This PowerPoint helps students to consider the concept of infinity.
Nazlin Bhimani - DARTS5 presentation
1. A framework for an
online InfoLit course for
PhD students
DARTS5 June 2016
Nazlin Bhimani,
Research Support & Special Collections Librarian
@NazlinBhimani
UCL Institute of Education Library CC-BY-NC-ND
2. The Centre for Doctoral
Education at the IOE
The UCL Institute of Education is a world-leading
centre for research in education and related social
sciences with funding of over £20 million each year.
For the third year running the IOE has been ranked
the leading university for education (2016 QS World
University Rankings) and it also topped the league
tables for education research in the last REF.
The Centre for Doctoral Education is the largest
doctoral cohort in these areas – approx.900
research students enrol each year.
The IOE’s PG programmes have been designed to
provide comprehensive and broadly based research
training to meet the requirements of the ESRC and
the AHRC.
3. The Students
Students registered with the Centre for Doctoral Education undertake
research degrees leading to an MPhil or PhD, MRes (Master of
Research) or DipSSR (Dipoma in Social Science Research), EdD
(Doctor of Education) or DEdPsy (Doctor of Education Psychology).
Over 44% of the students are international and come from over 100
countries. Many have English as a second language.
Many of them study part-time and are distant learners i.e. studying from
abroad, and most of them are remote users.
Many of them are mature students, usually professionals, working in
education at leadership level in their organisations – they could be heads
of schools, university managers, policy advisors in education institutions,
government or non-profit organisations and government officials.
4. The F2F Course
The ‘Information and Literature Searching’ course was a
compulsory module taken by all MPhil/PhD students and
MRES students.
Since the merger with UCL it is now a ‘recommended core’
module though it is still compulsory for the students on the
Online PhD programme.
It is a 8-hour intensive course (offered 2 hrs/week) six times a
year; it will be an intensive 12-hour module from October 2015
onwards.
The course has been hugely popular with many students
voting it the most useful course taken during their PhD.
It has twice received the highest rating (excellent) for any
course offered by the CDE.
5. What is eLearning?
“eLearning …can be defined as
'learning facilitated and supported
through the use of information and
communications technology'. It can
cover a spectrum of activities from the
use of technology to support learning as
part of a ‘blended’ approach (a
combination of traditional and e-learning
approaches), to learning that is
delivered entirely online. Whatever the
technology, however, learning is the
vital element.
JISC (2012)
Image source:
https://ec.europa.eu/epale/en/blog/have-
you-joined-e-learning-revolution-1
6. Changing role of the librarian
to information curators and educators
Librarians “must assert
themselves as key players in
the learning process thereby
changing their roles from
information providers to
educators” (Cooper &
Dempsey, 1998)
They have become
providers of technical
information (Hulshof,
1999)
“The librarian can shift the focus
from explaining library resources
to meeting the ongoing
information needs of the
students in the broad
information environment”
(Lippincott, 2002)
They have been transformed
from “information gatekeepers
to “information gateways”
(Haricombe, 1998).
Anderson, T. Editor (2008).
The theory and practice of
online learning (2nd ed).
Edmonton: AU Press.
7. Online Courses
Model depends on the following criteria:
How ‘exclusive’/tailored the content is for a
specific group of students
Size of the student body
Diversity of the student body
How blended the course is – i.e. Is there an offline
element?
Whether the course is compulsory/credit-bearing
8. Uniqueness
Each online course is unique like a
snowflake, shaped by:
Individuality of the students
Preferred learning styles
Prior knowledge and backgrounds
Motivations
Language competency
IT competency
The instructor’s pedagogical
stance
The hosting institution’s goals and
agendas
Technological affordances and
limitations
9. Time
What needs to be acknowledged at the outset is that there
will be an increase in workload for all concerned. It is
generally acknowledged that online courses are labour-
intensive to create. The issue was recently highlighted in
discussions on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs):
Stanford University’s Robert Sedgewick spent hundreds of
hours creating content, giving as much as two weeks to
each recording for his online course – the preparation itself
is a ‘full time job’, he stated in an interview for the
Chronicle of Higher Education (Kolowich, 2013, p. A21).
