Beyond Google: How do students conduct academic research? by Alison J. Head

Beyond Google: How do students conduct academic research?
Résumé en français http://www.generationy20.com/?p=145

---

This paper reports findings from an exploratory study about how students majoring in humanities and social sciences use the Internet and library resources for research. Using student discussion groups, content analysis, and a student survey, our results suggest students may not be as reliant on public Internet sites as previous research has reported. Instead, students in our study used a hybrid approach for conducting course–related research. A majority of students leveraged both online and offline sources to overcome challenges with finding, selecting, and evaluating resources and gauging professors’ expectations for quality research.

Contents

Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions

 

---

 

Introduction

The growing buzz about the omnipotence of Google left us wondering, what do students think about conducting research for course assignments today?

Last spring, a team of faculty and campus librarians conducted an insider’s view of the student’s research process. We explored existing assumptions about students’ reliance on the Internet for carrying out course–related research.

We studied three primary areas of the student research process:

1. How do students define and conceptualize the research process?

2. How do students conduct research tasks (i.e., where do they look for materials, how much time do they spend, and how do they determine quality during the evaluation of resources)?

3. What barriers and obstacles do students encounter while conducting course–related research?

 

Methods

Our research study was conducted at Saint Mary’s College of California (SMC). The campus is a Catholic, Lasallian Christian Brothers’ liberal arts institution in Moraga, California. Enrollment is 2,489 undergraduates and 1,473 graduates with a 12:1 student–to–teacher ratio (Saint Mary’s Factbook, 2007).

We used an information–seeking behavior approach to collecting data in our study. We gathered data about students’ experiences, searching behaviors, and obstacles encountered, while using online and offline resources for academic research.

Our sample of humanities and social science majors were more likely to be acquainted with secondary research than science majors, who conduct laboratory research. We studied upper division students because they were more seasoned with the research process than lower division students.

Data collection and analysis

From January through May 2007, we conducted our research in three phases:

Phase One:

Student Discussion Groups: The total sample was 13 participants, who were upper division students majoring in humanities or social sciences. There was representation from students with majors in Communication, Politics, Economics, Liberal and Civic Studies, Health, and Psychology. Of the total, six were male and seven were female. Each session ran one and half–hours.

Phase Two:

Content Analysis: We collected 30 research assignment handouts used by professors in the last two years. Our sample of handouts was derived from courses from disciplines, including Anthropology/Sociology, Art, Communication, Economics, English, History, Kinesiology, Politics, Psychology, Religion, and Women’s Studies.

A coefficient of .90 or higher is considered “highly acceptable” for intercoder reliability. We used Krippendorf’s alpha (Krippendorf’s α), the most rigorous method for testing intercoder reliability (Krippendorf, 1980). Overall, our score was .928176. This means there was nearly a 93 percent degree of reliability in our coding between the coder’s individual decisions.

Phase Three:

Student Survey: We collected surveys from 178 student respondents. Students reported majoring in Anthropology and Sociology, Classical Languages, Communication, Economics, English and Drama, History, Kinesiology, Liberal and Civic Studies, Health, Performing Arts, Politics, Psychology, and Religious Studies.