评估在线资源:STEM社区大学生如何在互联网上分类和选择材料

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Thai-Huy Nguyen, Rose Ann E. Gutierrez, Jalen Smith
{"title":"评估在线资源:STEM社区大学生如何在互联网上分类和选择材料","authors":"Thai-Huy Nguyen, Rose Ann E. Gutierrez, Jalen Smith","doi":"10.1177/00915521221087286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research Question: The vast amount of material available on-line has prompted researchers to understand how undergraduate students sort and select, or evaluate, the results that emerge from their searches. Since students depend on on-line material to facilitate their learning of course material, understanding the basis of their process is imperative to how institutions develop more equitable and far-reaching strategies for student success. Given this context, this study asks the following question: When students are faced with several choices that emerge from their on-line search, what are the criteria used to evaluate and select resources that support learning of course content? Methods: To answer the research question, we drew on interview data from 12 students enrolled in a community college district, who offered insights on how they evaluated on-line resources for their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. Results: We find that trust and utility were the prominent criteria by which on-line resources were evaluated. Students were skeptical of the accuracy of content in a given resource and used several dimensions of trust to direct their assessment. Students also evaluated with purpose, to search for and sort resources that reflected their goals and preferred conditions for engagement, or what we consider as utility. Conclusion: Understanding how students sort and evaluate on-line resources offers insights into a learning environment increasingly defined by the internet and informs how institutions and instructors might better incorporate these resources into their curriculum and academic supports. Our findings reveal implications for institutional leadership, faculty, and student services.","PeriodicalId":46564,"journal":{"name":"Community College Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating On-Line Resources: How Community College Students in STEM Sort and Select Material on the Internet\",\"authors\":\"Thai-Huy Nguyen, Rose Ann E. Gutierrez, Jalen Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00915521221087286\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research Question: The vast amount of material available on-line has prompted researchers to understand how undergraduate students sort and select, or evaluate, the results that emerge from their searches. Since students depend on on-line material to facilitate their learning of course material, understanding the basis of their process is imperative to how institutions develop more equitable and far-reaching strategies for student success. Given this context, this study asks the following question: When students are faced with several choices that emerge from their on-line search, what are the criteria used to evaluate and select resources that support learning of course content? Methods: To answer the research question, we drew on interview data from 12 students enrolled in a community college district, who offered insights on how they evaluated on-line resources for their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. Results: We find that trust and utility were the prominent criteria by which on-line resources were evaluated. Students were skeptical of the accuracy of content in a given resource and used several dimensions of trust to direct their assessment. Students also evaluated with purpose, to search for and sort resources that reflected their goals and preferred conditions for engagement, or what we consider as utility. Conclusion: Understanding how students sort and evaluate on-line resources offers insights into a learning environment increasingly defined by the internet and informs how institutions and instructors might better incorporate these resources into their curriculum and academic supports. Our findings reveal implications for institutional leadership, faculty, and student services.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Community College Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Community College Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521221087286\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community College Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521221087286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究问题:网上大量可用的资料促使研究人员了解本科生如何分类、选择或评估从搜索中出现的结果。由于学生依赖于在线材料来促进他们的课程材料的学习,了解他们的过程的基础对于机构如何制定更公平和深远的策略来促进学生的成功是必不可少的。在此背景下,本研究提出以下问题:当学生面临从在线搜索中出现的几种选择时,用于评估和选择支持课程内容学习的资源的标准是什么?方法:为了回答研究问题,我们利用了12名就读于社区学院地区的学生的访谈数据,他们提供了关于他们如何评估科学、技术、工程和数学(STEM)课程的在线资源的见解。结果:我们发现信任和效用是在线资源评估的主要标准。学生对给定资源中内容的准确性持怀疑态度,并使用信任的几个维度来指导他们的评估。学生们也有目的地进行评估,寻找和分类反映他们的目标和参与的首选条件的资源,或者我们认为是实用的资源。结论:了解学生如何分类和评估在线资源,有助于深入了解日益由互联网定义的学习环境,并告知机构和教师如何更好地将这些资源整合到他们的课程和学术支持中。我们的研究结果揭示了对机构领导、教师和学生服务的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating On-Line Resources: How Community College Students in STEM Sort and Select Material on the Internet
Research Question: The vast amount of material available on-line has prompted researchers to understand how undergraduate students sort and select, or evaluate, the results that emerge from their searches. Since students depend on on-line material to facilitate their learning of course material, understanding the basis of their process is imperative to how institutions develop more equitable and far-reaching strategies for student success. Given this context, this study asks the following question: When students are faced with several choices that emerge from their on-line search, what are the criteria used to evaluate and select resources that support learning of course content? Methods: To answer the research question, we drew on interview data from 12 students enrolled in a community college district, who offered insights on how they evaluated on-line resources for their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. Results: We find that trust and utility were the prominent criteria by which on-line resources were evaluated. Students were skeptical of the accuracy of content in a given resource and used several dimensions of trust to direct their assessment. Students also evaluated with purpose, to search for and sort resources that reflected their goals and preferred conditions for engagement, or what we consider as utility. Conclusion: Understanding how students sort and evaluate on-line resources offers insights into a learning environment increasingly defined by the internet and informs how institutions and instructors might better incorporate these resources into their curriculum and academic supports. Our findings reveal implications for institutional leadership, faculty, and student services.
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
Community College Review
Community College Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Community College Review (CCR) has led the nation for over 35 years in the publication of scholarly, peer-reviewed research and commentary on community colleges. CCR welcomes manuscripts dealing with all aspects of community college administration, education, and policy, both within the American higher education system as well as within the higher education systems of other countries that have similar tertiary institutions. All submitted manuscripts undergo a blind review. When manuscripts are not accepted for publication, we offer suggestions for how they might be revised. The ultimate intent is to further discourse about community colleges, their students, and the educators and administrators who work within these institutions.
×
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