10. The Online PhD
The Online PhD began in October 2014
We weren’t expecting more than a handful of student in the first year and we
had 8 register in the first year and about the same number in the second
and third year of the programme.
Thus far, the online InfoLit course which is compulsory for these students,
has run three times (once every year) and has been taken by 20 students
1. Cohort A (IOE): October 2014 (5 weeks) 5 students (2 dropped out)
2. Cohort B (IOE): May-June 2015 (7 weeks) 8 students
3. Cohort C (UCL IOE): April-May 2016 (8 weeks) 7 students
11. Where?
English-Speaking:
3 students from UK
1 from US
1 from Australia
1 from Ireland
Rest of the World
2 from China
1 from Israel
1 from UAE
2 from Japan
1 from Singapore
From Europe:
2 from Greece
1 from Malta
1 from Brussels
1 from Spain
1 from Netherlands
1 from Denmark
1 from Switzerland
13. Research
Question
Search,
Find and
Access
resources
Evaluate
resources
Find more
resources
Fine-tune
Research
Question
Beetham, H. McGill, L and Littlejohn, A. H.
(2009) Thriving in the 21st Century:
Learning Literacies for the Digital
British Library and JISC. (2008). Information
Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future.
Coonan, E. (2011). A New Curriculum for
Information.
Gourlay, L. et al. (2013). Digital Literacies as
a Postgraduate Attribute.
Wong, W. et al. (2010) User Behaviour in
Resource Discovery (UBiRD): Final Report.
Researching
Content:
Online User Behaviour Studies
14. Key findings:
1. These students are heavily reliant on secondary sources;
2. They find access to relevant resources a major constraint;
3. They are confused about open access and copyright which stops
them from networking and collaborating;
4. They do not use the full potential of innovative technology.
5. These students are insufficiently trained to be able to fully embrace
the latest opportunities in the digital information environment.
Researchers of Tomorrow
2012
15. Mapping the course to the
‘Researcher of Tomorrow’
Week 0: Induction
(RoT 3 open access and copyright, 4 insufficiently trained to make full use
of innovative technology)
Week 1 Session 1: The Literature Review and Research Process
(RoT:2 access is a major constraint, 3 open access and copyright, 5,
insufficiently trained or informed on latest opportunities in digital
environment )
Week 2 Session 2: Historical Inquiry and Searching
(RoT: 1 primary sources, 2 access, 3 open access and copyright)
Week 3 Session 3: Impact and Information Evaluation
(RoT 3 open access and copyright, 5, insufficiently trained or informed on
latest opportunities)
Week 4 Session 4: New Technologies and Social Media
(RoT 3 open access and copyright 5, insufficiently trained or informed on
latest opportunities)
24. Induction
Level of engagement
Induction
COHORT A (5)
No. of Posts
COHORT B (8)
No. of Posts
COHORT C (7)
No. of Posts
Task 1 Introductions 12 46 29
Task 2 LibGuides & LibAnswers 13 17 0
The Induction will indicate the level of engagement that is likely to take
place among the cohort during the course.
Cohort B was the most active – and it usually takes one individual to set
the one – and this trend continued throughout the course. Latecomers
(only 2) are asked to introduce themselves first before joining the
discussion forum.
Gaining familiarity with the LibGuides and LibAnswers sends the message
that online support is available via the guides and the online enquiry
service.
Cohort C put their LibGuides and LibAnswers feedback together with their
introductions.
25. Literature Review & the
Research Process
Library of Resources: The Literature Review and Research Process
Includes videos, readings, blog posts, IOE LibGuides.
Readings:
a. Boote, David N. and Beile, P. (2005) ‘Scholars Before Researchers: On the
Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation’.
Educational Researcher 34 (6) : 3–15.
b. Randolph, J. J. (2009). A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14 (13): 1-13.
