CYCLE TWO – MODIFYING THE INTERVENTIONS

INSTRUCTOR COURSE YEAR SEMESTER EXISTING ASSESSMENT INTERVENTION % FOCUS

GEORGIA Course 1-1 1 1 Source Justification Modified structure and requirements 10 Information - specific source types

JACINTA Course 1-2 1 2

Reflection on Values - - -

I-map –- visual model Draft submission of i-map 5 Formative feedback Group Presentation +

Worksheets - - -

FRAN Course 2-2 2 2 Reading and Learning Log Modified structure and requirements 15 Formative feedback - Two-submission process

CARL

Course 3-1 3 1

Essay Reflective Log 5* Process / Reflection

Group Report Reflective Log 5* Process / Reflection Field-trip report Reflective Log 5* Process / Reflection Viva Voce Exam Reflective Log 5* Process / Reflection

Course 4-1 4 1

Group Report Assessment - - -

Project Timeline - - -

Reflective Practitioner - 20 -

Client Folder - 10 -

JANE Course 4-D 4 1/2 Capstone Research Project Modified assessments 15 -

Oral Viva 5 Formative Feedback

*Portion of the overall mark awarded for the assessment

6.8 Georgia – Course 1-1: Focusing on Source Selection

Georgia’s key concern around IL was that students in previous years had relied strongly on web-based sources which resulted in a lack of scholarly sources and over-use of poor quality sources. Although Georgia recognised that students would find scholarly sources challenging, she wanted to encourage early exposure to sources students would be expected to access as they progressed through their degree. Therefore, changes in assessment were focused on encouraging considered source selection and use for assessment tasks (Table 16).

Table 16: Changes to Assessment in Course 1-1

PRE-RESEARCH CYCLE ONE CYCLE TWO

2010

10% Short Essay 25% Field Trip Report 25% Test

40% Exam

2011

10% Test

20% Field Trip Report 10% Source Justification 20% Essay

40% Exam

2012

10% Test

20% Field Trip Report 10% Source Justification 20% Essay

40% Exam

6.8.1 Cycle One: Developing the Source Justification Task

To encourage students to use quality sources, we developed the ‘Source Justification’ task worth 10% of the final grade. The task asked students to conduct a “brief critical reflection on source selection” (COL/1-1/C1), and was in the form of a modified and extended annotated bibliography connected to the essay topic.

The task required students to:

• identify key sources relevant to the essay question • practise APA format

• identify key points in the source connecting to the essay question • justify source selection (evaluation)

Students were encouraged to apply what they learned in the library workshop about selection and evaluation to complete the source justification. Thus, the key purposes of the task were to encourage students to: 1) start early on their

information searches, 2) read with a purpose, and 3) make considered source selections.

In the Cycle One version of the task, students chose five sources they were planning to use for the essay. They had no guidance on source types, and only a brief outline of the task in the course outline (Appendix 7a). The task was marked and returned to students within four days, with feedback indicating which sources were not appropriate for use in the essay.

Student feedback indicated that the inclusion of the source justification task, following the extended library workshop, made them carefully consider source selection for the essay:

The Source Justification was good. I liked being made more critical when you think and finding specific information from them rather than sometimes I just look at them and go oh yeah this will do and quickly flick through (SFG/1-1/C1/D).

Students also appreciated the feedback on source selection prior to writing the essay, as this enabled them to make changes prior to completing the essay task:

I think mine was just that I needed to find more scholarly sources – they were all just about internet based (SFG/1-1/C1/D).

After the source justification task was implemented, a review of reference lists in the essay indicated that the formative task had effectively eliminated Wikipedia and other less appropriate sources from reference lists.

The task also created a number of challenges. Although student entries showed that key considerations for evaluating sources were being used, these were often applied inappropriately. In the example below (Figure 7), the student has selected a Facebook fan-page created by environmentally conscious National government supporters. The student is applying key credibility indicators by alluding to the currency of the source, as well as its connections to other credible government sources, but is not recognising that Facebook fan-pages are not considered an appropriate source for an academic essay despite the justification provided.

Figure 7: Example of a Student Source Justification Task

Unfortunately, despite the emphasis on the value of using scholarly sources in the library session and in the feedback on source selection in the source justification task, government sources still dominated most students’ essay reference lists. Scholarly peer-reviewed sources only accounted for 25% of the reference list entries.

6.8.2 Cycle Two: Modifying the Source Justification Task

The source justification task was modified for Cycle Two based on our reflections and student feedback, and then re-trialled. Student feedback had indicated that identifying five key points for each source resulted in repetition throughout the task. The range of source types was limited, and scholarly sources were lacking at the early research stage. Students had also relied on internet and government websites for information, so a range of source types were not accessed and evaluated. We recognised open-searching did not encourage students to explore a range of source types, so they could not determine the value of information by comparing sources. We also had no indication of how students were selecting sources, i.e. were they making considered choices, or just grabbing the first few sources they found and trying to justify them?

Figure 8 shows the key changes in the task for Cycle Two to address these limitations. For the modified version, we stipulated source types, and added a reflective element on information search processes. The modification aimed to encourage a focus on how information is presented in different source types. Students could then use or reject the source based on their analysis. Students were given more detail on how to approach the assessment in the course outline (Appendix 7b).

Figure 8:Changes in Source Justification requirements

There was a mixed response to identifying the source types. Some students suggested that specifying the source types led them to sources that they wouldn’t usually use in an essay: for example, a news article. Others felt it was valuable to assess different source types to evaluate which were more useful. An unexpected comment was that some students struggled to find a source to reject:

I couldn’t find a source to reject for ages because the website had information and like it was a legit website so I got really confused (SFG/1-1/C2/E).

They could choose to reject a quality source because it wasn’t relevant. However, most students didn’t reject sources on this basis; the rejected source was mostly Wikipedia “because it can be edited”. This suggests that we had not clearly articulated reasons for rejecting a quality source.

Student feedback on the task was generally positive. Student discussions showed their beliefs about the key purpose of the task was congruent with our aims. One group indicated it was to focus on evaluation over content and to promote deeper reading beyond content to look for other credibility indicators:

S1: To find valid sources for our essay?

SOURCE JUSTIFICATION