Submitted on: 05.07.2019 1 Authority, Context and Containers: Student Perceptions and Judgments When Using Google for School Work Lynn Silipigni Connaway, PhD OCLC Research OCLC, Dublin, OH, USA E mail address : firstname.lastname@example.org Joyce Kasman Valenza, PhD Rutgers University Rydal, PA USA. E mail address : email@example.com Christopher Cyr PhD OCLC Research, OCLC, Dublin, OH USA E mail address : firstname.lastname@example.org Tara Tobin Cataldo Marston Science Library University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA E mail address : email@example.com Amy G. Buhler Marston Science Library University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA E mail address : firstname.lastname@example.org Ixchel M. Faniel, PhD OCLC Research, OCLC, Dublin, OH USA. E mail address : email@example.com Rachael Elrod Education Library University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA. E mail address : firstname.lastname@example.org Randy A. Graff, PhD UF Health, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA. E mail address : email@example.com Samuel R. Putnam Marston Science Library University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA E mail address : firstname.lastname@example.org Brittany Brannon OCLC Research, OCLC, Du blin, OH USA E mail address : email@example.com
2 Erin M. Hood OCLC Research, OCLC, Dublin, OH, USA E mail address : firstname.lastname@example.org Kailey Langer Marston Science Library University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA E mail address : email@example.com Copyright 201 9 by OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Joyce Kasman Valenza, Tara Tobin Cataldo, Amy G. Buhler, Rachael Elrod, Randy A. Graff, Samuel R. Putnam, Kailey Langer T his work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4 .0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Abstract: What really happens when student researchers meet a Google results page? How do students determine the authority behind each result? News, blogs, journals, Wikipedia, websites, e books -with the vast array of online content available, how do students differentiate between them? Better still, do they differentiate between them or are these format agnostic students stymied by container collapse? The project is answering these questions. The Higher Education aims to guide educators in their work to develop Institute of Mus eum and Library Services (IMLS) funded study, examines and compares the judgments and perceptions of students (from late primary, secondary, community college/vocational school, undergraduate, to graduate school/postgraduate) as they select resources for s cience related school inquiry projects. Our project team includes academic science librarians, pre service LIS educators, school librarians, and research scientists. We enlisted K 12, community college, four year college, and university librarians and facu lty as members of our Advisory Panel. three resources common to all participants included in Google search results, and the role the container plays in determining whether the resource is credible and citable for a school/academic project. Students used cues from the web search results screen in their judgements and educational stage influenced their behavior in some instances. These findings can be used by librarians to design scalable instructional models to support critical student inquiry skills. The research results also will contribute to and support evidence instruction grounded i n frameworks, guidelines, and standards. Key w ords: Credibility of online resources, information literacy, container collapse, STEM, students Introduction What really happens when student researchers meet a Google results page? How do students determi ne the authority behind each result? News, blogs, journals, Wikipedia, websites, e books -with the vast array of online content available, how do students differentiate among them? More importantly, do they differentiate among them? Through the lens of th ree common resources on a simulated Google results page, this paper explores the perceptions and
3 judgments of students across a wide span of educational stages relating the role the container plays in evaluating a resource for a school/academic project. In their often cited study, Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reason Wineburg McGrew, Breakstone, & Ortega (2016) of the Stanford History Education Group (SHEG), presented middle school, high school and college students with a series of tasks designed to measure their ability to reason the quality of information they might meet on line. bleak Students were ill prepared to reason the origins of a source and easily duped (p. 4). In a later SHEG study (Wineburg & McGrew, 2016), researchers compared the effor ts of professional fact checkers with historians and first year college students in evaluating credibility of potential sources. The fact checkers pursued a more successful approach, spending far less time focused on carefully examining the original articl e or reading it vertically. After a quick scan of a source, the fact checkers opened new browser tabs and practice the researchers described as reading laterally A large scale Project Information Literacy survey, How Students Engage with News: Five Takeaways for Educators, Journalists, and Librarians explores how a diverse samp le of nearly 6000 U.S. college students and a select group of high school students digitally gather information and engage with the news across media platforms (Head, Wihbey, Metaxas, o discern authority as vexing. feel like being on a scavenger hunt. Many know they need to invest the time and critical thinking