Tasks:
1. Find a thesis and use the rubric discussed in the readings to evaluate the
literature review; post your work on the Discussion Forum
2. Reading the blog post by Pat Thompson on ‘Mapping your literatures’ and
create a concept map (freehand or using freely available software).
29. Session 1
Total number of posts on the Discussion Forum
Session 1 COHORT A (5) COHORT B (8) COHORT C (7)
Task 1 Lit. Review & Research Process 8 36 10
Task 2 Concept Maps 17 19 9
Summary 1 4 2
30. Historical Inquiry
& Searching
Case Studies:
Freathy, R., & Parker, S. (2010). The necessity of historical inquiry in
educational research: The case of religious education. British Journal of
Religious Education, 32(3), 229-243.
Kuper, A., Whitehead, C., & Hodges, B. D. (2013). Looking back to move
forward: Using history, discourse and text in medical education research:
AMEE guide no. 73. Medical teacher, 35(1), e849-e860.
Williams, R. (1985). Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society (rev. ed).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Tasks:
1. How does the historical inquiry relate to your research question and what
primary sources can you identify for your research?
2. Using the resources (videos demos on searching catalogues & databases),
find resources that will help you begin a historical inquiry and discuss these
on the Discussion Forum.
31. Serendipity
“The serendipity of browsing has yet to be successfully
recreated in electronic form. An online encyclopedia can show
you links to related articles, but what about all the unrelated
ones? The printed codex allows its user to gain an
impressionistic overview of the whole, and to skim through at
high speed until something intriguing catches the eye:
something that no online resource can replicate… For in a world
where we can search for anything, it is getting harder and
harder to happen across what we never knew we wanted to
know”
Lynch, J. (2016). You Could Look It Up: the reference shelf from ancient Babylon to Wikipedia.
London: Bloomsbury pbublishing.
32. “Serendipity” has both a classical origin in
literature and a more modern manifestation
where it is found in the descriptions of the
problem solving and knowledge acquisition
of humanities and science scholars….Some
[studies] have implied that it may be
stimulated, or that certain people may
“encounter” serendipitous information more
than others. All to some extent accept the
classical definition of serendipity as a
“fortuitous” accident.
Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and
information seeking: an empirical study.
Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 321–340.
Serendipity
33. Engagement
Serendipity in Searching
“The article on serendipity was interesting for me personally as I have great
faith in this as a creative force in my research. I agree with the authors who
suggest that "openness, prepared mind, and ability to make connections"
(McCay-Peet & Toms, 2015, p.1471) are all key factors in this mysterious
happenstance and that serendipity can be encouraged by ensuring your
environment is trigger rich,highlights these triggers and enables us to make
connections and follow through on them. The database key word searches
are useful here as we do tend to bump into things we didn't expect, but I must
say I do miss the verbal exchanges, debates and conversations i had during
my masters study (which was F2F) - I found these far richer environments for
bumping into unexpected ideas and following trains of thought I hadn't
considered before. Perhaps I/We should post more on this discussion
board!!!”
McCay-Peet, L., & Toms, E. G. (2015). Investigating serendipity: How it
unfolds and what may influence it. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 66(7), 1463–1476.
34. 2.1. Engagement
Historical Inquiry
“I am inclined to agree with the authors on the relevance and
significance of historical inquiry. My research is on a framework
for the development of professional identity and efficacy of the
21st century music teacher in Singapore. While historical
inquiry would not be the dominant research methodology for
such a study, I reckon that the historical inquiry could enrich
and inform my literature review. For example, I could look
into the National Archives in Singapore since the context of my
research is Singapore. A quick search online brought me to
potentially useful primary sources such as oral history
interviews with different music teachers related to music
education, which I might be able to investigate how these
personalities grew their professional identity. Some of the
transcripts were also available online…”
35. 2.2. Engagement
Searching
“In my opinion, the up side of using databases is 'systematicity'.
