Explaining

reasons for

citation and

comparing

articles: an

assessment in

a Masters-level

moduleSheila Webber/ Sheila Yoshikawa

November 2016

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

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

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

• 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 waysSheila Webber 2016

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

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

ACRL Information Literacy

Framework?

http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

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

• 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

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

• 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

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

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

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

• 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