• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Eng112 Library Workshop 2
 

Eng112 Library Workshop 2

on

  • 438 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
438
Views on SlideShare
160
Embed Views
278

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 278

http://libguides.marymountcalifornia.edu 202
http://libguides.marymountpv.edu 76

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Review: Workshops are to help them transition from “searchers” to “researchers”. <br />
  • #1 and #2 were strategies introduced in W1. #3 and #4 in W2. <br /> How I review #1 is I typically ask them to grab the person next to them and to talk about/jot down everything they remember about how Google works from last class. They do this for 1-2 minutes then share out. <br />
  • Reviewing Strategy #1. <br />
  • Reviewing Strategy #1 <br />
  • These academic search engines may be organized in different ways: their content may be subject specific (any intended psychology majors, for example? We have dedicated psychology search engines), their content may be a specific info type (e.g. newspapers and books as you’ll learn in ID117). <br />
  • The other new strategy we’ll learn today is the questions to ask of any information source – becoming critically selective of the sources we used. This includes web sources and the sources we’ll look at today. <br />
  • Let’s start our introduction to these new strategies by looking at two articles on the topic of X. <br /> You’re going to skim read these articles, and contrast them. Not by content but by how the information itself differs. <br /> Your worksheet is blank: you come up with the characteristics to contrast them along. Then in about 10 minutes you’ll get with someone next to you to share and discuss your ideas. <br />
  • About 8 mins or so in I silently put these questions up on the screen to help guide them a bit as they’re reading… <br />
  • Okay, let’s discuss. Be sure to invite the instructor to contribute and contextualize for their class. <br /> Almost always we bring in rhetoric ideas (thereby tying our infolit to their comp work): “How are the claims made or supported differently in these two articles”? In ENG112 they are teaching them to write persuasively for their reader, so we must tie our approach to theirs for greater student learning. <br /> Typically end with “Would you use one source, or both in your writing, and explain why?” The idea is that both have a place in writing. We are not pushing the message that they must only use scholarly journals. That is the wrong message. The idea is to introduce them to the fact that these scholarly conversations exist and can be very persuasive to use in their writing (particularly an appeal to logos). Popular sources often can be used for an appeal to pathos (emotions), and provide hooks for your readers. It is also likely easier to start with reading popular, get a comfort with the language and ideas, and then seek out some scholarly articles. <br />
  • After discussion, put up this slide. Introduce that the one article is called a scholarly article, and the other is considered popular. Often they’ve hit on most of these to different extents. Give them affirmation that their thinking was good, and touch on a few that they may have missed. The review process is not one they can detect by reading, so almost always bring it up. <br />
  • *This slide is meant for those reviewing the class materials online. There is not time to play it in class. <br />
  • Give them some time to write this down but also let them know these slides are on the library website under “ENG112”. <br /> There are two ways to find articles. It’s up to you to choose which one you prefer. <br /> Like a vacuum cleaner. Tries to suck up all the articles in our individual academic search engines (also known as databases) , but does so imperfectly. <br /> These are the individual academic search engines. You may find it easier to use them individually, or not. <br /> Then demo a search in Everything (or Articles), and then a demo in PRL or ASP, using same key words. <br />

Eng112 Library Workshop 2 Eng112 Library Workshop 2 Presentation Transcript

  • Information Skills for College Beyond Google: Specialized Search Engines ENG 112 Library Workshop 2
  • What will you learn about? • Session I: – Internet information sources – Which are free sources • Session II: – Scholarly information sources – Which are not free, library pays $$
  • Recap of last workshop clicking Critical random purposeful easy depth
  • Strategies  researcher 1. Understand how search engines works 2. Use some advanced search strategies in Google and read URLs 3. Begin asking questions about what you read (*today) 4. Try a specialized, human built search engine (*today)
  • Read URLs for publishing motive
  • Popular Top-Level Domains (TLDs) .com (a company, usually based in U.S.) .edu (colleges and universities in U.S.) .org (non-profits and charities, typically) .gov (U.S. government) .int (international orgs, United Nations) .ca (Oh Canada!) .eu (European Union organizations) AND every country has its own domain (like .CA)
  • Going Deeper
  • *New* Strategy: Specialized Search
  • *New* Strategy: Questions
  • Compare two sources Source 1: [type name of article] Source 2: [type name of article] i. ii. iii. iv. Compare the two, using the worksheet to do so. Skim read: What characteristics would compare them along? After comparing, would you use either source in your paper? Why (or why not) and how? Discuss with your group.
  • Always ask these questions 1. Who is the author or creator? (credibility) 2. What do you know about the author/creator? (credibility) 3. Who is publishing or sponsoring the site? (credibility) 4. What is the information itself like? (accuracy/depth) 5. When was the information published? (currency)
  • Characteristic Article 1 Article 2 Criteria for “Scholarly”
  • Characteristic Scholarly Popular (e.g. Journal of Modern Literature, English Literature in Transition) (e.g. New York Times, Newsweek, Nat’l Geographic) Purpose Informs, shares original research Entertains, may also inform Audience Students, researchers, and others academics General public, those without specialized knowledge Author Researchers and other experts in the field Often written by reporters of other paid staff writers Length More in-depth, more details and evidence Usually short, provides summary References Tells you where the information came from Doesn’t usually share information sources Review Process Criteria for Editor reviews it, but not “Scholarly” Peer reviewed; only articles of superior quality published a panel of experts
  • What’s Popular and Who are These Scholars?
  • How to Search for Articles 1) Library Home Page> Search Everything and Beyond 2) Library Home Page > Research Section > eResources Search under “Articles” section Choose a search engine (aka database) under “Go More In-Depth What’s the difference between (1) and (2)? 1) Good to use when you are getting started on your research. It gives access to ~70% of our articles (but can be tricky to use at times). 2) Requires a few extra steps in that you need to go to a different page and choose from a list of options. CQ Researcher which is great for freshmen won’t appear in the search results of 1). You’ll also get access to CQ Researcher & the other 30% of articles.
  • eResources Recommendations Find popular & scholarly articles: Academic Search Premier ProQuest Research Library CQ Researcher Opposing Viewpoints
  • For help with research ask your information coaches – Marymount librarians! Walk-in Help: E-mail: Phone: Text: all the hours we are open library@marymountcalifornia.edu 310-303-7260 (424) 241-2489