to assemble, evaluate, and interpret news as it i nts exert effort to find reliable, high quality news about Information skills have critical importance beyond the imposed tasks of research simulations and beyond the need to complete school research assignments. Media and information literacy skills have critical global importance. In Media and Information Literacy: Policy and Strategy Guidelines for UNESCO (Grizzle et al., 2013), emphasize the importance of countries develop ing national policies and strategies for media and information literacies. The Guidelines warns of disparities relating not only to basic information access but to the emergence of additional disparities information and media content for decision (p. 14). global strategy positioning these critical literacies as a combined set of competencies prerequisite for fostering equitable access to information and knowledge and promoting free, independent and pluralistic media and information systems. The peer reviewed yearbook collection, Media and Information Literacy for the Sustainable Development Goals (Singh, Grizzle, Yee, & Culver, 2015) offers global context for the
4 to democratic participation. Survival in knowledge societies requires that women, men, children and youth, in general, all citizens, have the competencies to purpo sefully navigate the flood of information, decipher media messages they come across, create and participate in media and interact online despite their race, gender, age, beliefs, ability or location. This rapid growth in technologies and media has opened u p new forms of citizen engagement. Women/girls and men/boys use of social networking platforms has created a virtual second world. Meanwhile, a large number of studies show that citizens do not have the competencies to effectively exploit the opportunities provided by this virtual world and at the same time minimize the potential risks (p. 22). National and international standards and frameworks, including ACRL (2015), AASL (2018), IFLA (2011; 2017), and UNESCO (2017) clearly reinforce the importance of ad dressing information, media and digital literacy knowledge practices and dispositions with students. In a world where students are vexed by their information choices and their ability to discern authority is described as bleak there is a sense an urgency about better understanding and of need decision making for their school research projects to mitigate disparities to ensure long term and effective civic engagement. This urgency is the premise for the an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded study, that examines and compares the judgments and perceptions of students (from late primary/elementary school, secondary/high school, com munity college/vocational/technical school, undergraduate, to graduate school/postgraduate) as they select resources for science related school inquiry projects (Buhler, et al., 2015 2018). The project team includes academic science librarians, pre service Library and Information Science (LIS) educators, school librarians, and research scientists. The team is complemented by an advisory panel comprised of librarians and science teaching faculty from primary/elementary schools, secondary/high schools, commun ity colleges/four year colleges, universities and public libraries. Among the roles of the advisory panel was to assess the citability, credibility, and container of resources for their respective education stages. The primary research objective is to exa mine how students determine the helpfulness, credibility and citability of online search results, particularly with regards to the role played by container, or resource type. Using an innovative methodology, 175 students representing five educational stage s participated in task based simulations to study their real time selection of resources involving the impact of the Burmese Python in the Florida Everglades. Student participants were grouped by educational stages defined by the Digital Visitors and Resid ents (V&R) framework ( Connaway, Kitzie, Hood, & Harvey, 2017) The V&R educational stages to identify how and why individuals engage with technology and how they g et their information. Because age is not the sole factor in determining how one engages in technology and determines the credibility of information, the V&R framework provides a broader range of characteristics than the model offered by Prensky. The four V &R educational stages are 1) Emerging: last year high school/secondary school, vocational/technical school, and first year undergraduate college/university students; 2) Establishing: upper division undergraduate college/university students; 3) Embedding: g raduate/postgraduate students; and 4) Experiencing: faculty/scholars/lifelong learners. Since the RSIC study includes elementary and
5 early years of high school/secondary school students, a new educational stage has been added Pre Emerging to include 4 t h 11 th grade/year students. There are two Pre Emerging educational stages Pre Emerging 1 includes elementary and middle school students, and Pre Emerging 2 includes students in their first three years of high school/secondary school. This division is pre liminary, as these stages have not yet been extensively studied in the V&R framework. Future research may alter the specific division of these stages. ( See Table 1 for the names and descriptions of the five (2 Pre Emerging) educational stages included in t he RSIC study. ) Educational Stage Definition Pre Emerging 1 Elementary and middle school students Pre Emerging 2 Students in their first three years of high school/secondary school Emerging Last year high school/secondary school, vocational/technical