Analysing The Student Voice On Engagement With Research Resources At First Year University Level Report

Analysis of data: Analysing the Student Voice Page 1 of 16
ANALYSING THE STUDENT VOICE ON ENGAGEMENT WITH RESEARCH RESOURCES
AT FIRST-YEAR UNIVERSITY LEVEL
GENEVIEVE YOUNG-EVANS AND ANDREW GILLETT
CI: Andrew Gillett
AI: Geraldine Marsh
RA: Genevieve Young-Evans
Summary
This research project utilises data from a set of undergraduate exam essays produced
in 2014 as part of a scaffolded assessment program for AHIS120, a Macquarie
University People unit taught by Associate Professor Andrew Gillett (Department of
Ancient History). The assessment program for AHIS120 was designed to facilitate
student engagement with research resources and encourage reflection on the process
of information acquisition. The essays produced as part of the program were therefore
uniquely placed to provide relevant information for the current project, which
investigates how undergraduate students perceive and understand research resources
and the process of undertaking research at university.
Ethics approval (no. 5201600382) for the secondary use of AHIS120 exam essays
was sought and obtained in 2016 and analysis proceeded through a primarily
qualitative process. Analysis of the data obtained from 23 essays shows areas of broad
agreement with the findings of current academic literature concerning student
information-seeking behaviour, more specifically concerning aspects of student
anxiety regarding the research process and student approaches to free and fee-based
online research resources. A key finding, and one perhaps not so well covered in the
existing academic literature, relates to student use of specialist reference works and
online resources during initial stages of research for academic assignments. Drawing
on observations and recommendations in other relevant studies, the following report
suggests several ways in which the findings from the current project may be utilised
to increase student engagement with research resources in the future.
Andrew Gillett designed the project and secured funding. Genevieve Young-Evans
undertook data-analysis and composed the report.

Introduction
The transition to university from high school or other backgrounds is a crucial time
which confronts students with a range of skills-learning situations. The level of
student engagement with these learning challenges is a predictor of academic success
(Krause and Coates, 2008; Kahu 2013). One fundamental skills-learning situation is
the acquisition of basic skills with university-level research resources, in particular
university Library resources, to support specific coursework activities and broader
program requirements. From the outset of their university studies, students need to
develop skills in locating and identifying relevant data and their basic synthesis, as a
platform for later development of more sophisticated critical analysis of data and
ultimately the creation of new knowledge.
The task of developing these skills is shared by both academics, as curriculum
designers, and librarians, as managers of information resources. Macquarie University
Library (MQL) has invested significantly in digital and hard-copy resources, and
provides a suite of support services from online aid to drop-in information staff, to
make resources accessible. Academic staff, through their unit materials, direct
students to appropriate MQL resources to use for unit-specific activities.
Nevertheless, these facilitators of potential student access to resources do not
necessarily translate into uptake and engagement.
Limited engagement with university-provided resources has both immediate and
longitudinal implications: by not using resources, students may underperform in
assessment tasks; and over a course of a degree, develop only marginal research
skills, a deficit which may not be identified until the student undertakes higher-order
studies, e.g. BPhil. Understanding why some students choose not to engage with the
research resources provided for them as fully as expected is necessary in order to
identify potential means of redressing the situation.
The following report summarises the findings of a project designed to investigate how
first-year students perceive and engage with research resources and provide feedback
to academics and MQL with a view toward enhancing and repositioning student
engagement with research tasks and learning more broadly. The project utilises a set
of reflective essays that are part of a scaffolded assessment program (outlined below)
for AHIS120, Antiquity’s Heirs: Barbarian Europe, Byzantium, and Islam (a People
unit that draws students from all Faculties).
 a lecture from MQL outreach staff on using current Library research materials
 an assignment constructed around using a range of MQL resources
 a Journal in which students record what they learn about how to seek
discipline-specific information at university level
 and, as part of the final examination, a reflective essay on their university
research skills development.
This assessment program aims to facilitate engagement with research resources and
encourage reflection on the process of information acquisition. It was the basis of
Andrew Gillett’s 2011/2012 FoA/MQ/OLT Teaching Citation.

