Undergraduate students do not understand some library jargon typically used in library instruction

A review of: Hutcherson, Norman B. “Library Jargon: Student Recognition of Terms and Concepts Commonly Used by Librarians in the Classroom.” College and Research Libraries 65.4 (July 2004): 349-54. Objective – To determine students’ level of recognition for 28 commonly used terms in library instruction. Design – Survey, multiple-choice questionnaire. Setting – Large state university library in the United States (this is assumed from the author’s current affiliation). Subjects – 300 first- and second-year university students enrolled in a library skills course between September 2000 and June 2003. Methods – Two 15-question multiple-choice questionnaires were created to verify students’ understanding of 28 terms commonly used in library instruction, or “library jargon”. Each questionnaire included 12 unique terms and, in order to ensure consistency between questionnaire results, three common terms. For each question, a definition was provided and four terms, including the correct one, were offered as possible answers. Four variants of each survey were developed with varied question and answer order. Students who completed a seven-week library skills lab received one of the two questionnaires. Lab instructors explained the objective of the survey and the students completed them in 10 to 15 minutes during class time. Of the 300 students enrolled in the lab between September 2000 and June 2003, 297 returned completed questionnaires. The researcher used Microsoft Excel to calculate descriptive statistics, including the mean, median, and standard deviation for individual questionnaires as well as combined results. No demographic data were collected. Main results – The mean score for both questionnaires was 62.31% (n=297). That is, on average, students answered 9.35 out of 15 questions correctly, with a standard deviation of +-4.12. Students were able to recognize library-related terms to varying degrees. Terms identified correctly most often included: plagiarism (100%), reference services (94.60%), research (94.00%), copyright (91.58%), and table of contents (90.50%). Terms identified correctly the least often included: Boolean logic (8.10%), bibliography (14.90%), controlled vocabulary (18.10%), truncation (27.70%), and precision (31.80%). For the three terms used in both questionnaires, results were similar. Conclusion – The results of this study demonstrate that terms used more widely (e.g. plagiarism, copyright) are more often recognized by students compared with terms used less frequently (e.g. Boolean logic, truncation). Also, terms whose meanings are well-understood in everyday language, such as citation and authority, may be misunderstood in the context of library instruction. For this reason, it can be assumed that students may be confused when faced with this unfamiliar terminology. The study makes recommendations for librarians to take measures to prevent misunderstandings during library instruction such as defining terms used and reducing the use of library jargon

Undergraduate students do not understand some library jargon typically used in library instruction

A review of: Hutcherson, Norman B. “Library Jargon: Student Recognition of Terms and Concepts Commonly Used by Librarians in the Classroom.” College and Research Libraries 65.4 (July 2004): 349-54. Objective – To determine students’ level of recognition for 28 commonly used terms in library instruction. Design – Survey, multiple-choice questionnaire. Setting – Large state university library in the United States (this is assumed from the author’s current affiliation). Subjects – 300 first- and second-year university students enrolled in a library skills course between September 2000 and June 2003. Methods – Two 15-question multiple-choice questionnaires were created to verify students’ understanding of 28 terms commonly used in library instruction, or “library jargon”. Each questionnaire included 12 unique terms and, in order to ensure consistency between questionnaire results, three common terms. For each question, a definition was provided and four terms, including the correct one, were offered as possible answers. Four variants of each survey were developed with varied question and answer order. Students who completed a seven-week library skills lab received one of the two questionnaires. Lab instructors explained the objective of the survey and the students completed them in 10 to 15 minutes during class time. Of the 300 students enrolled in the lab between September 2000 and June 2003, 297 returned completed questionnaires. The researcher used Microsoft Excel to calculate descriptive statistics, including the mean, median, and standard deviation for individual questionnaires as well as combined results. No demographic data were collected. Main results – The mean score for both questionnaires was 62.31% (n=297). That is, on average, students answered 9.35 out of 15 questions correctly, with a standard deviation of +-4.12. Students were able to recognize library-related terms to varying degrees. Terms identified correctly most often included: plagiarism (100%), reference services (94.60%), research (94.00%), copyright (91.58%), and table of contents (90.50%). Terms identified correctly the least often included: Boolean logic (8.10%), bibliography (14.90%), controlled vocabulary (18.10%), truncation (27.70%), and precision (31.80%). For the three terms used in both questionnaires, results were similar. Conclusion – The results of this study demonstrate that terms used more widely (e.g. plagiarism, copyright) are more often recognized by students compared with terms used less frequently (e.g. Boolean logic, truncation). Also, terms whose meanings are well-understood in everyday language, such as citation and authority, may be misunderstood in the context of library instruction. For this reason, it can be assumed that students may be confused when faced with this unfamiliar terminology. The study makes recommendations for librarians to take measures to prevent misunderstandings during library instruction such as defining terms used and reducing the use of library jargon

Formulating answerable questions: question negotiation in evidence-based practice

Objective: This review explores the different question formulation structures proposed in the literature that may be helpful to librarians for conducting the reference interview and for teaching students and clinicians. Method: We present and compare several known question formulation structures identified in the health and social sciences literature. Discussion: Health and social care professionals should be made aware of the plurality of question formulation structures and their applicability to different fields of practice, as well as their utility for different types of questions within a field of practice

EBLIP Receives the Seal of Approval

no abstrac

Journal Update from EBLIP9

No abstract

Evaluating Reference Consultations in the Academic Library

In 2015, McGill University Library undertook a project to investigate, propose, and pilot test a method for evaluating the quality and outcomes of reference consultations. The goal of the project was to gather evidence to demonstrate the importance of reference consultations as part of librarians’ core contributions to the university. The evaluation tool was developed based on input from librarians, users, and a review of the literature. The evaluation was sent out to 98 users during the pilot test period. There were 53 responses to the evaluation tool for a response rate of 54%. Though preliminary, the results of the pilot test can be helpful in determining the usefulness of evaluating reference consultations, and the outcomes of engaging in assessment of this core library service. The results from this project suggest that implementing a tool to evaluate consultations can be used to inform services and to demonstrate the value of the library for research, teaching, and learning