You can systematically type in keywords with AND/OR... one at
a time and you get different results. Once you are done, you can
perhaps try another database. This is much more 'systematic'
than googling with google scholar; however, this is also the down
side I think. With different databases yielding different results,
the whole process may seem intimidating. My trials showed that
different combinations of keywords with different words used in
Boolean search gave different results even using the same
database.”
“What really is a surprise to me in this age of the Internet and of
networked systems is the quite significant differences in
searches using different databases. I was aware that …many
databases draw their data from significantly different sources.”
36. Bibliometrics and
Information Evaluation
Library of Resources: Videos on Citation Searching on the WoS, SCOPUS,
Google Scholar, Altmetrics etc.
Reading:
a. Falagas, M. E. et al. (2007). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of
Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB
Journal, 22(2), 338–342. http://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
b. Moed, H. F. et al. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar
and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 533–551.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017
Tasks:
1. Find a highly-cited article that is relevant to your research and explain why
you chose it; next compare the citations to those on Google Scholar. Why do
you think the counts are different. Discuss this on the Discussion Forum.
2. Now evaluate the article using the REVIEW, CRAAP or PROMPT method.
Explain your evaluation process on the Discussion Forum.
39. New Technologies
& Social Media
Google Scholar
Researcher IDs
LinkedIn
Academia.edu
Research Gate
Twitter & Facebook
Mendeley & Zotero
Blogs
Open Access, IPR and Copyright
Altmetrics
New technologies:
RSS
Text and Data Mining
Software
Cloud Storage Solutions
Research Data Management
40. 4.1. Engagement
Keeping Current with RSS
Cohort A:
Apprehensive of RSS; only one person
managed to do this and the rest opted for
email alerts
Cohort B:
Mixed reactions – some had difficulties
with the concept and two were stumped
by the technology.
Cohort C:
Expert RSS users; using feedly, talking
about Yahoo pipes to create Twitterbots
etc.
41. 4.2. Engagement
Social media
I use Facebook, Whatsapp... but Twitter isn't really that popular in Asia
and... it's my first attempt just now! My first tweet went to Nazlin,
thanking her for her unreserved effort and this useful course. I definitely
need more time to get the hang of using Twitter but after just some
random searches (with #phd #research), I already found some useful
and interesting news/info…
Hi A, I was recently invited to join a shared Zotero list (with a student
who is about to publish his dissertation). It allowed me to benefit from
the sources that he has found/ used which was a bit like Christmas
coming early! With both you and I looking at aspects of leadership
would you be interested in creating a shared list and we can both move
across relevant or interesting pieces from our own Zotero lists?
43. Time
COHORT COHORT A
(IOE)
COHORT B
(IOE)
COHORT C
(UCL IOE)
Students: 5 (2 dropped out) 8 7
Duration: 6/10/14 to 9/11/14
5 weeks
20/4/15 to 7/6/15
7 weeks
11/4/16 to 29/5/16
8 weeks
No. of Sessions 1 week induction + 4
sessions
1 week induction +
4 sessions
1 week induction +
4 sessions
Key Tasks: 12 12 12
Feedback: 5 6 3/7 (ongoing)
Total Posts: 147 451 136
NB’s Posts: 79 or 54% 182 or 40% 59 or 43%
Hrs/Student 4 hrs/student 8.5 hrs/student 3 hrs/student
44. Feedback
from sample of 15
Overall
87% rated the course as ‘Very Good’ – the highest rating
13% rated the course ‘Good’
Level of Difficulty
87% rated it ‘Just Right’
6% rated it ‘Too Difficult’
7% rated it ‘Too Easy’
Recommend it?
100% would recommend it to other students
45. Feedback
#OLInfolit on Twitter
I found this course very, very useful...including in some surprising ways.
