TỔNG ÔN TẬP THI VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH NĂM HỌC 2023 - 2024 CÓ ĐÁP ÁN (NGỮ Â...
How students *really* do research - Findings from the Research Confession Booth
1. How do students really do
research? Revelations from the
Research Confession Booth
Odile Harter, Harvard University
Lisa Junghahn, University of California, Irvine
Emily Singley, Harvard University
How do students really do research?
findings from the
Research Confession Booth
Odile Harter, Harvard University
Lisa Junghahn, UC Irvine
Emily Singley, Harvard University
3. 1. Background
1.1. Provide the scientific background, rationale for the study, and importance in
adding to existing knowledge.
The initial goal of the study is to obtain a better understanding of how patrons use library
resources and what they most value about the resources we do have. This information will
be used to inform the design and implementation of the Library’s new discovery platform.
As the Library keeps pace with a constantly changing research environment, the study will
continue to investigate how researchers interact with and feel about library products and
services.
Harvard Library has access to several measures of patron behavior, including user surveys,
focus groups, and usability studies, but none of these offer sufficiently granular or
contextualized information for us to understand the whole picture of what our users want.
This study will collect information that is granular, qualitative, and not tied to a particular
website or library vendor. It will also provide a recognizable site for library patrons to
quickly and easily give very specific feedback about their research experiences.
Study protocol
5. TASK 1
“Please show us a feature you really like in a
resource you use to do research.”
Study protocol
6. TASK 2
“Please walk us through a situation in which you were trying to find
information to use in your coursework and encountered some kind of
obstacle or snag that interfered with your ability to find, obtain, or use
the information you were seeking.”
Study protocol
8. Pros and cons:
Flexible
Nimble
Qualitative
Semi-controlled/slightly artificial
Small dataset
Study protocol
9. What we’re learning:
Global picture – which systems are
actually used
Navigation behaviors
Contextualized usage - how and why
systems are used
Findings
10. Category Resource Use
Harvard library
HOLLIS catalog 10
Harvard Library
website
1
Databases A-Z list 1
Fulfillment services
Scan & Deliver 1
Borrow Direct 1
Interlibrary Loan 1
Open web
Google Scholar 5
Google 5
Wikipedia 1
Databases
PubMed 4
Academic Search Premier 1
JSTOR 1
Findings
11. Navigation:
Typing in memorized URL
Googling site name
Navigating via Harvard Library
homepage or intranet
Findings
12. Features identified as important:
Confidence & comfort
Filtering
Getting relevant results:
o topical
o level of detail
o academic results
Full-text fulfillment
Citation management options
“This button right here is the best:”
Findings
13. Library as difficult, confusing, annoying:
Findings
“I sometimes feel like I don't know how to use the right ‘ands’
and ‘ors’ and quotation marks."
"I really don’t like "getting it" from interlibrary loan - I feel like
that's really annoying. So I actually usually just try to find it on
my own.”
“The resource I use most would probably be JSTOR, because
I’ve known that since high school (…) I’m not the best at
research.”
“See, this is the point where I usually give up and just go ask
the research librarian for help, you know, because I don’t
know how to do this stuff.”
14. Preference for open web:
Quick fulfillment
Familiar interface
Trust in how it’s interpreting your query
Greater tolerance for uncertainty
Ability to match effort invested to information need
Findings
2 minutes –where study came from: Search&Discovery committee, Primo implementation, etc.
2 minutes – Study protocol – filling in gaps, not tied to a particular website, open-ended and ongoing
Protocol, cont. Implementation of protocol – based on the model of reality TV show confession cam. Outside library. Recording voice, but will not share. Wrote IRB for protocol, not tasks.
Another possible task: how would you start your research
10 minutes per participant
Nimble, only takes two hours of our time to run. Confounding variables: e.g., introducing ourselves as librarians.
Contextualized usage: seeing use behaviors that we wouldn’t be able to track using just analytics. E.g. use of Google scholar as a reference source.
Global picture of which systems were actually used – “use” defined as chose to go to resource, performed some action (searched, looked for documentation, etc). Databases: count when they navigated from url, when from library
Comment on proxied vs non-proxied navigation
Confidence – tolerance for using something poorly; scoping – easy-to-understand
Lack of confidence in ability to use library tools (sense that they are missing something). Perception of the library as annoying, confusing, intimidating, slow
Did not track with ability or familiarity.