The reflective essay, which students produce for their final exam and is the
culmination of this assessment program, requires students to answer the following
exam question:
Drawing on your experience in undertaking research for the two essays of
the unit, and any additional research for tutorial or lecture preparation,
discuss what you have learned about methods of research and the use of
research resources in exploring a new field of study.
Ethics approval (no. 5201600382) was sought and obtained in 2016 for the secondary
use of the data contained in these reflective essays and students from the 2014 cohort
of AHIS120 were invited to participate in the project by agreeing to the analysis of
the reflective essay they produced in their exam.
Of the 122 students who sat the 2014 exam, 23 responded to the email invitation and
agreed to be part of the study. These 23 students included 5 males and 18 females, 22
of whom fell into the 18–25 age bracket and 1 in the 65+ age bracket. 3 of the 4
students who were given High Distinctions for the 2014 iteration of AHIS120 agreed
to participate in the study but participants were also from the Distinction, Credit, and
Pass bands. While the range of final marks suggests participants were drawn from
different academic levels, the breakdown of marks indicates that their academic
achievement coalesced in one key respect. The tutorial participation marks of students
taking part in the study were routinely high (18 of the participants were given marks
of 8 or above out of 10). The data set for the study may well therefore represent the
opinions and experiences of already engaged students at different academic levels in
as much as one unit can represent a general picture of academic achievement.
Snapshot of participants
After consent was obtained from the students the data from the 23 essays were first
quantified in order to scope the degree of students’ pre-existing engagement with
MQL research resources, and the level of understanding of the purposes and functions
of those resources, including:
Male
Female
Participation Mark
10
9
8
7
6
Final Mark
HD
Dist inct ion
Credit
Pass

 previous use of MQL resources, digital and hard-copy
 range of MQL resources used: main catalogue, data-bases, ARC retrieval
system, reference works, books on open shelf, etc.
 use of MQL resources for ‘research chain,’ i.e. using catalogue to identify
relevant item and then find further related works; using reference works to
locate data and then to identify relevant specialist works
 understanding of relation between MQL resources and other resources, e.g.
free-access Web sites, public libraries.
Appendix A provides a snapshot of how many essays dealt with these topics. Given
the relatively small sample of student papers and the ‘freestyle’ nature of the student
responses (as opposed to a survey-type study), this quantitative analysis has clear
limitations. It cannot provide, for example, a systematic evaluation of all criteria
potentially relevant to undergraduate research methods, moreover not all topics of
interest to the researchers were selected for discussion by the student respondents or
yielded noteworthy responses. These limitations are reflected in the range of topics
discussed below. Nevertheless, the benefits of quantitative analysis, which allows
greater participant freedom, are recognised (Colon-Aguirre and Fleming-May, 2012,
392-3) and the anecdotal data collected from the 2014 cohort of AHIS120 does
demonstrate areas of agreement with other studies of undergraduate research
behaviour suggesting the probable veracity of the present study in broad terms.
Findings
Statements in the data set correspond well with the findings of other studies that
observe, for example, high levels of anxiety associated with the research process,
student concerns about time and convenience, as well as trends in student-use of free-
online and library resources. The current study’s findings relating to student internet
use and student employment of discipline specific reference works may provide
insights into student behaviour that are not so well covered in the existing literature
and offer scope for further research and development.
Time and convenience
Anxiety associated with the research process is well documented for undergraduate
student researchers. Characteristic concerns include finding appropriate academic
resources (Leckie 1996), navigating library databases and physical resources, as well
as completing research in a timely and efficient manner (Colon-Aguirre and Fleming-
May 2012: 395-6; Biddex et al. 2011: 175; Barrett 2003: 325). In the present study 7
of the 23 papers make some reference to emotion in their discussion of research
methods and these emotions are generally negative. References are made to research
being ‘daunting’, ‘difficult’, ‘never straightforward’, and ‘far from certain’ (paper 1
and 3, 6, 12) and to parts of the research process, such as limited access to online
journals being frustrating (paper 2), new topics causing confusion (paper 11), and too
much information being overwhelming (paper 20). Students also remark on the
difficulty of searching the Macquarie University Library’s Multi-search facility, but
this will be dealt with separately below.