school, and first year undergraduate college/university students Establishing Upper division undergraduate college/university students Embedding Graduate/postgraduate students Experiencing Faculty/scholars/lifelong learners Table 1 Participant Sample Of the 175 students who participated in the simulations, 90 were enrolled in higher education institutes. Eight five were K12 students. Fifty three percent of the students identified as female 46% as male and 1% as another gender. Racial/ethnic breakdowns can be viewed in Figure 1. Eighty five percent were born in the United States. Thirty six percent of the students are (or have the potential to be) first generation college students, meaning they do not have any parent Figure 1 Methods of selection behavior (i.e., the moment a user determines a piece of information potentially meets a research need) when just beginning work on a science Everglades 60% 14% 9% 7% 7% 2% 1% Race/Ethnicity White Asian Latin/Hispanic Black Mixed Race No answer/Other Native American
6 time judgments, the research team created simulated Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs) in conjunction with a think aloud protocol to gather their thought processes as they progressed through a task base d research session. Simulations were employed to mimic the real world experience of engaging in a Google search and to record quantitative data. The simulations were created with an instructional design software, Articulate Storyline. The simulation presen ted participants with a research query appropriate to their educational stage, asked them to perform a Google search and then review a controlled set of search results where they would determine the helpfulness, citability, credibility, and identify the co ntainer of the resources (Figures 2 5). A think aloud protocol captured rich qualitative. A short video demonstration of the simulation session can be viewed at: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/ IR00010570/00001/video?search=rsic. Figure 2: Helpful Task Figure 3: Cite Task
7 Figure 4: Credible Task Figure 5: Container Task To enhance the student simulation and think aloud data, the research team gathered seeking behaviors via self reported instruments (recruitment survey and interview questions). For this paper, the analysis of the data includes the aforementioned tasks with a focus on three online resources common to all 175 study participants. Throughout this paper references to these resources will be by their source names, Captai n Mitch (1), Wikipedia (2) and Google Books (3).
8 1. 2. Wikipedia
9 3. An e Google Books Results Participants were divided into five different educational stages using the Dig ital Visitors & Residents (V&R) framework developed by Connaway & White (2011 2014). The breakdown of the V&R educational stages for the research sample are shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 This paper focuses on three different resources (Captain Mitch, Wikipedia, and Google Books) and four different tasks (Helpful, Cite, Credible, and Container) in a simulated Google environment. The Helpful task asked participants to select the resources they considered helpful to address their research prompt.
10 The Cite task displayed the resources that the participants selected as helpful, and asked participants to select those they considered citable. The Credible task asked participants to select, on a scale from 1 to 5, how credible they believe the resourc e is (with 5 being the most credible). Once again, participants were only asked about resources that they selected as helpful, and those who did not select each resource as helpful did not receive a score for the Credible task. The Container task asked pa rticipants to select the best container for the resource from eight possible choices. Figure 7 Participants in higher V&R stages were more likely to select the Wikipedia resource as helpful than participants in lower stages. This also appears to be t he case with the Google Books resource, though this relationship is less clear. There was a steady increase in the percentage of participants that selected the resource as helpful from the Pre Emerging 1 stage to the Establish stage (3% to 53% respectively ). At the Embedding stage, however, there was a drop to 30%. This suggests a possible inverted U shaped relationship, with participants at middle stages most likely to select the resource as helpful. Participants at higher V&R stages were less likely to se lect the Captain Mitch resource as helpful.
11 Figure 8 The Cite Task only asked participants about resources that they selected as helpful, meaning that those who did not select a resource as helpful automatically did not select it as citable. As such, it is likely that the task produced lower overall citability scores for each resource. With this caveat acknowledged, it appears that participants at higher V&R stages were more likely to select the Google Books resource as citable, but less likely to sele ct the Captain Mitch and Wikipedia resources as citable. The Wikipedia relationship is especially interesting, since participants at higher V&R stages were more likely select that resource as helpful. This suggests that participants with higher levels of e ducation have a nuanced view of Wikipedia, viewing at as helpful but not citable. Figure 9
12 Figure 10 Figure 11 Among those that thought that the Captain Mitch resource was helpful, the credibility score declined by V&R stage. For the Google Books resource, on the other hand, there was an increase in credibility score by cohort. For the Wikipedia resource, the trend is less clear, with significant variation in credibility score within every cohort.
