26 October 2006
To: Tracy Daugherty, Chair, Department of English
From: Loretta Rielly, Humanities Librarian, English 200 Instructor
Re: Assessment of English 200, Spring 2006
Background:
English 200 Library Skills for Literary Studies is a one-credit, required course for English
majors. The course has been taught by a librarian since Fall 1996. Prior to that it was a
one-credit, 300-level course taught by a member of the English faculty. The change was
made because the “upper division standing causes students to put off taking the course
until their third year. Students would benefit from learning these skills in their first or
second year” (Category 2 Proposal, 1995-1996). The perquisite that students have
sophomore standing was removed but all else has remained the same. It is the only credit
course taught by a librarian.
The assessment of Eng 200 consisted of two parts: interviews with faculty and a survey
of English majors.
Faculty Interviews:
I interviewed sixteen of the nineteen English faculty, three by email. The sixteen
included the three rhetoric and writing faculty and the department chair. I asked two
very broad questions: What do you expect students to know about researching a literary
and/or cultural topic? What do you expect students to be able to do as a result of taking
English 200? As I anticipated, their answers also yielded information about the types of
research assignments made and parameters placed on research assignments and general
observations about students’ research skills.
Research assignments. None of the faculty require research papers or presentations in
their 200-level courses, though I believe some adjunct faculty have done so. The twelve
faculty who teach literature and film assign at least one paper or presentation in their 300
and/or 400 level courses. Most require students to use secondary sources, with some
providing the sources they want students to use. Reasons for not requiring students to do
independent research include 1) wanting students to read the important figures, 2) not
having the time to teach the research process in a 10-week course, 3) students not having
time to do more than superficial work, and 4) limited resources in OSU's collection.
None of the faculty restricts the types of sources students can use, but they do encourage
them to use credible sources and not just the Internet. Many direct students to selected
websites.
Faculty expectations for research and English 200: Faculty want students to "listen to all
sides of the conversation” and "engage in the conversation." They want them to know
the authorities and the "arguments." They want them to know that there are "arguments."
Several noted that they hope English majors would understand they're part of a discipline
1
with a history, and that when they write, they're participants in the ongoing conversations
of their discipline. Most faculty voiced concerns about students simply stringing
quotations together and not moving move beyond "I agree" / "I disagree" statements.
Faculty expect student to know about and use a wide range of sources. Several
mentioned they specifically want them to "know" the physical collection, the print
journals and the books in the stacks. They want them to select good sources and
recognize bias. One faculty wants his students to be able to identify refereed journals;
another wants them to be able to differentiate between reviews and literary criticism.
Nearly all faculty expect students to know MLA citation format, or at least the principles
of citation.
In terms of using specific research databases, MLA and Project Muse were cited most
frequently. One faculty member wonders why students don't use MLA, while another
questions students' using it because of the complexity of the sources cited. Faculty
expect students to use the OSU Library Catalog and Summit Catalog; one faculty
member recommends OCLC's WorldCat for primary sources.
Student Survey:
The survey was distributed to all English majors, and 71 responded. Four students
skipped most of the questions, leaving 67 usable responses. Of these, 57 (85.1%) had
taken English 200: 7 freshman, thirteen sophomores, fifteen juniors, and 20 seniors. This
report primarily reflects those results. The survey consisted of three parts: background
information, research practices in general, and impact of English 200 on subsequent
studies. I've attached copies of the results for all students, students who have taken
English 200, and students who have not taken it. This narrative will highlight the
findings I find most significant and/or relevant in respect to English 200, with the caveat
that I'm working with a small sample and make no attempt to indicate whether results are
statistically significant or not. As with most surveys, this is a snapshot in time.
Formats, research tools, and research techniques
In English 200, I teach concepts, processes and tool, emphasizing the OSU and Summit
Catalogs, research databases in the humanities, and using information found in works
cited pages and bibliographies to find additional information. In the survey, I asked a
number of questions about sources and techniques students use when researching a
literary topic. The results are not terribly surprising. All students, including those who
have taken English 200, prefer online sources, whether subscription journals or websites
on the Internet. If it's not available online, they want to find it locally. Over half the
students who have taken English 200 always or frequently use the OSU catalog. Few
always or frequently use Summit (9 students, 16%) or InterLibrary Loan (4 students, 7%)
to request items not available here despite the limitations of OSU’s collection.