There are also relatively frequent statements from students in the study indicating that
time and convenience are concerns for students. Several students indicate that a good
deal of time is needed for research, others indicate online materials are useful for the
‘time conscious’ or because they don’t require one to go to the library (paper 12,
paper 13). Still, other students seek to solve the issue of time, one observing that
whole days spent in the library would have been better than ‘an hour here and there’
(paper 7), that comprehensive documentation of bibliographical references saves time
(paper 9), and that while ‘library work’ requires ‘time and patience’, working with
hard copy books ‘aids’ retention and helps with note-taking (paper 17). Such efforts
to mitigate the concern for time and convenience may reflect the academic
engagement of the students concerned.
The present study supports current academic scholarship that emphasises student
anxiety about research and more specific concerns such as finding research resources
and efficiency. While the study supports rather than expands existing literature, the
discussion of these topics provides an important context for considering what the data
set may convey about student use of reference works and the internet. These topics,
which together provide more unique insights into student behaviour and opinion,
interconnect with student concerns about time and convenience.
Reference works and the Internet
The data set under study is perhaps most interesting for the insight it provides into
student use of reference works and open access internet resources in the beginning
stages of research. Given this increased significance a more extensive discussion of
current scholarship will help provide relevant background.
Specialist peer-reviewed reference works are increasingly in competition with free
online websites and especially the collaborative community-authored online
encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Nevertheless, many disciplines, including ancient history,
are witnessing an increase in the production of dictionaries, subject encyclopaedias
and companions (Sica, 2015: 585-6). The use and usefulness of this category of
academic resource has been questioned as studies consider the employment of
reference works by students, if not also academics (Sica 2015: 587; East 2010: 165-6;
Colson, 2007: 169-71).
The assessment design for AHIS120 assumes the usefulness of peer-reviewed print
and online reference works (free and fee-based). It requires students to use a range of
discipline specific dictionaries and encyclopaedias for part of their second assignment
as a means to begin research on a range of (potentially unfamiliar) topics and provide
initial bibliographic resources. Studies have shown that concerns for time and
convenience often lead students to use free-access online resources, especially
Wikipedia, for the initial stages of researching a topic and for relevant bibliography
(Selwyn and Gorard 2016: 33; Colon-Aguirre and Fleming-May 2012: 292, Biddix et
al. 2011: 176; East 2010: 164). These trends are observable in the data set under study
as the discussion above and below demonstrate.
Educators at all levels have articulated concerns over many years about student use of
free online information and Wikipedia in particular. Their concerns have principally

centred on the credibility and authority of these sources as well as students’ capacities
to appraise critically such sources of information (Selwyn and Gorard, 2016: 28-9;
East 2010: 164). Nevertheless, an increasing number of educators call for acceptance
of Wikipedia or imply that it should be recognised as a legitimate academic reference
work and integrated into teaching with appropriate attention paid to critical analysis
(Selwyn and Gorard, 2016: 33; Ostenson 2014: 36, 45; Colon-Aguirre and Fleming-
May 2012: 397). One study of Australian university students describes student use of
Wikipedia as ‘mundane’, noting that few students perceive it as a ‘very useful’
resource or use it as a ‘primary’ one, but rather employ it to start assignments, clarify
terminology, and find relevant bibliography (Selwyn and Gorard 2016: 30-33). While
the merits of Wikipedia are not under discussion here, the trend toward acceptance of
this “one-stop shop” (East 2010:165) encyclopaedia in higher education together with
discussion about the long-term usefulness of peer-reviewed academic reference works
(whether print or online, free or fee-based) is apposite given the following
observations by students.
20 of the 23 participating students in the present study explicitly refer to reference
works in their exam essays, moreover these resources often feature in the students’
comments about their own developing research skills. Doubtless, the requirement to
use reference works in the major assessment is a key reason why this particular
category of academic publication features heavily in the essays, but given the
‘freestyle’ nature of the exam question and response, the frequency and consistency
with which reference works are discussed are remarkable.
Several papers organise the exam essay around a loose articulation of the student’s
diachronic development as a researcher. For example one student comments in the
introduction that “I believe this experience has given me more research skills than I
had before …” (paper 2). In contrast to this kind of broad assertion there are several
more detailed observations about developing research skills. Given the high
proportion of comments that feature statements about specialist reference works it
seems useful to set these out in full below:
“Initially I presumed I could complete this assignment through using
internet searches, however I was corrected on this by a fellow classmate
whom late assisted me in the library in finding reference works in order to
complete the first portion. After reviewing these texts I found they were
incredibly insightful in providing an overview of the topics I was
researching.” (paper 8)
“One resource I had never before used was the specialist academic
encyclopaedia that were required for the second assessment. These were a
foreign resource to me, however they are one that I will continue to utilise
in further research.” (paper 10)
“I was surprised at the depth of information the encyclopaedia sources
provided.” (paper 14)
“Particularly significant was my new awareness of specialised reference
works and how to use them.” (paper 15)