On the social media front, I have made a purposeful effort not to be personally engaged in
any way with LinkedIn, Facebook or twitter. I have an array of very specific reasons for
this, but in general it's a time, focus, energy and effectiveness decision on my part not to
use these social media platforms. Twitter's dilemma is that is can be mostly noise, create
lots of "present shock" in pushing the nervous system to be 'endlessly reactive,' is open to
everyone, and can be incredibly intrusive [if you let it be, and, on the other hand, if you try
to ignore it, even briefly, it can become, as some of my colleagues have learned, a prime
source of hate from people who feel you are not instantly responsive]. LinkedIn can be
awesome when looking for jobs or to expand business contacts. As I know from key
colleagues, LinkedIn also showers them with job recommendation inquiries and
networking requests day after day. This can be fine if that's what you want to spend time
and focus on. I use e-mail, the web and Evernote with my team and colleagues. I am
also looking into Mendeley and the Bibliographic Referencing Software suggestions.
46. WORKLOAD (Cohort B)
Make future students aware
of the level of workload
with regards to expected
hours spent per week on
the completion of each task
in order to complete the
course successfully.
COURSE LENGTH
(Cohort A)
Run the module over 6
weeks. The module is
both interesting and
informative and I would
have appreciated more
time. Material given
needs time to be
digested and I am still
coming back to articles,
videos and explanations.
COURSE LENGTH
(Cohort B
It might be useful to space
the assignments and have
a longer course duration
so that we can have more
time to explore the
resources and benefit more
fully from the course.
(Cohort B)
For the organisers
not to put 3
courses on at the
same time.
Setting up alerts was
time-consuming
47. MOST
INTERESTING
(Cohort A)
All! Everything is
relevant, useful &
was interesting!
(Cohort B)
All (as directly
relevant to our work)
Exactly what we
needed!
Bibliometrics and
citation searching
(Cohort C)
Mind mapping exercise
was new to me and
very useful.
Evaluating the quality
of information found.
I found interesting to
gain new skills in
everything from
literature searching to
information evaluation.
48. LEAST INTERESTING
(Cohort A)
Nothing
(Cohort B)
RSS & Referencing Software
(Cohort C)
Social Media
(Cohort C)
I found the literature evaluation
section least interesting
because, for me, this is
something that happens on a
more organic basis. Sometimes
REVIEW/CRAAP/PROMPT
does not always capture why a
piece of research may or may
not be relevant.
50. HOW CAN WE IMPROVE
THE COURSE?
(Cohort A)
Too pressurised; not
enough time to interact
with others
Make the course longer!
Needs to run over six
weeks.
(Cohort B)
No - it was a great course.
It is already too good and I am
sorry I cannot come up with any
suggestion.
More clarity on the pairing activity
Alerts could be broken down and
made clearer
Except for alerts/altmetrics and the
pairing activity, almost everything
was good practice and explained
clearly and adequately and
responses were positive, helpful
and sensitive
51. HOW CAN WE IMPROVE THE COURSE?
(Cohort C)
Difficult to pitch this in terms of the level. I think we have
quite some participants who have a lot of experience in
research so this may not all have been "new" for them.
But other students may come straight from a masters or
even bachelors and so may need more thorough
grounding.
No, the planning was well executed and clear.
The high level of involvement of Nazlin and her
demandingness was very encouraging and motivated for
me.
No, the planning was well executed and clear.
52. OTHER
(Cohort A)
A big thank you to the person
behind the conception of the
module and to Nazlin who is
perfect at mediating, answering
questions, giving comments.
Bravo!
Loved the module.
It was a very useful and
challenging online programme
that will definitely help me in my
research journey.
(Cohort C)
I did sometimes have
difficulty finding time for
the class on top of my full-
time job. While many of
the exercises were quite
useful and worth the time,
I felt that few of the videos
contributed to my
knowledge.
My compliments to the
tutor: amazing
expertise and great
communication skills
(Cohort B)
Though I had to struggle
through the course, I am
much better equipped with
new current skills. I have a
long way to go but I am
really thankful.
53. TUTOR
88% said the tutor was ‘Always Clear’; 12%said she was ‘Frequently
Clear’.
