Thanks to Michael Lorenzen for alerting me to a free article:
Hurst, S. and Leonard, J. (2007) "Garbage In, Garbage Out: The Effect of Library Instruction on the Quality of Students’ Term Papers." Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8 (1) . http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/
content/v08n01/hurst_s01.htm
This was a study of a business class in a US university. There were 2 groups of students, one group did receive training in how to use library resources and one didn't. They were producing an analytical report on a company, and library resources included a market research and financial databases. The group that had received training cited more library resources and the group that didn't had more students who just cited web sites. However, the average grade for the two groups was almost identical (identically high in fact, but I think that is more normal in the US?)
Obviously, there's the issue of what the students DO with the information, not just what they find... "... the papers were graded on multiple criteria and not explicitly according to the number or types of resources cited. The assignment itself also did not necessitate the use of scholarly sources as much as it required students to analyze a company and discuss its actions. The papers were graded based primarily on this analysis and how well the students explained and defended their recommendations. Thus, although good research should lead to improved analysis, the research itself was not specifically graded as a component of the paper. Therefore there was not as much benefit to those citing or using library resources as might have occurred with a different type of assignment."
I would have liked to have seen a fuller explanation of the assignment and the learning outcomes for the class at the start of this paper. I have set similar assignments to the one mentioned, and I also would put a high value on the students' ability to demonstrate their ability to analyse and synthesise the information, and present their argument and conclusions persuasively. Not surprisingly, I do, though, specify that students must use particular sources and that they will lose marks if they don't.
I'd be interested to know what the "internet" sources were too - that could mean students using excellent free directory & trade sites, and official trade and statistics sites, or students relying on the company's own websites and a few media sites. If the "untrained" group had a good number of students just using the latter I'm a bit surprised they didn't get worse marks, since a good analysis has to be based on credible evidence (even if you aren't marking the actual bibliography).
Hurst, S. and Leonard, J. (2007) "Garbage In, Garbage Out: The Effect of Library Instruction on the Quality of Students’ Term Papers." Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8 (1) . http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/
content/v08n01/hurst_s01.htm
This was a study of a business class in a US university. There were 2 groups of students, one group did receive training in how to use library resources and one didn't. They were producing an analytical report on a company, and library resources included a market research and financial databases. The group that had received training cited more library resources and the group that didn't had more students who just cited web sites. However, the average grade for the two groups was almost identical (identically high in fact, but I think that is more normal in the US?)
Obviously, there's the issue of what the students DO with the information, not just what they find... "... the papers were graded on multiple criteria and not explicitly according to the number or types of resources cited. The assignment itself also did not necessitate the use of scholarly sources as much as it required students to analyze a company and discuss its actions. The papers were graded based primarily on this analysis and how well the students explained and defended their recommendations. Thus, although good research should lead to improved analysis, the research itself was not specifically graded as a component of the paper. Therefore there was not as much benefit to those citing or using library resources as might have occurred with a different type of assignment."
I would have liked to have seen a fuller explanation of the assignment and the learning outcomes for the class at the start of this paper. I have set similar assignments to the one mentioned, and I also would put a high value on the students' ability to demonstrate their ability to analyse and synthesise the information, and present their argument and conclusions persuasively. Not surprisingly, I do, though, specify that students must use particular sources and that they will lose marks if they don't.
I'd be interested to know what the "internet" sources were too - that could mean students using excellent free directory & trade sites, and official trade and statistics sites, or students relying on the company's own websites and a few media sites. If the "untrained" group had a good number of students just using the latter I'm a bit surprised they didn't get worse marks, since a good analysis has to be based on credible evidence (even if you aren't marking the actual bibliography).
Photo by Sheila Webber: Berries, Hailsham, July 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment