit searches to particular formats,
and how to read search results to understand what formats are being presented.
Showing that library instruction sessions do seem to help students, only 39% of
the students who had a library instruction session in their class answered that
they got frustrated with searching. However, 80% of students who stated that a
librarian had never come to their class to talk about library resources indicated
that they get frustrated with searching.
Phase Two: Focus Groups
The two focus groups (graduate students and undergraduates) mainly
confirmed what was learned through the survey, but offered a few more insights
into the students’ information seeking behavior. Graduate students indicated
that YouTube is useful for quick access to music and is less hassle (than the
library catalog), but the downside is that less attention is given to the specific
group/performer. Presumably this is a reference to inconsistent descriptive
metadata in YouTube. When discussing how they learned about library
resources, they gave a range of answers from “The librarian came to class but I
didn’t remember it all since it was in my first year,” to figuring it out on their
own through trial and error or via a professor.
The undergraduate group revealed YouTube is their first choice for
searching, but point out that it isn’t ideal because the recording or performer isn’t
18
always as good (as a CD/DVD version). They indicated that YouTube is easy and
has a lot of variety, allowing for quick comparison of various interpretations.
They stated that they would like to be able to physically browse recordings, but
that in general (as a group) they rarely browse scores. One student indicated that
he goes to great lengths to locate LP versions of recordings, while the survey
results indicate that many students are frustrated when they can only find
something on LP and not on CD.
Several students (both undergraduate and graduate) indicated that they
do buy scores and recordings if the item is unavailable in the library and/or to
build their personal collection. One student indicated that everyone in her studio
uses a particular site to purchase scores and they don’t use the library. Others
avoid buying as much as possible.
VI. Discussion
It is clear that students make use of a wide variety of resources to discover
music scores and recordings. Some of these they use more extensively than
others, and some, like the library’s subscription audio streaming options, they
may not be using to their fullest extent. Students overall search for recordings
more often than scores and are not as particular about performances/editions as
we might have thought they would be.
19
There were clear distinctions in the behaviors and choices of the first and
second year students and the upperclassmen and graduate students. This is
likely primarily the result of the nature of their assignments. Undergraduates
may rely more heavily on course reserves and professor’s recommendations and
not need to search for new materials on their own. An examination of our course
reserves listings and usage stats could show whether more reserves are used for
undergraduate or graduate level classes. Older students may also have
developed a “work smarter not harder attitude,” leading them to use the tools
that they perceive to be the easiest (YouTube, etc.) and most convenient. One
interesting discovery about the use of the federated search tool Easy Search is
that it is being used more frequently by graduate and upperclass students. The
tool is generally considered to be for underclass students or non-specialists,
however there is obviously some value for more advanced students. Comments
indicated that students were likely to use non-Library resources if/when it was
easier or more convenient to do so.
Students use what they know—hence the divide between use of the old
and new catalogs and Easy Search. Older students tend to use the older catalog
and students were more likely to use a tool (the new catalog or Easy Search) if it
was released early in their academic career. This study did not investigate the
process of students’ research and therefore did not ask at what point they go to
20
the catalog (for example, after Google, but before YouTube). Do they view the
catalog as a last resort? While this could be true in other subject areas, it is likely
not true in music because so many music materials (especially reliable scores and
parts) aren’t yet easily and freely available elsewhere.
There were also differences in the approaches of students in different
fields of study. Graduate students and performers are the most likely to search
for recordings frequently, and performers are also the most frequent score
searchers. In general, the musicologists and theory/composition students don’t
access scores and recordings as often as might be expected. Music education
students and performers had more in common with each other than with the
musicologists. Musicologists and performers use library’s audio subscription
tools more than other groups. Ethnomusicologists are the least likely to use audio
subscription tools—this could be because of limited relevant content or
awareness on their part of the tools we do have. While response rates about use
of our streaming resources overall are disappointing, the usage statistics seem
respectable, so it may be that a small group is using it heavily. Follow-up with
faculty and students could indicate whether this is a marketing issue or a content
issue.
Other research shows that a disconnect sometimes exists between what
librarians do and how students view them (Duke and Asher, 2011), but at least in
21
this library students make use of the library staff for help. The lower numbers of
graduate students seeking help could relate to our high number of Asian
graduate students (who often have a cultural difference in expectations of
reference service) and/or the fact that graduate students may not want to appear
unknowledgeable.
This study can be conducted at other schools with minor alterations (such
as eliminating the questions concerning multiple catalog interfaces if necessary),
allowing librarians to see where their instruction and marketing priorities lie.