“Though obvious, I had never considered such works [specialist reference
works], and by far my previous method of research: a Wikipedia article
for a broad overview, then backed up by scouring library shelves for
whatever sounded relevant …” (paper 19)
“…using encyclopaedias to start research was unfamiliar to me ... as a
(sic.) ancient history student, many methods were familiar to me, but
specialised works I was familiar with were not specific to this period.”
(paper 21)
The similar way in which these students express their unfamiliarity with specialist
reference works, but often also their surprise at the usefulness of them, if not their
desire to use them again, make these comments particularly interesting despite the
small size of the sample. The specific direction and training students received in using
these specialist reference works seems to have yielded good results and indicates that
promoting these works may be one way to remedy lack of use rather than accepting
their demise and removing them from library shelves.
Colson and East suggest promotion of reference works through academic libraries,
either online or on the shelf (East 2010: 167; Colson 2007: 172-3). The placement of
reference works on open shelves and provision of relevant information about key
titles in subject guides are ways in which MQL already promote reference works to
students in some disciplines (e.g. Ancient History, Biological Sciences, Philosophy,
Politics). This study suggests the importance of actively teaching students about
reference works, the success of assessment-driven training, and the value of
collaboration between library and faculty staff.
As the uneven coverage of reference works in MQL study guides may suggest, some
areas of academic study may be abandoning the use of peer reviewed reference works
more quickly than others. The ability to find and use reference works is, however,
arguably a fundamental skill that prepares students to learn independently in related
disciplines and thus of broad interest to educators. Moreover, while accepting student
use of Wikipedia and free-access online material may provide opportunities to
enhance their critical evaluation skills, as will be discussed below, students
themselves seem open to, and interested in, expanding their awareness of useful
research resources, be they online, in the library, free access or by library
subscription, albeit when provided with adequate instruction and direction.
The internet, non-MQL resources and MQL resources
As several of the student comments about reference works suggest the present data set
is revealing with regard to student attitudes to the internet, non-MQL and MQL
resources for academic research. These comments in combination with others,
discussed below, fit well with trends observed in other studies. While the present
study may not provide new information about student behaviour per se, discussed in
relation to current scholarship, the data may be used to suggest ways in which
Macquarie University students might benefit from current academic recommendations
concerning student use of the internet for academic research.

Internet and library use among undergraduates is a key area of scholarly interest
(Barrett 2005; Weiler 2004). Various studies suggest that while most students use
free-online materials they use these materials differently depending on what they are
using them for and their level of comfort with academic libraries (Colon-Aguirre and
Fleming-May 2012: 392-6; Biddix et al, 2011: 180-1). Studies also show that while
free online materials may be preferred because of perceived ease-of-use, many
students also recognise library resources as more trustworthy for academic work
(Colon-Aguirre and Fleming-May 2012: 395-6; Biddix et al. 2011: 180-1).
Nevertheless, concerns remain about the capacity of students to apply criteria to
critically assess online materials when they are used for academic or other purposes
(Hogan and Varnhagen, 2012: 9-11). The present study reflects these findings in
general, moreover specific comments made by some of the student participants may
suggest the usefulness of innovative approaches for guiding student use of internet
resources.
Non-MQL resources are mentioned relatively frequently in the exam papers under
study, with 14 of the 23 papers making some statement about them. Google Scholar is
the most frequently cited resource with 6 students mentioning it explicitly. Attitudes
to non-MQL resources vary widely, with some students indicating a preference for
non-MQL sources over MQL sources, others preferring a combination or preferring to
use MQL sources alone. Given the small sample of students it is not possible to see
trends indicating why students prefer one resource or the other but more consistency
can be seen in the way comments demonstrate wariness of non-MQL internet
resources and an attempt to evaluate which internet resources might be more
appropriate. These features are seen in comments such as
“sources such as a blogs, Wikipedia and other public forums are
obviously not credible sources as they are primarily based on unscholarly
opinion and little fact. On the other hand, online scholarly sources such as
online books and journal articles are reliable and easily accessible” (paper
9).
This kind of caution is apparent in the notes made by another student who states in
point form “use the Macquarie library for physical books”, “use databases from Mac
library website, not google searches” (paper 20).
While these students demonstrate an effort to avoid freely accessible internet
resources in favour of MQL ones, others indicate that they employ different strategies
which may prioritise MQL resources but do not eliminate non-MQL resources. For
example one student states that by searching Wikipedia it is possible to find resources
that can then be accessed in the Macquarie library or through Google Scholar and
Google Books (paper 5). It is worth noting that this statement clearly distinguishes
non-MQL and MQL online resources by name, but there is little apparent distinction
made between them otherwise; one may find resources in the MQ Library or Google
Books.
This lack of distinction is echoed by a second student who states that
“the internet of course is a very handy way to research and it contains
many reliable sources. Websites like googlescholar or JSTOR enabled