13 Figure 12 Participants at higher V &R stages were better able to correctly identify the Wikipedia resource as a website and the Google Books resource as a book than participants at lower V&R stages. There does not appear to be a relationship between V&R stage and correctly identifying the C aptain Mitch resource, and overall participants struggled to correctly identify this resource as a blog. Discussion The three resources analyzed here can be viewed to have three different levels of authority. Using collected qualitative data to examine s tudent reasoning at different educational stages reveals a range of thinking about credibility from gut level heuristics to the type of knowledge practices and dispositions advocated by the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education as we ll as the AASL Learner Standards, particularly the Shared Foundations Curate, Explore and Engage. The following think aloud quotes reveal typical responses related to the examined resources. Captain Mitch: Does sponsored text have value? The primary purpose of the Captain Mitch resource is commercial, promoting airboat tours. While several of the participants in the Pre emerging educational stages incorrectly viewed Captain Mitch as a news article (rather than a blog), others were able to discern the true purpose of the resource. One Pre Emerging 1 student reflected the confusion of a more sophisticated researcher struggling with limited format cues, but able to clearly recognize a sponsored text. Captain Mitch is advertising his airboat tours, so it's not going to be a news story or news outlet...And it's saying it's certified with TripAdvisor and it s advertising airboat rides, so it's not going to be a magazine because if it's a magazine about Burmese pythons it s not going to be adver tising airboat rides. One Emerging student thought more deeply about Captain Mitch while judging its credibility, considering the value of professional experience in informal sources: Well, looking without clicking this article, I would say a two just because it s captainmitch.com and that's super weird. Airboat tours? I don t know. Since he does
14 airboat tours, he probably knows more. So I ll give that a three. Just because I know that my biological father did a lot of riverboat tours and stuff, and kne w a lot of stuff through doing that, which is why I [figured he would know more]. This reflection echoes the knowledge practices and dispositions of the ACRL Framework that authority is constructed and contextual, defining different types of authority and recognizing that authoritative content may be packaged formally or informally and demonstrates the potential for students to cross this important threshold concept at an earlier stage in the academic career. The student also reflects consideration of the AASL Learners Standard: Wikipedia: Helpfulness vs. Citability. Stop the shaming? The Wikipedia website article on Burmese Pythons is, perhaps, more ambiguous in its fundamental authority. The crowd sourced authorship of Wikipedia articles provokes debate relating to the credibility of the resource, despite the fact that many Wikipedia authors are topic experts and tha t librarians often bolster Wikipedia articles by editing and adding references. I have high confidence in the material because I know that the people who contribute (I'm one, as are my students) are often quite well versed in the subject. Most importantly, the changes are transparent I can look through the history to read the discussion, much the way I can in open peer reviews. While many students judge the helpfulness and citability of a resource at the individual resource level, it appears that credibility judgments often are made at the source level. This credibility. The experts on the stud resource at the resource level, taking the time to note the references in the article and their quality. At the earlier educational stages, student decision making focused on the notion of aboutnes s across their range of choices. Credibility did not play a large role in their think aloud discussions and decisions regarding helpfulness. Wikipedia appears to be an exception. While the Wikipedia article might have been judged as helpful, and was by stu dents in the more advanced educational stages, the students in the lower educational stages saw its use as a good/bad binary choice a choice that parents and teachers advised them to avoid. At the advanced educational stages, the adult participants echoe d behaviors described in coverage, currency, convenience, and comprehensibili ty in a world where credibility is less of The evolution of trust In Wikipedia was documented by Mothe & Sahut (2018) who noted a in their study related positive experiences with the collaborative encyclopedia for closed and open questions.
