Join Us at CCCC 2012 in St. Louis!

Understanding Students’ Source Choices: Insights from the Citation Project and LILAC Project
Session: D.19 on Mar 22, 2012 from 3:15 PM to 4:30 PM	Cluster: 10) Research
Type: Concurrent Session (3 or more presenters)	Interest Emphasis: Not Applicable
Level Emphasis: All	Focus: First-Year Composition
Description of session: When instructors read students’ researched writing, they assess the sources in the bibliography and the ways in which sources are cited in the text. The results of two separate research projects, however, provide important new information about how and why students choose the sources they do; what kinds of sources are chosen; and how the source choices affect the intellectual and rhetorical quality of the students’ written work. Speakers in this session describe pedagogical changes that are suggested by the research results. Speaker One Abstract: TITLE: Statistical Analysis of Students' Source Choices The Citation Project has studied almost 1,000 sources cited in 175 student researched papers from FYC classes at 16 colleges across the US, and the correlation between the type and difficulty-level of the source and students’ use of it. This presentation will discuss these findings and related questions about how we describe and they assess sources. There is much room for confusion when we say “peer reviewed” to mean “reviewed by academics” but wikipedia is also “peer reviewed,” and there is more confusion regarding bias. McClure and Clink’s 2009 study of 100 student essays found that sources they classified as “advocacy” were the most frequently cited, followed by “News” and “Informational” (“How Do You Know That?”). A 2011 whitepaper by Turnitin.com, “Plagiarism and the Web,” uses six classifications, and notes that material in “Homework and Academic” is the second most frequently used (25% of 140 million content matches). This category includes www.coursehero.com, which boasts “more than 6,500,000 student-uploaded documents from over 5,000 universities around the world” but would probably not be classified as “academic” by most FYC faculty. Another Turnitin grouping, “News and Portals,” includes The New York Times and answers.yahoo.com (the 2nd most frequently used source after wikipedia). Turnitin studied “content matches” and didn’t distinguish between quoted or correctly cited and uncited work. The citation project only codes cited source use and classifies sources into much finer categories, yet some of the findings match those of Turnitin and both studies conclude that we need to teach students to incorporate source material more effectively. But this research also confirms that students in FYC are failing to use appropriate sources, and suggests that rather than trying to teach them how to find those sources—or using computer programs to monitor which sites they use and how they use them—FYC should stop assigning the research paper. Speaker Two Abstract: TITLE: How Students Find and Evaluate Sources This presentation will report on the LILAC Project’s pilot study of students’ information-seeking behavior (ISB). Using a “research-aloud protocol” (RAP), along with interviews and surveys, we attempt to discover what students are taking away from current classroom- and library-based information literacy instruction so that we can make recommendations for equipping students with research skills that will transfer beyond the first-year classroom. In the past few years, research into and testing of students’ skills in information literacy, usually defined as the ability to locate and use information from outside sources, has proliferated. The results of most of these tests and studies, however, is to tell us what we, as educators, already know: whatever we are doing now to teach essential information literacy skills to our students is just not working. Even though teachers and librarians have tried a wide variety of ways to teach these skills, students continue to fare poorly in assessments of those skills. While there are problems with many of these assessment instruments, we are right to be concerned, as the RAPs I describe in this presentation will show. The problem is not a lack of instruction or a lack of instructional materials dealing with information literacy; of these, we have an embarrassment of riches. Instead, we may need to reconsider how, when, and where we provide students with this instruction. Speaker 3 Abstract: TITLE: Pedagogical Causes and Rhetorical Consequences of Students' Source Choices A rhetorical analysis of papers studied in the Citation Project reveals that what often seem to be stylistic infelicities, underdeveloped or disorganized writing, misuse of sources, or excessive reliance on sources cannot be remedied in late stages of composing. The Citation Project research reveals that instead, these issues often derive from “quote-mining” sources rather than reading them; overvaluing brevity and ease of reading as criteria for source selection; and focusing on correct citation without actually engaging with or even reading the sources. Passages from an array of student research papers illustrate problems in style and academic integrity that result from attenuated and cursory source selection and incomplete reading. These results suggest that it may be useful to redefine “early” and “late” stages of students’ writing from sources, with drafting categorized not as an “early” stage but a “late” one. It may be useful, too, to consider the extent to which correct citation is being overvalued in the assessment of student writing. Even when poor sources have been chosen and read only for the discovery of “killer quotes,” the paper may appear to handle sources well. Speaker 3 will offer concrete principles for what seem necessary and extensive pedagogical and curricular reforms.

IRB Application (finally!) submitted!