However, because surveys are not the best tool to determine actual or predicted
behavior, additional methodologies should be utilized as part of an ongoing
program of assessment.
VII. Conclusion
Many tools make up music students’ information seeking arsenal. Due to
the nature of the materials they seek, specialized tools become invaluable to them
in locating scores and recordings. Students need to be taught effective search
strategies and how to evaluate resources in their earliest years, as upperclassmen
and graduate students gravitate away from library resources more than do first
and second year students. As students become more set in their research ways it
is more difficult to convince them to use new tools, even if those tools may be
more beneficial than the ones they have been using. Attempts should be made to
22
incorporate information literacy sessions across the curriculum and not just in
introductory classes. Libraries must actively and effectively market their print
and electronic collections and attempt to assess whether these resources are
being used or not. If the latter, they must try to determine whether it is due to
awareness issues or because the resources simply don’t meet students’ needs.
Although this study shows that classroom instruction in information
literacy is beneficial, students’ (and possibly all patrons’) frustration levels with
searching for music materials are still too high. While next generation library
catalogs, discovery layers, RDA, and FRBR may make some improvements to
this situation, music will remain a complex discovery entity. Information literacy
efforts at the point of need, whether that is the reference desk or via chat or
email, are critical to students’ success. Librarians should make every effort to
periodically assess the level of effectiveness of their reference and instruction
endeavors.
This study revealed other potential avenues of inquiry into music
students’ information seeking behavior. These include investigating students’
research processes and at what point they utilize specific tools, revisiting how
students use the library catalog, and what search strategies they employ, now
that there are more advanced features, and how they use general and musicspecific web discovery layers to find music materials. More work can also be
23
done to study the sub-discipline differences and similarities, given that most
music libraries serve a diverse population but some serve only performers or
only students of popular music. Finally, much more research can be done into
the connection between information literacy and music students’ information
and help seeking behaviors.
24
References
Abromeit, K.A., (2004), Vaughan, V., “Info lit and the diva: Integrating
information literacy into the Oberlin Conservatory of Music Opera
Theater Department”, Notes, 2004, 60, 3, 632-652
Bates, M.J. (1996), “Learning about the information seeking of interdisciplinary
scholars and students”, Library Trends, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 155-164.
Brown, C.D. (2002), “Straddling the humanities and social sciences: the Research
process of music scholars”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 73-94.
Cary, P., & Sampsel, L.J. (2006), “Information literacy competency standards for
undergraduate music students”, Notes, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 663-679.
Christensen, B. (2004), “Warp, weft, and waffle: Weaving information literacy
into an undergraduate music curriculum”, Notes, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 616631.
Clegg, S.M. (1985), “User surveys and statistics—the opportunities for music
Llbraries”, Fontes Artis Musicae, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 69-75.
Connaway, L.S. et al (2011),“’If it is too inconvenient I'm not going after it:’
Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors”, Library
& Information Science Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 179-190.
Dougan, K. (2013), “Delivering and assessing music reference services”, The
Reference Librarian, Vol. 53 No. 1, forthcoming.
Drone, J. M. (1984), “A Use study of the card catalogs in the University of Illinois
Music Library”, Library Resources and Technical Services, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp.
253-262.
Duke, L.M. and Asher, A.D. (Eds.) (2011), College libraries and student culture: what
we now know, American Library Association, Chicago.
Gardinier, H.A. (2004), “Access points perceived as useful in searching for music
scores and recordings”, PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Head, A.J. and Eisenberg, M.B. (2009), “Lessons learned: How college students
seek information in the digital age, Project Information Literacy Project
Report”, The Information School, University of Washington.
Hunter, B. (2006), “A New breed of musicians: the Information-seeking needs
and behaviors of composers of electroacoustic music”, Music Reference
Services Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1 pp. 1-15.
King, D.M. (2005), “Catalog user search strategies in finding music materials”,
Music Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1-24.
Lai, K. and Chan, K. (2010),"Do you know your music users' needs? A Library
user survey that helps enhance a user-centered music collection”,
Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 63-69.
25
Laplante, A. and Downie, J.S. (2011), “The Utilitarian and hedonic outcomes of
music information-seeking in everyday life”, Library & Information Science
Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 202-210.
Lee, J.H. (2010), “Analysis of user needs and information features in natural
language queries seeking music information”, Journal of the American
Society of Information Science & Technology, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 1025-1045.
Liew, C.L. and Siong, N.N. (2006), “Beyond the notes: a Qualitative study of the
information-seeking behavior of ethnomusicologists”, Journal of Academic
Librarianship, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 60-68.
Maple, A., Christensen, B., and Abromeit, K.A. (1996), “Information literacy for
undergraduate music students: A Conceptual framework”, Notes, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 744-753.