further research in both books and articles. The Macquarie University
website also allows for an online search of books and many texts which
can be read online.” (paper 16)
Here Google Scholar or JSTOR enabled further research and the Macquarie Library
website also allowed for online searching. In a different paper a student equates
specialist reference works with open access websites:
“When exploring a new field of study, such as Antiquity’s Heirs it is
necessary to locate yourself in the correct and appropriate historiography.
This can be achieved by first using generalised information texts and
websites such as Wikipedia or specialised encyclopaedias and
dictionaries.” (paper 22)
In another paper the student appears to equate ‘the internet’ with online databases:
“Accessing and referencing online sources [online journal databases is
implied by the rest of the essay content] was a field in which I was
particularly inexperienced, but by improving my knowledge of them, I
was able to ensure that my research contained the most up-to-date
information, as the internet is a frequently updated source.”
While strategies employed to incorporate non-MQL resources are spoken of by these
students with relative confidence, another student indicates that such practices may be
frowned upon:
“I have to admit that I do use an internet search engine for search terms,
bibliographies or contexts. I can then go to JSTOR or Cambridge online
through the library search engine to make sure what I find is peer
reviewed.”
One wonders whether a similar concern lies behind the comment in paper 5 when the
student draws attention to the use of references on Wikipedia:
“... the readings for the Islam bloc of the unit were particularly interesting,
however, the section on the Abbassids did not give me the dates that I
needed so of course, further research was required. I mostly used
Wikipedia for those problems – using Wikipedia’s references of course.”
The evaluation of non-MQL resources in the participating students’ exam papers
extends beyond strategies aimed at finding resources for assessment to their
usefulness in tracking academic arguments. One student praises the capacity of
Google Scholar to search ‘forwards in time’:
“Usually scouring books and articles for sources you are starting from the
most recent work and moving backwards. A useful tool I found was when
using Google Scholar you can select a book or article and check all their
sources which cite it in order to find further discussion on the source you
are using. This allows you to instead move forwards in time in order to get
the most recent research.”

This understanding of Google Scholar’s usefulness may be referred to by another
student who comments in relation to an unidentified search-engine that “it is possible
to see texts which have cited your article”.
Apart from statements referring to non-MQL internet resources there are also more
general comments about the internet that arise in the course of students’ discussion of
their research practices. One theme concerns convenience and time. For example a
student comments that “when writing my outline for the essay I realised I had nothing
on Porphyry and Islam so I did a quick online search and found an article” (paper 7).
Another student observes that ‘internet journals’, apparently accessed through MQL
provide ‘quick access’ to ‘large amount of papers in your chosen area’ (paper 13). A
third student, evaluating their developing research skills observes that they have
progressed from using just “internet searching” to using “books, articles, reference
works …” and that “Time allowed for the change of method from internet to books
and references” (paper 11).
Paper 12 in the current study mentions having to ‘scrap’ a whole topic for the major
assignment because a ‘dead-end’ made it impossible to continue. This paper
demonstrated good awareness of both library and free-online resources. The statement
is, however, familiar from a 2012 study in which the researchers report on a student
who expresses frustration when ‘googling’ leads to a dead end (Colon-Aguirre and
Fleming-May, 2012: 394). While researching using free-online materials or peer
reviewed academic ones held by an institution can similarly lead to dead-ends,
providing students with a full suite of research pathways is surely an important role
for educators, be that making them more comfortable with their capacity to assess the
usefulness of information online or more willing to browse the open shelves.
Student comments indicating limited distinction between non-MQL and MQL online
resources, wholesale avoidance or wary use of internet resources, indicate scope for
further training, but overall statements about non-MQL online resources suggest a
relatively sophisticated engagement with the internet for academic purposes, at least
insofar as students are aware of the need to develop strategies for using it
appropriately. Assisting students to further develop their capacity to assess online
material, to open-up online resources for those who ignore them completely or
provide alternative means of researching assignments for those who have entrenched
patterns of using the internet to begin assignments or find citations is important.
Reference works and the internet : some recommendations
One way to assist students to use online research resources (free and fee based)
effectively is through teaching critical assessment skills that enable them to select
resources independently. MQL currently offers a checklist to help students assess the
credibility of online sources and should be applauded for providing such guidance,
especially in conjunction with its advice on critical analysis of all information
sources. Nevertheless, studies have questioned the usefulness of checklists. Among
various observations educators have pointed out that some prompts in checklists may
provide false leads eliminating perfectly reasonable online resources, that checklists
do not prepare students for the new and ever diversifying range of genres available
online, and that checklists are generally too cumbersome for most internet users