(Cohort A) Impressive
(Cohort B) Excellent
I was always impressed with the tutor's "encyclopaedic knowledge" as
one of us aptly described.
I was greatly encouraged by Nazlin's support and kind words. Clear
and adequate interaction on the course. Nazlin was always very quick
to respond to our questions and was responsive to questions and
comments.
(Cohort C) I was very impressed with the time & attention from Nazlin!
Nazlin's individual comments to our comments were very helpful and
helped create a sense of connection over the internet. She also
encouraged us to respond to one another, which I think would have
also moved us in that direction though it did not always come to
fruition.
54. Reflection
Feedback has generally been positive and the concerns raised by students
have been actioned:
The duration of the course has increased from 5 to 8 weeks
The course is scheduled at a time when there are no other courses running
I also wait for the conversations to begin rather than jumping in!
The success of the online course has influenced my F2F teaching:
I now include the same readings and tasks in my F2F teaching
I am a better listener and am more aware of the importance of picking up
on issues that may not be clear to the students
I attempt to get the students in my F2F courses to engage more than I had
previously done.
However, the mixed abilities issue is a difficult issue to address in both the
F2F and Online course. I aim for the higher level and ensure those with less
experience catch up with individual support.
56. Conclusion
• Online course
designs need
thinking through
• An online course is
not a panacea for
lack of resources
• Simple scaling up
does not necessarily
mean readiness for
global consumption
One size does not fit all!
The students are given two readings which propose a rubric that can be used to evaluate the literature review.
They are tasked to find a thesis related to their research question and have to use the rubric to evaluate the review contained in the thesis.
They are immediately thrown into the deep end of searching, finding and accessing – skills that they will need throughout their course of study and as they are searching open access content, most of them are able to find a full-text digital version of a thesis from ETHOS. Some are taken to the Institute’s research repository.
The task allows them to begin to
Develop their critical skills
Provides them with the relevant information vis-à-vis own topics/areas of research
Acts as a benchmark for their own literature review process
Further the concept of open access is introduced.
Summary of Key Points Raised in the Discussion Forum
- In the first iteration of the course (I am running the course for the third time now – as we speak), I did all the summaries but as a way to prepare them for Session 3 which is about Information Evaluation, I introduce them to the ‘peer review’ concept and put them into pairs or groups so that they can summarise the key points. I then come in and comment after if there are important points that are either missing of which I want to emphasize.
COHORT C: Language used:
Negative reflection:
“the literature review was at times eloquently integrated but often enumerated without critical reflection or relation to each other or author’s research”
“it was difficult to distinguish between author’s voice and the general aim of the review”
“there was no explicit discussion of how the literature review was produced”
“major flaw was the lack of critique”
Using the Rubric, it would score just below a 2 because it did not:
Discuss the criteria for inclusion and exclusion
Although it distinguished what has been done, it rarely mentioned what has not been done.
It did not place the topic under the broader landscape of research
Historical context was not addressed
The literature was accepted rather than critiqued
Methods employed were not discussed
Although practical and scholarly significance of the literature was discussed it was not critiqued.
“Overall the literature review contained some common mistakes identified by Randolph – not relating the literature to the findings of the thesis, being uncritical and not reporting search procedures.
Positive reflections
“some sections impressively discussed and applied definitions, critically analysed relevant research and drew conclusions and ultimately related the resultant thematic conceptualization back to the aims of the thesis”
COHORT B:
We do seem to agree that the Boote and Beile reading did make a difference in how we view the literature review. I am in my second semester, currently working on my methodology but after reading this article, I am thinking it maybe a good idea to finish putting together all that I have so far read about the methodology and let my supervisor know about it. I need to go into my literature trip again I order to revise my methodology accordingly… (D)
G agrees: The Boote & Beile reading motivates me to make alternations to my literature review by reexamininng it to go beyond being descriptive, probing deeper for evidence and gaining new perspectives.