Snyder,T. (2010), “Music materials in a faceted catalog: Interviews with faculty
and graduate students”, Music Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3-4,
pp. 66-95.
26
Appendix A: Survey
Thank you for agreeing to take our survey. We are interested in how you find
and access music scores and audio (CDs, LPs, online) and visual (VHS, DVD)
recordings for use in your music studies.
1. How often in an average week do you need to find audio or visual recordings?
a. Frequently (more than three times a week)
b. Sometimes (once or twice a week)
c. Rarely (not every week)
d. Never
2. How often in an average week do you need to find music scores?
a. Frequently (more than three times a week)
b. Sometimes (once or twice a week)
c. Rarely (not every week)
d. Never
3. Do you use the following to find music scores, audio or visual recordings?
(check all that apply)
a. Library catalog
b. Non-library search engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.)
c. Amazon
d. Wikipedia
e. YouTube
d. Other __________________
4. How often do you use a non-Library online source (such as Amazon) to find a
score, audio or visual recording and then use the catalog to see if the Library has
the item?
a. Frequently (more than 50% of the time)
b. Sometimes (25% to 49% of the time)
c. Rarely (24% of the time or less)
d. Never
5. Which of the Library’s catalogs do you use to find music scores and audio or
visual recordings
a. Classic Catalog (Voyager) (see below)
b. Library Catalog (Vu-Find) (see below)
c. Both
27
d. I don’t know
6. Why do you use this particular catalog (or catalogs)?
7. Do you use any of the Easy Search options provided on the main Library
Gateway site? (see below) (check all that apply)
a. Yes, when searching for music scores, recordings, and/or visuals
b. Yes, when searching for books and journals
c. I don’t use the Easy Search option
8. Do you use any of the following resources to access sound recordings online?
(check all that apply)
a. Classical Music Library
b. DRAM (American Music)
c. Jazz Music Library
d. Smithsonian Global Sound
e. No
f. I don’t know
9. If so, how did you find out about these resources? (check all that apply)
a. My instructor
b. I found it on my own
c. Another student
d. A librarian
e. Other ___________________
10. How else do you access audio or visual recordings? (check all that apply)
a. I only use library resources
b. YouTube
c. iTunes
d. Other _____________________
11. When searching for audio or visual recordings, which of the following are
important to you? (check all that apply)
a. Label
b. Performer(s)
c. Conductor
d. Ensemble(s)
e. Recording Venue
f. Other _________________
28
12. When searching for audio or visual recordings, how often are you looking for
a specific performance?
a. Frequently (more than 50% of the time)
b. Sometimes (25% to 49% of the time)
c. Rarely (24% of the time or less)
d. Never
13. When searching for scores, how often are you looking for a specific edition or
version?
a. Frequently (more than 50% of the time)
b. Sometimes (25% to 49% of the time)
c. Rarely (24% of the time or less)
d. Never
14. Do you use any of the following to access scores online?
a. Library Music Source
b. Choral Public Domain Library
c. International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP/Petrucci)
d. No
e. Other _____________________
15. When you search for scores or audio or visual recordings in the library
catalog, do you get frustrated? Why?
16. If you need help finding scores or audio or visual recordings, do you (check
all that apply)
a. ask a librarian?
b. use an MPAL help guide?
c. ask another student?
d. ask an instructor?
e. Other ________________
17. Has a librarian ever visited your music class to talk about library resources?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
About You
18. Are you a
a. 1st or 2nd year undergraduate
29
b. 3rd year or above undergraduate
c. Graduate student
d. Other __________________
19. What is your field of study?
a. Music Performance
b. Music History/Musicology
c. Ethnomusicology
d. Composition/Theory
e. Music Education
f. Music minor
g. Other _________________
If you are interested in participating in a follow-up focus group study, please
provide your name and email address below so we can contact you.
Thank you for completing our survey!
30
Appendix B: Focus Group Questions
The purpose of this focus group is to discern why music students use their chosen
tools to access scores, audio and visual recordings.
Questions included, but were not limited to:
● Do you only look for scores and recordings when directed to by your
professor, or do you seek out scores and recordings on your own?
● What resource(s) do you use most frequently to research/find scores.
Why?
● Do you ever browse the shelves for scores looking for related subject
material? Why or why not?
● What resource(s) do you use most frequently to research audio/video
recordings. Why?
● Where do you learn about Library resources and how to use them (trial
and error, friends, professors, the MPAL website, a librarian, etc)?
● What would make finding scores and recordings easier / what changes
would you like to see at the Library?
31