anyway, given that assessments of credibility are usually made quickly and on the
basis of a few criteria only (Ostenson 2014: 35-6; Metzger, 2007: 2079-80, 2010: 234;
Meola 2004: 336-8). Various alternative means of training students, and internet users
more generally, have been suggested.
One approach to teaching evaluation of online sources seeks to train students in the
kinds of strategies and behaviours that historians employ when assessing sources with
a view towards embedding the right kind of critical thinking (Ostenson 2014: 38-9).
This ‘contextual’ model advocates promotion of ‘trusted’ sources (i.e. peer reviewed
library resources) with which students might compare and corroborate free online
information (Ostenson 2014: 38-9; Meola 2004: 338-42). The AHIS120 assessment
design, which emphasises the use of peer-reviewed reference works as a first stage in
the research process and arms students with guidance about where to find appropriate
examples of this category of academic work, may provide a useful first step for an
expanded or adapted program that also teaches students to consider such things as the
range of genres found online, their usefulness and their limitations.
Hogan and Varnhagen suggest that instructors might make the most of students’
interest in, and comfort with, social media to teach critical assessment skills (Hogan
and Varnhagen 2012: 11). Comments by some of the participants in the present study
reflect the social nature of research, attesting to collaboration between students to find
research resources when starting projects and referral between students with regard to
academic resources (papers 18, 21). While these examples are offline, studies
indicating that student use of Facebook is high and that certain student communities
do employ it for academic purposes, including the sharing of academic resources, are
instructive (Jong et al. 2014: 205-6, Junco 2012: 170).
One way forward may be peer-review websites that play a role in sharing information
about research resources as well as assessing their usefulness and credibility. The
enduring popularity of ‘Rate my professor’ among students, a version of which has
now been introduced into Australia, provides food for thought (Otto et al. 2008: 355-
6). Review websites, with their capacity for sharing information and guiding the
application of assessment criteria through leading questions, may encourage more
thorough-going appraisal of online material and provide means for students to share
(and locate) relevant research resources for their given discipline. Moreover, a site
allowing opportunities for comparison of teacher and student assessments, similar to
the ‘expert’ and ‘layman’ model seen on non-academic websites like ‘Rotten
Tomatoes’, would potentially offer a means for students to assess their own
assessment skills. Such an approach may counter a level of over-confidence that has
been observed in the disconnection between student awareness of, and application of,
critical assessment skills (Hogan and Varnhagen 2012: 9-11).
The apparent confusion between non-MQL and MQL online resources observed in
the quotes outlined above may reflect terminological issues or more deep-seated
confusions. In either case increased information for students about the process of
academic peer review, academic and online genres, and the potential fallibility of both
may further enhance critical assessment skills and help students to understand their
discipline area better (Meola 2014: 339). Further research would, however, be
necessary to clarify the reasons behind the students’ expressions in the current study,
especially given that their comments were written under exam conditions.