S: brings in a new article, Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Colins, S (2003) ‘Attitudes Towards Science A Review of the Literature and its Implications’ International Jurnal of Science Education 25(9): 1049-1079
S Copper’s (1998) Taxonomy of Literature Reviews’
N: found out that Boote (Professor of Curriculum Studies) and Beile (Librarian) a very useful piece of reading which has come at the right point where I have started to gather a lot of articles and research and really need to start considering its relevance, currency and topicality. I tink it really does make a sdifference thinking seriously and creatively about literature review early on in the process of research. Though criteria H and I could really merge
This doesn’t really show the critical engagement with the text but an understanding of what is expected from the literature review. However, the level of engagement will vary according to how experienced the student is and how familiar they are with their research area. So having a sample of content is useful for the students to look at.
All the comments are condensed into a summary which is written by students working in pairs. I then comment on the content as appropriate.
For my summary, go to COHORT C: 1.1. Summary of Evaluating a Literature Review by Alexa
https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=665269
This second tasks enables them to start developing their digital skills by
Using software
Provides an introduction to information visualization
Enables them to see how wide their topics are
Enables them to make connections which may not have been obvious (maybe a bit of chance happenings here – though they have found the work others are doing as sometimes interesting and relevant to their own topics?)
Allows me to introduce the question of serendipity in order to begin to prepare them for this occurrence
Provides relevancy as they can use their concept maps for the PhD Poster Conference where they have to explain their research
Provides relevancy in terms of Session 2 when they begin to search for content related to their research question
Here are two examples of the concept maps that students have come up with and one gives an explanation of the usefulness of visualising the research question.
The student states:
Visualising one’s thoughts is a strategy that may be specifically useful to people who are more visual than audio learners.
Much beyond this thought, it comes as an excellent tool for every researcher because it requires special attention to clarity of concepts as well as to the trajectories of research thought, as mentioned by Nazlin.
This process of ‘mind-stretching’ or ‘mind-sharpening’ as it has been referred in the forum, leads to novel connections between the researcher’s concepts, which in turn bring one to a critical questioning and reformulating of those connections, point to possible needs of adding or leaving behind some concepts and open new avenues for analytical thinking.
One of the basic advantages of conceptual maps is that they are quick and handy references for organizing ones’ work during all stages of research: from initial brainstorming, to developing a research strategy and spotting relevant sources, organizing our material, planning the research and conducting it, analyzing data, evaluating that data, knowing which part of the research is progressing and which not and writing reports and the final product.
Their second advantage, as mentioned in the forum, is that they are easily updated in order to reflect one’s current thinking and research status. New databases, references and keywords may expand them or refinements and location, age, gender and other filters may cause them to shrink. In both cases, if used on a regular basis, they may be conceptualized as the researcher’s very own ‘reality-check’.
Although being referred to in the forum as a great fun tool in the discussions, their very fun nature may result to an endless ‘search trip’ at the expense of utilizing time, energy and resources in a non-productive manner. In the case of research designs for quantitative research, which tend to be fully mapped from the very beginning (Denscombe, p. 109), this may become even more problematic: one may tend to map ‘everything’. A key alert for this kind of situation is when results start re-cycling themselves in terms of the same literature or authors. Then, is probably the time to either consider new keywords, halt one’s research for some time and turn to actual reading or stop searching altogether and produce the final product.
Another potential disadvantage, not mentioned in the discussions, stems from their visual nature. Confronted with a neat, clear representation of one’s mind processes may result to a reluctance to ‘disturb’ it, a tendency to keep the neatness and clarity at the expense of confining the research to a poor cohort of key concepts or sources. One way to support one’s visual mapping and to avoid the safety of a neat map is Nazlin’s tip: keep a record of the searching and discuss with the supervisor. I would add keep a handy research diary to record unexpected thoughts, connections and reflections.
References:
Denscombe, M. Ground Rules for Social Researh – Guidelines for good practice (2nd Edition). Open University Press (N.Y., 2010).
