Learning about Student Research Practices through an Ethnographic Investigation: Insights into Contact with Librarians and Use of Library Space
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract
 
 Objective – Student research habits and expectations continue to change, complicating the design of library spaces and the provision of research support. This study’s intent was to explore undergraduate and graduate student research and study needs at a mid-sized university’s two campuses in the Northeastern United States, and to improve librarians’ understandings of these practices so that more appropriate services and spaces may be developed to support student learning.
 
 Methods – The research project utilized a primarily qualitative design for data collection that spanned from fall 2012 to summer 2013, consisting of an online questionnaire, unobtrusive observations, and in-depth semi-structured interviews. Data collection commenced with a questionnaire consisting of 51 items, distributed through campus email to all students and receiving 1182 responses. Second, 32 hours of unobtrusive observations were carried out by librarians, who took ethnographic “field notes” in a variety of Library locations during different times and days of the week. The final method was in-depth interviews conducted with 30 undergraduate and graduate students. The qualitative data were analyzed through the application of a codebook consisting of 459 codes, developed by a data analysis team of 4 librarians.
 
 Results – The results address topical areas of student interactions with librarians, contact preferences, and use of library space. Of the interviewees, 60% contacted a librarian at least once, with texting being the most popular method of contact (27%). In being contacted by the library, students preferred a range of methods and generally indicated interest in learning about library news and events through posters and signage. Participants were less interested in receiving library contact via social media, such as Facebook or Twitter. Regarding student use of and preference for library space, prominent themes were students creating their own spaces for individual study by moving furniture, leaving personal items unattended, the presence of unwanted noise, and a general preference for either working nearby other students in groups or in carrels to facilitate individual study.
 
 Conclusions – Being aware of student research processes and preferences can result in the ability to design learning environments and research services that are more responsive to their needs. Ethnographic research methods, as part of an ongoing research process, are recommended as a means to better understand library user practices and expectations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,919 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».