During a recent trip to Shanghai the significance of having the not so ubiquitous Google blocked made me think about student research techniques over the years. I'm certainly no Luddite, you understand, but for all my embracing of Technology Enhanced Learning I can see the downside.
As a Bradford undergraduate in 1975 I recall an excellent foundation module in research methods for business studies. Out of a class of 50 only two students attended, me and one other (a mature student who had been a journalist and so knew the value of good research). The key reason for the low turnout was that the module was not assessed, providing formative feedback only.
Great! That meant individual attention from Prof. Gerry and Dr. Roger, the tutors! Take that suckers!
Anyway. Back to the research. Back to a manual trawl through the library card index system, the microfilm and dusty tome copies of journals and then selecting a small number of published papers for purchase as the library did not subscribe to all relevant journals. I recall that the search took weeks, the discussion to authorise the purchase a further period and then the arrival of the printed paper after another couple of weeks. Touchingly, the paper came with a handwritten note from the author (an Oxford academic) wishing me well with the project I was designing.
My project took all term, the report received feedback and I had learned new skills. The report proudly carried two key references of quality. What endured from that episode was not the outcome of the research itself but the process of research. It required me to engage my mind at an early stage, to focus and to organise my time carefully in order that I did not spend my entire life in the literature search phase.
Today, many colleagues anticipate that students with access to Google will be able to garner literary resources far more swiftly. But speed comes with a cost. Did they stop to think and focus BEFORE opening their laptop? Did they actually read the paper or rely on Google Scholar's algorithms to judge its relevance?
 |
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND
|
As a Bradford undergraduate in 1975 I recall an excellent foundation module in research methods for business studies. Out of a class of 50 only two students attended, me and one other (a mature student who had been a journalist and so knew the value of good research). The key reason for the low turnout was that the module was not assessed, providing formative feedback only.
Great! That meant individual attention from Prof. Gerry and Dr. Roger, the tutors! Take that suckers!
Anyway. Back to the research. Back to a manual trawl through the library card index system, the microfilm and dusty tome copies of journals and then selecting a small number of published papers for purchase as the library did not subscribe to all relevant journals. I recall that the search took weeks, the discussion to authorise the purchase a further period and then the arrival of the printed paper after another couple of weeks. Touchingly, the paper came with a handwritten note from the author (an Oxford academic) wishing me well with the project I was designing.
My project took all term, the report received feedback and I had learned new skills. The report proudly carried two key references of quality. What endured from that episode was not the outcome of the research itself but the process of research. It required me to engage my mind at an early stage, to focus and to organise my time carefully in order that I did not spend my entire life in the literature search phase.
Today, many colleagues anticipate that students with access to Google will be able to garner literary resources far more swiftly. But speed comes with a cost. Did they stop to think and focus BEFORE opening their laptop? Did they actually read the paper or rely on Google Scholar's algorithms to judge its relevance?
No comments:
Post a Comment