I have (finally!) submitted the IRB application for a pilot study of the LILAC Project at Georgia Southern University.  Adrienne (Katt) Blackwell-Starnes has also joined me as Co-Investigator on the Project.

I will be presenting on the LILAC project at CCCC in St. Louis this spring, on a panel with Rebecca Moore Howard and Sandra Jamieson of the Citation Project, and I have been invited to submit an article for Sandra and Tricia Serviss's upcoming book collection (and Katt has agreed to co-author it with me!).

I have also received approval from my Department Chair to purchase/borrow the following equipment and software for the pilot study when approved by the IRB:

2 - laptops (one will be kept in my office, and one in Katt's)
2 - licenses for Camtasia Studio software (to be installed on laptops)
2 -  headsets with microphones
1 - 2T external hard drive

I've posted a copy of the IRB application to the LILAC Wiki, along with the sample videos I posted previously, and a draft of a forthcoming article on the LILAC Project.  After the pilot study, I hope to pursue grant funding to expand the study; I'll be sure to post any information/applications for that as well.

Exciting times!

I know, I know. It's been a very long time since I've added to this blog--and LOTS has happened in the world of LILAC. But that will have to wait until I have more time.

Right now, I just want to jot down a few notes/quotes from some reading I've been doing. So, here goes.

From "Non-existence of Systematic Education on Computerized Writing in Japanese Schools," by Taku Sugimoto (Computers and Composition 24 (2007): 317-328).

"For high school students, a new subject called 'information studies' is introduced in the current Course of Study. It has three major goals: to develop practical skills of using information, to understand information scientifically, and to cultivate attitudes to actively participate in the information society. There are three different courses under this subject. All the courses cover the three goals above, but the weight placed on each is different. Information Studies A, for example, lays stress on basic practical skills, and in teching those skills it touches on scientific and social issues. Information Studies B puts more emphasis on the scientific understanding of information while Information Studies C deals more with issues related to the information society. Every high school student in the country is mandated to take one of these courses" (320).

I really think this gets at something I've been thinking a lot about--that our current curriculum needs to be reformed. That is, instead of teaching research as part of writing instruction, I'd like for us to dump our "Freshman English" or "Composition" classes entirely (based as they are on an antiquated 19th century model) and, instead, teach "Information Literacy"--perhaps, as here, as a sequence of courses, each building upon the other (and, of course, offering "just-in-time" instruction!).

The article continues: "Besides these subjects for ordinary senior high school students, a vocational course in informatics [emphasis added] was established in the current Course of Study for those students who will enter the information industry right after graduation from high school. And a professional subject course in information studies was created for their education and covers such topics as information and expression, algorithms, development of information systems, network systems, simulations, computer design, processing figures and pictures, multimedia expressions, and so on" (320-21).

"Besides these subject matters on informatics, the Course of Study is designed to encourage information and communication technologies in all the subjects (i.e., mathematics, social studies, and so on). Giving students access to digital technologies for learning and teaching is intended to familiarize children with computers and other information/communication technologies" (321).

So, yeah, this article is dealing more with teaching communication technology, but the idea, I think, is the same, since the courses aren't just teaching how to deal with the technology.

Another article in the same issue deals with game playing, but it, too, I think references some lessons for LILAC, specifically, James Paul Gee's work:

From "On the Bright Side of the Screen: Material-world Interactions Surrounding the Socialization of Outsiders to Digital Spaces," by Sally W. Chandler, Joshua Burnett, and Jacklyn Lopez (Computers and Composition 24 (2007): 346-364).

"Similar to principles Gee attributes to games, Jackie and Josh position the learner to discover what she needs (Discovery Principle) and provide information only when the learner is on the verge of giving up (Explicity Information On-Demand and Just-in-Time Principle) [emphasis added]. Directions help learners master the interface and provide support as they shift from material to digital styles for learning. This support differs from Gee's principles in that it is directed toward a learner who is outside the class of learners this particular game is designed to teach. The kind of person-to-person, material world support Jackie and Josh provide is particularly necessary for outsiders invested in semiotic practices inconsistent with practices built into the learning context. Experienced gamers' questions are answered by the game itself, but outsiders' different patterns for learning and making meaning make the game's information virtually inaccessible; cultural outsiders and technological newcomers initially need personalized, material-world support to use virtual spaces as places to learn" (356-57).

I think this is especially applicable to teaching information literacy skills in that we need to consider how to scaffold lessons. That is, considering learners (our students) as "cultural insiders/outsiders" can help us provide just-in-time instruction at various levels as needed by the learner, keeping in mind that not all of our students will enter the instructional model at the same levels. Or something like that.

By the way, Gee's book could be interesting to apply to our project:

Gee, James Paul. What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).