Karen Busch asked if we want to present our project at the Faculty Colloquium on March 26.
Short session of ~15 minutes describing our study, etc.
We would have to have some preliminary results.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Meeting February 7, 2008
In attendance: Sara, Brad, Suzanne, Keith, Paula. Others were there in spirit.
The first action item is to check the integrity of Metalib for dead links, and to see if any new databases can be added that weren't available in the past.
To do this, team members will check their Quick Search categories by running searches and noting the above problems.
The found problems will then be noted in this blog by adding comments to this posting. They will then be aggregated and sent to Jackie for resolution.
Here is the list of team members assigned to this action item:
Business -- Brad
Social Science -- Sara
Science - Paula
Education - Susann
Health Sciences - Elizabeth
Humanities - Keith
Communications - Suzanne
Time line: end of March. That is when our next meeting will be.
The first action item is to check the integrity of Metalib for dead links, and to see if any new databases can be added that weren't available in the past.
To do this, team members will check their Quick Search categories by running searches and noting the above problems.
The found problems will then be noted in this blog by adding comments to this posting. They will then be aggregated and sent to Jackie for resolution.
Here is the list of team members assigned to this action item:
Business -- Brad
Social Science -- Sara
Science - Paula
Education - Susann
Health Sciences - Elizabeth
Humanities - Keith
Communications - Suzanne
Time line: end of March. That is when our next meeting will be.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Meeting November 15, 2007
Members present: Paula, Keith, Sara, Susann
Idea to look at Metalib vs. Google Scholar
How does GS compare with Metalib for doing interdisciplinary research on various topics? Is it necessary to have Metalib if GS does an adequate job of finding relevent resources ?
Craft custom sets and run searches against GS
These will include sample searches in: Business, Social Work, Education, Biology, Health Sciences, and History
How do you measure a search?
# of first results
Compare the quality of what you get--is there any overlap?
Relevence--GS has citations
Rank the results
What we want to know...
Criteria: Dates, types of document, Journal titles, relevence, ownership
Metalib-
What databases got the results fastest?
What is going on behind the scenes?
Algorithm
Look at the top 10 or 15 results from each of the two sources
Get subject faculty to look at the results and rank relevence
Put them in a list and have them blindly review the results to see if they can tell where they came from (GS or Metalib)
Jobs:
Keith--look at databases in Metalib
Sara--How Google and Metalib work behind the scenes.
Elizabeth--literature search to find if anyone else has done this or a similar study
Susann--Find possible places to present results or journals to submit to.
All--start thinking of search terms: two for each subject.
Timeframe: completion by next Fall.
Idea to look at Metalib vs. Google Scholar
How does GS compare with Metalib for doing interdisciplinary research on various topics? Is it necessary to have Metalib if GS does an adequate job of finding relevent resources ?
Craft custom sets and run searches against GS
These will include sample searches in: Business, Social Work, Education, Biology, Health Sciences, and History
How do you measure a search?
# of first results
Compare the quality of what you get--is there any overlap?
Relevence--GS has citations
Rank the results
What we want to know...
Criteria: Dates, types of document, Journal titles, relevence, ownership
Metalib-
What databases got the results fastest?
What is going on behind the scenes?
Algorithm
Look at the top 10 or 15 results from each of the two sources
Get subject faculty to look at the results and rank relevence
Put them in a list and have them blindly review the results to see if they can tell where they came from (GS or Metalib)
Jobs:
Keith--look at databases in Metalib
Sara--How Google and Metalib work behind the scenes.
Elizabeth--literature search to find if anyone else has done this or a similar study
Susann--Find possible places to present results or journals to submit to.
All--start thinking of search terms: two for each subject.
Timeframe: completion by next Fall.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Some advice from Karen Busch
I met with Karen this afternoon and got some advice for our study...
1. Work with whatever faculty is willing. The variables as to level, discipline, etc. can be accounted for during the data analysis.
