Presentation given for the ACRL Virtual Worlds Interest Group in Second Life, 20 November 2016

1. Explaining
reasons for
citation and
comparing
articles: an
assessment in
a Masters-level
module
Sheila Webber/ Sheila Yoshikawa
November 2016

2. Context
• Masters-level programmes (mainly MSc Information
Management and MSc Information Systems; in the
Information School, University of Sheffield, UK)
• Core module: Information Systems in Organisations
(worth 25% of marks in Semester 1 of the 1 year
Masters courses)
• 190 students; Majority from outside the UK , mostly
from mainland China
Sheila Webber 2016

3. Information Literacy component
• 2 lecture sessions, with particular focus on IL in
workplace settings, information behaviour and the
relationship between IL and Information Management &
Knowledge management
• For assignment (considering constraints), decided to
focus on academic skills students would need in their
coursework and dissertation: have identified that
reading, summarising and synthesising articles is
challenging for them
• Other assignment (70% module mark) was coursework
answering questions about a business case Sheila Webber 2016

4. Assessment
• Target was to have something which could be
marked in 20 minutes
• Wanted to design in elements that discouraged
collusion and plagiarism
• Was being marked by a team: 2 faculty members
(me and colleague) and teaching assistants
• A colleague (Professor Willett) who has investigated
citation behaviour selected a list of reasons for
citing articles (derived from a research study,
Harwood, 2009 - this reference is in the notecard)
• Briefings created for students and markers Sheila Webber 2016

5. • Students were allocated 2 articles.
– Article A was from their module reading list or mentioned
prominently in a lecture
– Article B was an article that cited article A
• No more than 10 students had the same article A/B
combination (there were 5 different “Article A”s, several
“Article B”s were identified for each)
• Students selected citations, identified reasons for
citation and explained why that reason had been
chosen
• They also had to compare and contrast the 2 articles in
one of 3 ways
Sheila Webber 2016

6. Example
This was one of the worked examples given to students - the comments (red lines)
elaborated points e.g. “Where there are options a, b etc. for a reason, say which
ones apply. You can do this either in the explanation or (as with the next example)
in the “Reason Number” box.” There was a fixed word count.
Sheila Webber 2016

7. Rationale
• Encourage close reading of 2 articles
• Encourage thought about
– why someone might reference someone else
– what the relationship is between two academic articles
– how you might build on or draw on someone else’s
research
Sheila Webber 2016

8. ACRL Information Literacy
Framework?
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

9. Scholarship as Conversation
• Communities of scholars, researchers, or
professionals engage in sustained discourse with
new insights and discoveries occurring over time as
a result of varied perspectives and interpretations.
• Research in scholarly and professional fields is a
discursive practice in which ideas are formulated,
debated, and weighed against one another over
extended periods of time
Sheila Webber 2016

10. • Knowledge Practices - Learners who are
developing their information literate abilities
– cite the contributing work of others in their own
information production;
– identify the contribution that particular articles, books,
and other scholarly pieces make to disciplinary
knowledge
Sheila Webber 2016

11. Authority Is Constructed and
Contextual
• Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and
credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need
and the context in which the information will be used.
Authority is constructed in that various communities may
recognize different types of authority. It is contextual in that
the information need may help to determine the level of
authority required.
Sheila Webber 2016

12. • Knowledge Practices - Learners who are developing their
information literate abilities
– define different types of authority, such as subject
expertise (e.g., scholarship), societal position (e.g.,
public office or title), or special experience (e.g.,
participating in a historic event);
– understand that many disciplines have
acknowledged authorities in the sense of well-known
scholars and publications that are widely considered
“standard,” and yet, even in those situations, some
scholars would challenge the authority of those
sources;
Sheila Webber 2016

13. Research as Inquiry
• Research is iterative and depends upon asking
increasingly complex or new questions whose
answers in turn develop additional questions or
lines of inquiry in any field.
• Knowledge Practices
– organize information in meaningful ways
– draw reasonable conclusions based on the
analysis and interpretation of information
Sheila Webber 2016

14. Outcomes
• Evidence of some better understanding of citation
and academic writing
• Relatively low level of plagiarism or collusion
• A number of students who had not read the articles
with understanding, or assumed it would be an easy
task and left too little time to complete it
• If repeated it, would benefit from more preparatory
time on academic reading in this discipline
Sheila Webber 2016

15. Sheila Webber
Information School
University of Sheffield
s.webber@shef.ac.uk
Twitter: @sheilayoshikawa
http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/
http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber/
Photo: Sheila
Webber

16. • Harwood, N. (2009) An interview-based study of the functions of citations in
academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 497-518. doi:
10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001
Sheila Webber 2016
Reference