This session deals with the first finding that students are heavily reliant on secondary resources form the ‘Researchers of Tomorrow’ report. The worry that UK doctoral output may not perhaps be up-to-scratch or may be lowering in quality is taken care of by the first task.
This task requires students to find primary sources, not just online, but physical libraries that they can use. Students have come back with comments that express surprise about libraries they have discovered which they didn’t know about (and in one case, a student just had to walk down the hall in her organisation to find the library. She also was surprised at how helpful and friendly the librarian she spoke to was!).
Why historical inquiry? A number of organisations that represent different disciplines have been suggesting changes to the way their subjects are taught. For examples, in 1999, an international report on the computing science suggests that history of computing should be considered as part of a human understanding and how the development of computing has affected the human environment.
This international report seeks to justify a history component in a computing curriculum by providing resources and a framework for a curriculum. Computing curricula recommendations often neglect this aspect of study [and it is important that] the history of computing should be considered as a part of human understanding and how the development of computing has affected the human environment.
More recently, the Association of Medical Education in Europe published a guide in 2013 that also recommended historical inquiry in medical education. A quick search on Scholar will also reveal the same debate in terms of the inclusion of history in the science and geography curricula.
And why historical inquiry? There is a growing recognition that historical inquiry questions the naturalness of things – the assumptions made about facts and events. History is seen as relevant today in our understanding of current issues and provides social, political, cultural, social and economic contexts. It allows us to see the present as ‘strange’ contingent and changing with connections to the past and to the future. In other words, as mentioned previously, in order to understand the present, we need to understand the past so that we can prepare for the future.
But there is also the issue of serendipity which is something that needs to be addressed – and which I will come back to. Let’s look first at the next session.
According to Jack Lynch, Professor of English at Rutgers University (and a Ben Johnson scholar) has to say in his book, You Could Look It Up which has just been published:
“The serendipity of browsing has yet to be successfully recreated in electronic form. An online encyclopedia can show you links to related articles, but what about all the unrelated ones? The printed codex allows its user to gain an impressionistic overview of the whole, and to skim through at high speed until something intriguing catches the eye: something that no online resource can replicate… For in a world where we can search for anything, it is getting harder and harder to happen across what we never knew we wanted to know”
We know that in some disciplines serendipitous findings often lead to the creation of new knowledge. History is a classic example! Marginalia may lead to other sources, reference to names and connections are made in this way. The result – new knowledge.
Connection building of this is also common in the arts and the social sciences. The way that art students use are resources is a case in point – they find inspiration from diverse materials, in different formats, and make connections through these serendipitous findings.
According to Foster and Ford (writing in 2003), in science serendipity is an essential tool to aid in the process of discovery. Bacterial roles in peptic ulcers, discoveries in paleontology and even the development of basic Java programming were the result of serendipitous research findings.
Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 321–340.
More recently in 2015 McCay-Peet and Toms published a paper which provides evidence of serendipity among a 100 research groups. However, what they discovered is that researchers that were “prepared” to expect chance findings were most likely to experience serendipity. They were not the first to discover this. The notion of the “prepared mind” goes back to the work of two scientists, Barber and Fox who provided evidence of this in 1958.
The rise in multidisciplinary research provides the most concrete evidence of this – but this is generated by researchers in the know! How can we prepare our students so that they too can have the experience of serendipity.
How does one prepare the online user for serendipitous findings which are part-and-parcel of the experience of using physical libraries.
4.2 is on Social Media
Students are asked to read the Handbook on Social Media for Researchers and Supervisors published by the Vitae and Open University (2012) https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/reports/innovate-open-university-social-media-handbook-vitae-2012.pdf
They are asked to look at the LibGuides for Social Media, Digital Scholar and consider setting up Google Scholar profiles (if they have published), LinkedIn accounts and to have a look at Twitter. In the first run of the course, feedback was provided
4.2 Social Media – they are asked to do a vanity search and find themselves on the web; they are asked if they are happy with this and to check if they have control over any of the content; one found a credit card number by doing a search on the deep web.
