评价《纽约时报》:学生对开放式辅导问题回答的内容分析

Q3 Social Sciences
Natalie Haber, Sam Mandani, Kaitlyn Accardo
{"title":"评价《纽约时报》:学生对开放式辅导问题回答的内容分析","authors":"Natalie Haber, Sam Mandani, Kaitlyn Accardo","doi":"10.1080/10875301.2023.2273249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis study involves student responses to open-ended questions regarding the credibility of a New York Times news article after viewing library instructional materials. The authors present the use of content analysis as a means of assessing students’ source evaluations. The analysis revealed that all students were able to correctly list three factors that contribute to a source’s credibility, and nearly all students (96.5%) were able to define bias. Interestingly, 42.6% of students evaluated the New York Times article as not credible, for a variety of categorical reasons. These findings led to actionable changes to library instruction content.Keywords: Content analysisinformation literacy instructiononline learningonline learning assessmentsource evaluation Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.","PeriodicalId":35377,"journal":{"name":"Internet Reference Services Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the <i>New York Times</i> : Content Analysis of Student Responses to Open-Ended Tutorial Questions\",\"authors\":\"Natalie Haber, Sam Mandani, Kaitlyn Accardo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10875301.2023.2273249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractThis study involves student responses to open-ended questions regarding the credibility of a New York Times news article after viewing library instructional materials. The authors present the use of content analysis as a means of assessing students’ source evaluations. The analysis revealed that all students were able to correctly list three factors that contribute to a source’s credibility, and nearly all students (96.5%) were able to define bias. Interestingly, 42.6% of students evaluated the New York Times article as not credible, for a variety of categorical reasons. These findings led to actionable changes to library instruction content.Keywords: Content analysisinformation literacy instructiononline learningonline learning assessmentsource evaluation Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internet Reference Services Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internet Reference Services Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2023.2273249\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Reference Services Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2023.2273249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本研究让学生在看过图书馆的教学资料后,回答关于《纽约时报》新闻文章可信度的开放式问题。作者提出使用内容分析作为评估学生源评估的一种手段。分析显示,所有学生都能正确列出影响消息来源可信度的三个因素,几乎所有学生(96.5%)都能定义偏见。有趣的是,42.6%的学生认为《纽约时报》的文章不可信,原因多种多样。这些发现导致了图书馆教学内容的可操作的变化。关键词:内容分析信息素养教学在线学习在线学习评估来源评价披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the New York Times : Content Analysis of Student Responses to Open-Ended Tutorial Questions
AbstractThis study involves student responses to open-ended questions regarding the credibility of a New York Times news article after viewing library instructional materials. The authors present the use of content analysis as a means of assessing students’ source evaluations. The analysis revealed that all students were able to correctly list three factors that contribute to a source’s credibility, and nearly all students (96.5%) were able to define bias. Interestingly, 42.6% of students evaluated the New York Times article as not credible, for a variety of categorical reasons. These findings led to actionable changes to library instruction content.Keywords: Content analysisinformation literacy instructiononline learningonline learning assessmentsource evaluation Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Internet Reference Services Quarterly
Internet Reference Services Quarterly Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Internet Reference Services Quarterly tackles the tough job of keeping librarians up to date with the latest developments in Internet referencing and librarianship. This peer-reviewed quarterly journal is designed to function as a comprehensive information source librarians can turn to and count on for keeping up-to-date on emerging technological innovations, while emphasizing theoretical, research, and practical applications of Internet-related information services, sources, and resources. Librarians from any size or type of library in any discipline get the knowledge needed on how to best improve service through one of the most powerful reference tools available on the Internet.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信