• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >The Form of Search Tool Chosen by Undergraduate Students Influences Research Practices and the Type and Quality of Information Selected
【24h】

The Form of Search Tool Chosen by Undergraduate Students Influences Research Practices and the Type and Quality of Information Selected

机译：大学生选择搜索工具的形式会影响研究实践以及信息选择的类型和质量

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A Review of: Asher, A. D., Duke, L. M., & Wilson, S. (2012). Paths of discovery: Comparing the search effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery Service, Summon, Google Scholar, and conventional library resources. College & Research Libraries, 74(5), p. 464-488. Objectives – To explore the effectiveness of different search tools (EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS), Summon, Google Scholar and traditional library resources) in supporting the typical research queries faced by undergraduate students and gain an understanding of student research practices. Design – Mixed methods approach using quantitative data collected from grading of students’ selected resources combined with qualitative data from a search process interview with students. Setting – Two university libraries in the United States of America (Bucknell University (BU) and Illinois Wesleyan University (IWU)). Subjects – Eighty-seven undergraduate students across a range of disciplines. Methods – Participants were assigned to one of five test groups and required to find two resources for each of four standardised research queries using a specified tool: EDS; Summon; Google Scholar; Library catalogue/databases; or “no tool” where no specific tool was specified and participants were free to choose. The resources submitted by students for each of the four queries were rated on a scale of 0-3 by four librarians using a rubric, to produce average ratings for each tool. The interview comprised two parts: the search task, followed by a reflective interview based on open-ended questions relating to search practices and habits. The search process interview was recorded using Camtasia screen capture and audio software, and the URLs used by participants were also recorded. Main Results – Quantitative results indicated that students who used EDS selected slightly higher quality sources on average (scoring 2.54 out of 3), compared to all other groups. Those who used EDS also completed the queries in less time (747 seconds) than those using Summon (1,209 seconds), Google Scholar (968 seconds), library databases (963 seconds) or where no tool was specified (1,081 seconds). Academic journal articles also represented the relatively highest proportion of resources for this group (73.8% of resources chosen), whilst newspaper articles were chosen most frequently by those using Summon (20.6% of resources chosen). The qualitative findings suggest that students may over-rely on the top results provided by search systems, rather than using critical analysis and evaluation. Conclusion – Although EDS performed slightly better overall, in some cases the tools produced relatively similar results, and none of the tools performed particularly poorly. Indeed the reasonably strong performance of both Google Scholar and traditional library tools/databases in some aspects (such as the relative proportion of books and journal articles chosen by students), may raise questions regarding the potential benefit of acquiring a new discovery product, given the possibly significant costs involved. As the study finds that most students do not go beyond simple searches and the first page of results, regardless of the tool they are using, this suggests that discovery services do not substantially lessen the need for information literacy instruction, although it may provide some opportunity to redirect teaching time away from retrieval and towards higher-order skills such as evaluating information and critical thinking.
机译：评论：Asher，A. D.，Duke，L. M.，＆Wilson，S.（2012）。发现途径：比较EBSCO发现服务，Summon，Google Scholar和常规图书馆资源的搜索效果。高校研究图书馆，74（5），p。1。 464-488。目标–探索各种搜索工具（EBSCO发现服务（EDS），Summon，Google Scholar和传统图书馆资源）在支持本科生面临的典型研究查询方面的有效性，并了解学生的研究实践。设计–混合方法方法，使用从学生所选资源的等级中收集的定量数据与来自对学生的搜索过程访谈中的定性数据相结合。设置–美国的两所大学图书馆（巴克内尔大学（BU）和伊利诺伊卫斯理大学（IWU））。科目–八十七名跨学科的本科生。方法–参加者被分配到五个测试组之一，并要求使用指定的工具为四个标准化研究查询中的每个查询两个资源。召唤;谷歌学术;图书馆目录/数据库;或“没有工具”（未指定具体工具且参与者可以自由选择）。四位图书馆员使用一个标题，将学生针对这四个查询提交的资源按0-3的等级进行评分，以得出每种工具的平均评分。访谈包括两个部分：搜索任务，然后是基于与搜索习惯和习惯有关的开放性问题的反思性访谈。使用Camtasia屏幕截图和音频软件记录了搜索过程中的采访，还记录了参与者使用的URL。主要结果–定量结果表明，与所有其他组相比，使用EDS的学生平均选择的质量更高（3分中的2.54分）。与使用Summon（1,209秒），Google Scholar（968秒），库数据库（963秒）或未指定工具的情况（1,081秒）相比，使用EDS的人完成查询所需的时间更少（747秒）。学术期刊文章也占该组资源的比例最高（所选择资源的73.8％），而报纸文章是那些使用Summon的人最频繁地选择（所选择资源的20.6％）。定性研究结果表明，学生可能过度依赖搜索系统提供的最佳结果，而不是使用批判性分析和评估。结论–尽管EDS总体上表现稍好，但在某些情况下，这些工具产生的结果相对相似，并且没有一个工具的表现特别差。确实，在某些方面（例如学生选择的书籍和期刊文章的相对比例），Google Scholar和传统图书馆工具/数据库均具有相当强的性能，这可能会引起人们对购买新发现产品的潜在利益的疑问，因为可能涉及重大成本。由于该研究发现，大多数学生都不会超出简单的搜索范围和结果的首页，而不论他们使用的是什么工具，这表明发现服务虽然可以提供一些机会，但并未显着减少对信息素养指导的需求。将教学时间从检索转移到高级技能，例如评估信息和批判性思维。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号