The discussion above about reference works and the discussion below about the
library lecture given to AHIS120 students suggests that library-faculty collaboration
as well as assessment-led research training can be highly successful. Adapting these
types of intervention to assist students to assess online material confidently may also
provide means to affect greater awareness and application of critical assessment
skills.
Multi-search and Library lecture
One aspect of the analysis of the data set more specifically relevant to Macquarie
concerns references to Multi-search and a MQL lecture given to the 2014 cohort of
AHIS120.
Multi-search, a search-engine style catalogue, was introduced in 2014, the same year
as the students undertaking the AHIS120 exam were asked to discuss their research
methods. A large number of the participating students (16) refer to Multi-search.
Some do so explicitly and others mention searching the library 'catalogue',
'homepage', 'database', or 'library website', which can reasonably be interpreted as
referring to Multi-search. The range of terms used by students probably reflects the
novelty of the new system.
Multi-search is mentioned most frequently in relation to simple searches for call
numbers and known resources as well as key word searches for resources relating to
specific topics, and also access to resources. Students do register negative experiences
of multi-search, mentioning limited access to papers (papers 8, 17) through the library
website, and difficulties searching it (paper 5, 6, 13). Negative attitudes to use of
Library webpages are documented and have been adversely compared with the ease
of searching via search engines (Biddix et al. 2011: 176). MQL already offers
students federated searching of Google Scholar. Student interest in Google Scholar, as
mentioned above, may be leveraged even further by offering training, in collaboration
with faculty, to assist students to understand the mechanisms for narrowing Google
Scholar searches as a means to introduce them to more complex database use (Colon-
Aguirre and Fleming-May, 2012: 397). While the library lecture is mentioned
infrequently it is notable that in 2 of the 3 papers which reference it explicitly the
lecture is said to have clarified the searching process with one student saying the
lecture provided the ‘key’ to ‘searching’ with Multi-search (paper 15, 21). Singular in
its observation is the statement that databases (e.g. JSTOR) and multi-search
effectively double up (paper 7).
As just mentioned, 3 of the participating students, specifically cite the library lecture
given by Geraldine Marsh and treating ‘Research Skills: Navigating Library
Resources’. A fourth student refers to methods of searching Multi-search (e.g. the use
of a question mark in key search terms) which, covered in the lecture, may implicitly
reflect the student’s awareness of it. Although the number of comments about the
library lecture is limited, the ‘freestyle’ nature of the exam responses and the date of
the library lecture (early in the semester) suggest that these students’ positive (and
relatively long-term) recollections of the interaction with Geraldine Marsh are more
significant than the number of comments would ordinarily suggest.
The students who directly mention the lecture draw attention to different aspects of it.
One, as discussed above, mentions the lecturer’s role in providing the “key” to using

the “Multi-search tool”, by drawing attention to such features as the “available in
library” filter. Another student credits the library lecture with greater awareness of
databases, citing Google Scholar, as well as JSTOR and Brill’s New Pauly in the
course of the essay. A third student mentions the lecture only in passing.
It seems important to point out that for three of these papers specific details about
searching are retained and expressed. Similarly detailed recall of information is
apparent in one other paper that mentions a Tele’s Angels Library Tour. This tour
conducted by ancient history students for ancient history students seeks to provide
discipline-specific information about library resources. From this tour one student
learned that “Ancient History resources are spread in many areas, where Loeb
Classical Library books can be found and how important it is to use original sources
in essays”. While speculative for this study it seems possible that there might be a
correlation between the ‘live’ interaction associated with lectures and tours and the
students’ retention of detail.
Conclusions
The data set for ‘Analysing the Student Voice on Engagement with Research
Resources at First-Year University Level’ is admittedly small but the quantitative data
does, in relation to some subjects, stand out. It seems particularly interesting to find so
many students retaining the unit’s emphasis on reference works and registering a
similar response to them. Considering such statements in relation to current Learning
and Teaching studies provides an important check on the growing acceptance of
Wikipedia as a stand-alone reference tool for undergraduate academic work and an
important consideration for those interested in the history and future of peer-reviewed
reference materials.
The admittedly anecdotal but also largely candid responses of students to a ‘free style’
question reveal a surprising amount about attitudes to the internet, resources freely
available online and their relationship to library resources. Comparing the data with
existing studies, especially those examining internet use among undergraduates,
demonstrates broad correspondence rather than providing novel results. Still, the
findings from the present project may be useful for developing other Macquarie
University projects. They suggest for example the potential for enhancing students’
independent evaluation of internet resources through some kind of learning and
teaching initiative that uses library-faculty collaboration as demonstrated so
successfully through the AHIS120 teaching assessment design.