2. FDC will work with us as to determine sample size, etc.
3. Random selection of students who will use GS or dbases. Instructors will not know who wrote what paper so as not to be biased in their grading.
4. At least 2 teaching sessions should be given to all the students about the evaluation of scholarly resources. They should be given one teaching session, have them do some searches, then given another session forevaluation and review. Studies show that one session is not enough to affect any retention of information (says alot for our BI sessions, eh?).
5. Have 4 students from each class (2 GS and 2 dbase) be observed as to how they searched for the information. The observer should watch and record what the students did. We have $ to pay a GA to do this and write up the results (or even a student from SI).
6. The bibs should be evaluated by the library subject specialist, but standards must be written up so all are doing the same evaluations.
7. A short survey should be done for each student prior to writing their paper asking such questions as: age, class, research experience, sex, major.
8. The teaching faculty will evaluate the resulting papers and will not know who used GS or dbases.
9. Ideally, the assignment should be a 5 page paper.
10. There is no deadline for the resulting product. It would be good to get everything in place this semester and execute the study next semester.
11. We can probably get more $ than originally promised as there are fewer groups than Karen anticipated so there is more $/group available.
This is very exciting. We will get a great study out of our work! Thanks to everyone!
1. Work with whatever faculty is willing. The variables as to level, discipline, etc. can be accounted for during the data analysis.
2. FDC will work with us as to determine sample size, etc.
3. Random selection of students who will use GS or dbases. Instructors will not know who wrote what paper so as not to be biased in their grading.
4. At least 2 teaching sessions should be given to all the students about the evaluation of scholarly resources. They should be given one teaching session, have them do some searches, then given another session forevaluation and review. Studies show that one session is not enough to affect any retention of information (says alot for our BI sessions, eh?).
5. Have 4 students from each class (2 GS and 2 dbase) be observed as to how they searched for the information. The observer should watch and record what the students did. We have $ to pay a GA to do this and write up the results (or even a student from SI).
6. The bibs should be evaluated by the library subject specialist, but standards must be written up so all are doing the same evaluations.
7. A short survey should be done for each student prior to writing their paper asking such questions as: age, class, research experience, sex, major.
8. The teaching faculty will evaluate the resulting papers and will not know who used GS or dbases.
9. Ideally, the assignment should be a 5 page paper.
10. There is no deadline for the resulting product. It would be good to get everything in place this semester and execute the study next semester.
11. We can probably get more $ than originally promised as there are fewer groups than Karen anticipated so there is more $/group available.
This is very exciting. We will get a great study out of our work! Thanks to everyone!
Friday, September 21, 2007
Next meeting
Thursday, September 27th 11-12
Please be prepared to:
1. Discuss the two possible projects.
2. Discuss and volunteer to help with the literature search.
See you then!
Please be prepared to:
1. Discuss the two possible projects.
2. Discuss and volunteer to help with the literature search.
See you then!
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Meeting Sept 17 4-5 PM
Discussion of Google and its impact on research.
Discussion of Google and its impact on research.
Present:
Brad Sietz
Suzanne Gray
Sara Memmott
Larry Kolopajlo
Margaret Best
Sarah Fabian
Bob Stevens
Susann DeVries
Paula Storm
Others who are interested in participating in this project:
Keith Stanger
Julia Nims
Elizabeth Buccerelli
Possible projects:
How do experts and students search for and evaluate web sites ?
Use of Google and Google Scholar as a substitute for fee-based databases. Compare the quality of work submitted and resources used.
Joe Scazzero in FDC can help us with the design of our study.
If we used students we have to work with IRB.
Possible projects:
How do experts and students search for and evaluate web sites ?
Use of Google and Google Scholar as a substitute for fee-based databases. Compare the quality of work submitted and resources used.
Joe Scazzero in FDC can help us with the design of our study.
If we used students we have to work with IRB.
ACTION: Literature search is first thing to be done
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