Over half the students who have taken English 200 always or frequently use MLA
Bibliography (30, 53%). Only 18% (10) report always or frequently using Project Muse.
Although the library did not subscribe to Project Muse's humanities and social sciences
collections until January 2004, most students appear to have taken English 200 in the last
2
two years and I would have expected this number to be higher. Probably the most
startling data in the survey, especially given the emphasis on following the conversations
in a discipline, is the very low use of bibliographies found in books and articles: only
20% (11 students) always or frequently use them while 47% (26) seldom or never do.
They do report considering the authority of the author when selecting sources, however
(34 students, 59%: always or frequently).
Students’ assessment of effectiveness of English 200
Over half the students (38 students, 67%) agree or strongly agree with the statement:
“English 200 provided the skills I needed to complete research assignments in my
English literature classes.” Most comment that they learned new options for doing
research. The remaining responses were neutral (15 students, 26%), disagree (3 students,
5%), and strongly disagree (1 student, 1%). The most frequent comment for respondents
in all three of these latter groups is "I already knew how to use the library/do research."
Two students (1 neutral, 1 disagree) noted that by the time they needed to do research for
a class they had "forgotten" what they'd learned.
Asked what would improve English 200, most responses are mixed and not unexpected:
it's good the way it is, too much busy work, too easy, too hard, make it online, don't
require it, and so forth. Still, there were many thoughtful and constructive comments and
suggestions. Several students noted that it should be more than 1 credit or meet more
frequently given the amount of work. One student suggests being able to challenge the
class. A number of responses to this question and one that asked what they did not learn
echo the faculty’s linking of researching with writing: students suggest requiring a paper
or outline to bring the research to a conclusion, making it part of another class, or having
the major assignment parallel an assignment in an English class. One writes, “The entire
process is important, from choosing an appropriate topic, to researching it, to the proper
form of the paper itself (note taking, citations, bibliography, etc.).”
Observations
1. The link between English 200 and the English curriculum is fragile. Even when
students are required to complete a “Research Guide,” it feels artificial to many of them,
and frankly, to me. Although I have given students the option of doing an annotated
bibliography for a research paper they’re writing in another course, none has taken
advantage of it because they either don’t have a research assignment or the timing is
wrong.
2. For both faculty and students, research culminates with writing. When I asked them
about their expectations for students’ research, all faculty talked about writing and
“engaging” with sources. Without a real product, the work seems left undone.
3. If students are not expected to do independent research, they will not have
opportunities to apply what’s taught in English 200. Also, if they are not held
accountable for the quality of the sources they use, they’ll use what’s most accessible and
familiar. A couple of years ago, a student accused me of being “biased” about the
3
Internet and library sources. Well, I am, but I also understand his perspective: his
experience had been that Internet sources are sufficient.
4. Most students who take English 200 have never had to write an English paper using
secondary sources, and some wonder why they’d want to. Last year a student
commented about using a bibliography: “It’s ok if you wanted to read what someone else
says.”
4. Students who take English 200 are novice library users. Each term, I ask students to
complete a library assessment the first week in order to gauge their experience. The 155
responses are from freshmen (19%), sophomores (30%), juniors (26%), seniors (24%)
and 2 post-baccalaureate students. Some of the results are startling, even accounting for
those students who don’t understand the terms used.
31% (48) have never looked for a book in the library.
76% (117) have never used a print journal
52% (81) have never used the OSU catalog
69% (107) have never used Academic Search Premiere
6. English 200 has been a skills course for the department but it has the potential to
prepare students for their future careers. Over 60% of all students who took the survey
want to go to graduate school and 30% plan to teach.
Recommendation
English 200 should be more closely related to the English curriculum, perhaps as a “lab”
in an existing course or courses, or in an expanded “researching and writing” course. If
it’s to remain a stand-alone course, the number of credit hours should be increased.
Students’ limited experience and time limitations have necessitated devoting a good deal
of time to basic processes and use of the tools and less time on the concepts and critical
decisions students must make during the research process. Since students will study and
teach in a very different information environment than today’s, learning the concepts is
essential. The tools will change.
cc:
Anita Helle, Associate Chair, Department of English
Ruth Vondracek, Head of Research, Consulting and Innovative Services, OSU
Libraries
John Pollitz, Associate University Librarian for Public Services and Innovative
Technology, OSU Libraries
4