Bibliography
https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/
http://au.ratemyteachers.com/
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/
http://www.mq.edu.au/about/campus-services-and-
facilities/library/research/researching-your-assignment/evaluating-information-on-
the-internet
http://www.mq.edu.au/about/campus-services-and-
facilities/library/research/researching-your-assignment/critical-analysis-of-
information-sources
Barrett, A. 2005. ‘The Information-Seeking Habits of Graduate Student Researchers
in the Humanities,’ The Journal of Academic Librarianship 31.4: 324-331.
Biddix, J. P. et al. 2011. ‘Convenience or Credibility? A study of College Student
Online research behaviours,’ Internet and Higher Education 14: 175-82.
Colon-Aguirre, M. and Fleming-May, R. A. 2012. ‘“Just type what you are looking
for”: Undergraduates’ use of library resources vs. Wikipedia,’ The Journal of
Academic Librarianship 38.6: 391-99.
Colson, J. 2007. ‘Determining Use of an Academic Library Reference Collection:
Report of a Study,’ Reference and User Services Quarterly 47.2: 168-75.
East, J. W. 2010. ‘The Rolls Royce of the Library Reference Collection: The Subject
Encyclopedia in the Age of Wikipedia,’ Reference and User Services Quarterly
50.2: 162-9.
Hogan, N. and Varnhagen, C. 2012. ‘Critical Appraisal of Information on the Web in
Practice: Undergraduate Students' Knowledge, Reported Use, and Behaviour,’
Canadian Journal of Learning and technology 38.1: 1-14.
Jong, B.-S. et al. 2014. ‘An exploration of the potential educational value of
Facebook,’ Computers in Human Behaviour 32: 201-11.
Junco, R. 2012. ‘The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in
Facebook activities, and student engagement,’ Computers and Education 58:
162-71.
Kahu, E. R. 2013. ‘Framing student engagement in higher education’, Studies in
Higher Education 38.5: 758-773.
Krause, K. L. and Coates, H. 2008. ‘Students’ engagement in first-year University,’
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33.5: 493-505.

Leckie, G. J. 1996. ‘Desperately Seeking Citations: Uncovering Faculty Assumptions
about the Undergraduate Research Process,’ Journal of Academic Librarianship
22.3: 201-8.
Meola, M. 2004. ‘Chucking the Checklist: A Contextual Approach to Teaching
Undergraduates Web-Site Evaluation,’ Portal: Libraries and the Academy 4.3:
331-44.
Metzger, M. J. 2007. ‘Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for Evaluating
Online Information and Recommendations for Future Research,’ Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology 58.13: 2078-91.
Metzger, M. J. et al. 2010. ‘Social and heuristic approaches to credibility Evaluation
online’, Journal of Communication 60.3: 413–439.
Ostenson, J. 2014.‘Reconsidering the Checklist in Teaching Internet Source
Evaluation,’ Portal: Libraries and the Academy 14.1: 33-50.
Otto, J. et al. 2008. ‘Does Ratemyprofessor.com really rate my professor?,’
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33.4: 355-68.
Selwyn, M. and Gorard, S. 2016. ‘Students' use of Wikipedia as an academic resource
— Patterns of use and perceptions of usefulness,’ Internet and Higher
Education 28: 28-34.
Sica, A. 2015. ‘Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries,’ J. D. Wright (ed.)
International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2nd
edn. Vol. 7
(Amsterdam).
Weiler, A. 2004. ‘Information-Seeking Behaviour in Generation Y Students:
Motivation, Critical Thinking, and Learning Theory,’ Journal of Academic
Librarianship 31.1: 46–53.

Appendix A: Quantative analysis of AHIS120 exam essays

Analysing The Student Voice On Engagement With Research Resources At First Year University Level Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Analysing The Student Voice On Engagement With Research Resources At First Year University Level Report

Similar to Analysing The Student Voice On Engagement With Research Resources At First Year University Level Report (20)

More from Sara Alvarez

More from Sara Alvarez (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Analysing The Student Voice On Engagement With Research Resources At First Year University Level Report