15 At the Emerging educational stage (community college), several participants described what might best be described as Wik ipedia shaming This also was a prevalent comment from the V&R participants, which is referred to as the Learning Black Market since the students admitted using Wikipedia for the academic work but would not cite the resource (Connaway, Lanclos, & Hood, 201 3a; 2013b; White, 2011). Among the typical responses describing Wikipedia shaming : I hate that it s shamed, that you shouldn't use it because it s -I don t know And in my generation, everything -I feel like they re like, They re going to go in I ve actually found it to be really concise and kind of like a little nugget of information that allows me to explore further. And poor Wikipedia, and I'm upset that people are mean about it [laughter]. I wouldn t use Wikipedia just because I kno w it s not scholarly. Now, me personally, I would use it if I was talking to a friend of mine. I would tell them to check out this page just because of the references. And, personally, I think that Wikipedia kind of gets downed a little bit, but I know tha t most colleges don t, and I don't think my teacher would enjoy that, so I would not use Wikipedia in my report. Other Emerging stage students described how important Wikipedia was for quickly developing critical context and vocabulary compared to using m ore academic texts: Again, I really like concise nuggets of information. This just feels like word vomit all over the screen. I mean, not that it's not helpful. There s big words in it that seem important, so I feel like I would be [laughter] -I don t kno w. Yeah. I don t know. It almost seems messy to have to do all this when you can just depend on Wikipedia. While this study focused solely on an imposed academic research query and did not distinguish information uses, on the whole, the Pre Emerging parti cipants demonstrated aversion to all uses of Wikipedia because teachers and parents clearly warned them to avoid it. Like the Wikipedia, considering it a relia ble old friend for its ability to get them up to speed on an unfamiliar topic and for its references to both primary and secondary sources. At the Embedding educational stage (graduate level), students demonstrated a disposition toward evaluating the reso urce at the article level: Now I m going back to the Wikipedia article because that provides me with a lot of references of authority. And I m going to go deep into those references to see if they are helpful. That will also help determine if the Wikipedi a article itself is helpful or not. Because if the references here are good, the article itself should be good. While all participants could identify Wikipedia as a pervasive presence in the information landscape, not all were able to identify its format. Is it a blog if it is open to contributions? A traditional encyclopedia would be labeled a book. Eighty one percent of the students labeled Wikipedia as a website. The next most popular container (at 8%) was blog which was chosen more by the Pre Emerging 1 students.
16 Google Books: The problem with books At the higher authority level is the book discovered in Google Books. The book on pythons was written by expert herpetologists and published by reputable university press in the United States. While most students were able to identify the Google Book as a book, other e books on the page. In other e book choices, students were not able to articulate typi cal container characteristics, like publisher, chapters, tables of contents. All of the Establishing and Embedding students identified the Google Book as a book. Pre Emerging 1 students, 20% of the elementary students and 10% of middle school students in t he Pre emerging educational level, labeled it a website. s a book because it says books, and it s obviously a book because it has all the authors and then invasive pythons in the United States and all the -it has page n umbers and everything and all that, so. And pictures in [the Students rarely got to the level of determining the authority of the book itself, perceiving the book format itself as too long, too old, or inaccessible as illustrated in the comments below: d probably have to buy it. s that guy Dorcas again. But again, the books, I kind of -if I were looking f or something specific, a lot of times it's like, Oh, it's in this book, and then I ll go and actually do exactly this. I ll open it up in the Google Books or whatever, and hopefully, the free preview lets me see the one page where I just need the citatio n, and then I ll go and find that paper somewhere else just because a lot of times -and especially with books, a lot of times there [sic] older. So I d much rather just have the journal article where they Invasive pythons. Ecology of a Predator. Old textbook. Somewhat worrisome because can be out of date. They can Conclusions The observations reported in this paper reflect a variety of needs that can inform the design of scalable instructional models to support critical student inquiry skills as well as updated professional development strategies for teachers. The observations support evidence based decision making for the implementation of more nuanced, iterative and sophisticated information literacy instruction grounded in frameworks, guidelines and standards. More importantly, instructional models need to be designed based abilities and subject knowledge of the discipline being investigated, as demonstrated by the V&R educational stages applied in this study. Participants in the higher educational stages were more likely to identify the container f or the Wikipedia and Google Books resources. Participants at higher V&R stages also were more likely to select the Wikipedia and Google Books resources as helpful, and less likely to select the Captain Mitch resource as helpful. Those students earlier in t heir educational stages viewed Wikipedia as a resource that parents
