When professors assign a library project to undergraduates, just
what do they expect students to learn from the research part of the
experience? What do professors think students are doing to come up with
the sources in their papers? If there is a discrepancy between
pedagogical intent and actual student research behavior, how do faculty
members address it? Or do they care, especially since they may not spot
a student’s research problem until the end of a course and may well not
see that student again? Does the end of a well-written, well-supported
argument justify whatever means a student uses to acquire sources?
These
are issues I often fret about, both in private and aloud when I compare
notes with other academic librarians. My concern arises not from a
general suspicion that students are engaging in what I call WIGWAM
research (Wikipedia – Internet – Google – Without Anything More), but
from what students themselves have been telling me for decades. It is
clear from e-mail, reference encounters, research consultations in my
office, and questions that arise in library instruction sessions, that
most students simply do not retain the concepts and logic involved in
discovering information sources — never mind the principles for
evaluating the sources they do turn up. Even students whom I’ve
counseled extensively in the past, and whose projects turned out well,
seem clueless the very next semester when they face a research
assignment in a different course.
Here are the most persistent
and troubling confessions I’ve heard from students over the years, with
my speculation on their cause and cure. Some of these statements have
been blurted out, others are responses to a question I’ve asked.
1. "I have no idea [about the dates or details of my topic]."
...
2. I’m wondering why I can’t I find this periodical article in the library’s catalog.
...
3. This magazine isn’t digitized, so I guess we don’t have it and I can’t get it.
...
4. I need to change my topic because there’s not enough stuff [sic] about it.
...
5. I’m not clear about what makes an article scholarly or a book a monograph.
...
6. I can’t find books about [an event that occurred last month].
...
7. I’m confused about the difference between a primary and a secondary source.
...
8. I’m afraid I’ll be cheating if I take references from someone else’s bibliography.
...
Interestingly, these revelations
have not changed significantly in the past few decades, except that
students now have how-to questions about technology as well. What
worries me most today is the absence of undergraduate concern about
evaluating sources as their research proceeds: They almost always want
to gather sources first and then assess them, going back to the well
for more if, and only if, their professor says they need additional
support for one of their points. In other words, they do not see
library research as a dynamic, iterative process, but as a
hunt-fetch-and-finish drill. Further, students arrive in college
believing that if a source exists and seems relevant, then it must be
good and sufficient for their project.
Their savvy about what’s
possible in a “free” Web world is at odds with their understanding —
which is almost nil — of how knowledge of various sorts is created,
packaged, transmitted, delivered, and paid for. These are serious
misunderstandings with profound consequences, but if faculty and
librarians share their perceptions and find ways to coordinate their
messages, then student admissions of the future should, at the least,
be different.
From : Inside Higher Ed. Admissions of Another Sort