17 and teachers instructed them to avoid. While those in the later educational stages find Wikipedia articles as valuable and trusted resources but indicate that they would not cite them for their academic work. stages and to build on these literacies as they progress through their educational stages. Librarians and classroom teachers might consider leveling up through the earlier introduction and practice of critical threshold concepts as well as the vocabulary and digital cues relating to the publishing proc ess and information formats. At a variety of educational stages, student participants revealed serious gaps in knowledge practices and dispositions. These include the agility to move beyond aboutness in assessing the value of results; understanding of the contextual nature of authority; the ability to identify potential and varied uses of information at different stages in the inquiry process; consideration of scholarship as a conversation through such methods as reviewing references at the end of Wikipedia articles and considering the value of citation chaining in academic work. This paper also supports the need for targeted media/information literacy models as articulated by the UNESCO, ACRL, AASL, and IFLA in their national and international standards a nd frameworks. Regardless of educational stages, students in elementary school through graduate school will benefit from learning ways to determine helpful, credible, and citable resources for their academic work. This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services grant number LG 81 15 0155. The Digital Visitors and Residents (V&R) project was a collaboration between OCLC and the University of Oxford, in partnership with the Unive rsity of North Carolina, Charlotte, with funding from Jisc. American Association of School Librarians (AASL). (2018). National school library standards for learners, school librarians, and school libraries Chicago: ALA Editions. Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (2015). Framework for information literacy for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework Buhler, A., Cataldo, T. T., Faniel, I. M., Connaway, L. S., Valenza, J. K., Graff, R., El rod, R., Putnam S., Cyr, C., Towler, C., Hood, E., Fowler, R., Howland, S., Brannon, B., Langer, K., & Kirlew, S. (2015 2018). and judging credibility in digital spaces IMLS Grant Project LG 81 15 http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/RSIC Connaway, L. S., Kitzie, V., Hood, E. M., & Harvey, W. (2017). The many faces of Digital Visitors & Residents: Facets of online engagement. With contributions from A. Benedetti, A. Canals, L. Gregori, E. O. Espinet, D. Lozano, M. Man, J. C. Morales, S. G. Ricetto, R. Melgrati, E. M. M. Rodrguez, A. Sada, P. Sidorko, P. Sirito, V. Steel, T. van der Werf, & E. Woo. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. doi:10.25333/C3V63F. Retrieved from
18 https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/2017/oclcresearch many faces digital vandr.pdf Connaway, L. S., Lanclos, D. M., & Hood, E and why. EDUCAUSE Review Online Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/i always stick first thing comes go ogle where people go information what they use and why library. In Proc eedings of the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) 2013 conference (pp. 289 300). Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/pa pers/Connaway_Google.pdf Grizzle, A., Moore, P., D ezuanni, M., Asthana, S., Wilson, C., Banda, F., & Onumah, C. (2013). Media and information literacy: Policy and strategy guidelines Paris: UNESCO. Head, A. J., Wihbey, J., Metaxas, P. T., MacMillan, M., & Cohen, D. (2018). How students engage with news: Five takeaways for educators, journalists, and librarians. Project Information Literacy Research Institute. Retrieved from http://www.projectinfolit.org/uploads/2/7/5/4/27541717/newsreport.pdf ts use Wikipedia for course related research. First Monday, 15 (3). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2281527 International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). (2011). IFLA media and information literacy recommendations. Retr ieved from https://www.ifla.org/publications/ifla media and information literacy recommendations International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). (2017, August 18). IFLA statement on digital literacy. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/11586 Mothe, J., & Sahut, G. (2018). How trust in Wikipedia evolves: A survey of students aged 11 to 25. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal 23 (1). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/23 1/paper783.html Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon 9 (5), 1 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 Singh, J., Grizzle, A., Yee, S. J., & Culver, S. H. (2015). Media and information literacy for the susta inable development goals Gothenburg: Nordicom. http://norden.diva portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:881856 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2017). Five laws of media and information literacy. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication and information/media development/media literacy/five laws of mil/
19 White, D. (2011, September 30). The learning black market. TALL Blog Retrieved from https://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/index.php/2011/09/30/the le arning black market/ White, D. & Connaway, L. S. (2011 2014). Digital Visitors & Residents: What motivates engagement with the digital information environment. Funded by Jisc, OCLC, and University of Oxford. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/vandr.html W ineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., & Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford History Education Group. Retrieved from https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
fcla fda yes
!-- Authority, Context and Containers: Student Perceptions Judgments When Using Google for School Work ( Mixed Material ) --
METS:mets OBJID IR00010953_00001
METS:metsHdr CREATEDATE 2019-09-04T14:20:03Z ID LASTMODDATE 2019-08-28T11:27:03Z RECORDSTATUS COMPLETE
METS:agent ROLE CREATOR TYPE ORGANIZATION
METS:name UF,University of Florida Institutional Repository
METS:note Created using CompleteTemplate 'IR' and project 'RSIC'.
OTHERTYPE SOFTWARE OTHER
Go UFDC FDA Preparation Tool
METS:mdWrap MDTYPE MODS MIMETYPE textxml LABEL Metadata
mods:abstract What really happens when student researchers meet a Google results page? How do students determine the authority behind each result? News, blogs, journals, Wikipedia, websites, e-books--with the vast array of online content available, how do students differentiate between them? Better still, do they differentiate between them or are these format agnostic students stymied by container collapse? The Researching Students Information Choices (RSIC) project is answering these questions.
The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education aims to guide educators in their work to develop todays students into critical thinking denizens of the digital world. The work of RSIC can directly inform the first frame, Authority Is Constructed and Contextual. This Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded study, examines and compares the judgments and perceptions of students (from late primary, secondary, community college/vocational school, undergraduate, to graduate school/postgraduate) as they select resources for science-related school inquiry projects. Our project team includes academic science librarians, pre-service LIS educators, school librarians, and research scientists. We enlisted K-12, community college, four-year college, and university librarians and faculty as members of our Advisory Panel.
The analyses identify students perceptions and judgments related to the source and author/creator of three resources common to all participants included in Google search results, and the role the container plays in determining whether the resource is credible and citable for a school/academic project. Students used cues from the web search results screen in their judgements and educational stage influenced their behavior in some instances. These findings can be used by librarians to design scalable instructional models to support critical student inquiry skills. The research results also will contribute to and support evidence-based decision making for the implementation of information literacy instruction grounded in frameworks, guidelines, and standards.
mods:accessCondition All rights reserved by the submitter.
mods:languageTerm type text English
code authority iso639-2b eng
mods:physicalLocation University of Florida
mods:namePart Researching Students' Information Choices
Connaway, Lynn S.
Valenza, Joyce K.
Cataldo, Tara T.
Buhler, Amy G.
Faniel, Ixchel M.
mods:affiliation University of Florida
Graff, Randy A.
Putnam, Samuel R.
Hood, Erin M.
mods:note funding Funder: Institute of Museum and Library Services
Fund number: IMLS LG-81-15-0155-15
acquisition Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Rachael Elrod.
Conference Paper for the 2019 International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) World Library and Information Conference (WLIC) in Athens, Greece.
mods:recordIdentifier source sobekcm IR00010953_00001
mods:recordContentSource University of Florida Institutional Repository
mods:extent Conference Papers
mods:title Researching Students' Information Choices
Authority, Context and Containers: Student Perceptions and Judgments When Using Google for School Work
mods:typeOfResource mixed material
OTHERMDTYPE SOBEKCM SobekCM Custom
sobekcm:MainThumbnail Authority, Context, and Containers Student Perceptions and Judgments When Using Google for School Workthm.jpg
sobekcm:statement UF University of Florida Institutional Repository
DAITSS Archiving Information
daitss:AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT PROJECT UFDC
File Technical Details
METS:fileGrp USE reference
METS:file GROUPID G1 PDF1 applicationpdf CHECKSUM 75db026b7a20ae3f0eb293f34adcf69a CHECKSUMTYPE MD5 SIZE 1472909
METS:FLocat LOCTYPE OTHERLOCTYPE SYSTEM xlink:href Authority,%20Context,%20and%20Containers%20-%20Student%20Perceptions%20and%20Judgments%20When%20Using%20Google%20for%20School%20Work.pdf
THUMB1 imagejpeg-thumbnails b9caf0e26c47ad8c161b7ac7d6f327bc 4598
G5 THUMB5 b8e50e3b02431b49e0476b8dae2ae35b 4582
G2 TXT2 textplain eb9f6b088605215d104af7e8aaf5bbb6 33974
G4 TXT4 baf7acb1d0d216063a319f06e02328cb 1085
G3 XML3 928e445a354a05f07e10fd32c9d2c9bd 7904
METS:structMap STRUCT2 other
METS:div DMDID ADMID ORDER 0 main
ODIV1 1 Main
FILES1 Context, Containers Page