Search engine vs. database
| GO WI GO gives students an insight into some of the differences between search engines such as Google, Google Scholar, Wikipedia and databases. Through joint reflection on search results, the students practise critical reflection and argumentation in relation to the choice of sources for assignments in higher education.
The students become able to reflect critically on which resources they use to search for information, namely search engines and databases, and on what they can be used for in academic information searching. All links for running the activities are at the bottom. |
|
|---|
CONTEXT
Students starting a higher education programme are often users of search engines for everyday purposes, but they have rarely used search engines for academic information searching. The subject databases are often unknown or new to students in relation to their academic work.
Students in higher education are expected to be able to search for professional, research and academic information right from the beginning of their programme. But students do not always have knowledge of how best to approach the academic task.
By taking already familiar search methods as a starting point, combined with more advanced search strategies, the students are helped towards academic information searching through experimental hands-on, peer-to-peer activities.
The context is, for example, semester assignments where the students have to be able to argue academically in writing
OUTCOME
By working academically with different search tools, the students practise and achieve:
- Knowledge of search tools and a critical approach to the different search tools for information searching in higher education.
- Skills to find relevant sources for study purposes and a sense that there are other places to search than through search engines/Google.
- Skills to make well-founded choices about where to search, on the basis of insight into how search engines and subject databases are structured.
- Skills to argue for the choice of sources in relation to level and academic quality. Students, like other academics and researchers, must be able to argue for the credibility of the knowledge they build on.
CONTENT AND STEPS OF THE ACTIVITY
GO-WI-GO is a group activity in which students jointly seek to reach agreement on the validity of sources on the basis of searches in different resources (search engines and subject databases). .
The focus is partly on argumentation for the choice of source, and partly on how different search tools are useful for finding academic materials.
BEFORE THE ACTIVITY
The layout of the room must invite group work in different sizes. The students must be able to be in the same room throughout the activity, since they have to move between the groups and the groups grow during the activity. A room with a flexible layout in relation to presentations and group work.
The activity does not require preparation from students.
The teacher's role is to spar with and facilitate the groups' work during the selection (peer review). To support the students in using academic arguments for their selection of sources and to support them in building skills to argue for and justify their choices.
The teacher provides tools (evaluation criteria) for how to evaluate sources.
Evaluation criteria:
- Is the source relevant for the assignment?
- Is it a reliable source?
- Who is the author?
- Is it research or is it opinion?
THE ACTIVITY STEP BY STEP
1. The teacher gives a short introduction to search engines – e.g. Google, Wiki, Google Scholar. 10 min intro. ( See the literature reference under resources).
2. The students are given a subject-specific topic. The teacher has checked in advance whether there are good search results, so that the topic is not too specific or too general.
3. The students search in the different search engines – in threes or in pairs.. It must be academically relevant and they must select one source in each search engine that they can argue they would use in an academic assignment. Each group must end up with three sources from three different search tools . Allow about 15 min
4. Peer review: The groups pair up two by two. Each group has arrived at three sources and now they must select three sources from among the six sources found.
5. In the next round the two groups, who now jointly have three sources, meet two other groups who also have three sources.
6. The pattern is repeated until there are only two large groups with three sources each. Six sources in total across all groups and participants.
7. There are two large groups left with three sources each, which are to be presented to the whole class. The teacher takes responsibility for finding advantages and disadvantages of the sources when the groups present. The teacher must consider whether there are criteria for ’right’ / ’wrong’ in relation to the evaluation criteria.
8. The students must now repeat the same exercise as with the search engines. They must now search with the same search criteria in an academically relevant database. Repeat the whole session again with group formation and peer review until the class is again divided into two groups with three sources each.
9. The teacher and the students together put into words what the advantages and disadvantages are of searching in search engines and databases respectively.
During the activity:
- Keep an eye on the students; round-ups and support all the way through are important.
- The teacher must keep an eye on the time and is responsible for group formation.
- Remember to summarise the evaluation criteria along the way.
- The activity suggests that there is a ‘right’ solution and competition can arise between the groups. Be aware of the competitive element and make it explicit that in a literature search there is no true/false answer, but an assessment according to academic criteria. The students would probably like a right and a wrong answer – and there is not one.
AFTER THE ACTIVITY
An ongoing focus on the literature basis in study assignments, and discussion with the students about how they exploit the possibilities for information searching, including use of the educational institution's licence-paid databases, can help maintain a broad, conscious use of resources for information searching.
MATERIALS AND PREPARATION
| Preparation | Materials |
|---|---|
| A topic or a research problem must be prepared that the students can work with. | Internet |
| A document must be produced with the topic/research problem. The document must contain evaluation criteria that the students are to use when assessing their search results.
Evaluation criteria could for example look like this:
|
Document with evaluation criteria (See the second point under Preparation) |
| Find more relevant evaluation criteria for your students yourselves. | |
| Get an overview of how many students there are and how the groups can be distributed + how much time they get in each group. The activity works best if there are at least 24 students, if there are to be three in the first groups. With fewer students the groups should start with two. With 24 students there will be three rounds, which must be the minimum to get flow in the activity. If the activity is held with a large group of 40+, start with three in the groups and have four rounds. |
CREATED BY
Ulla Buch & Birgit Larsen, VIA University College,
together with teaching developers and librarians
EXTERNAL RESOURCES
Rienecker, Lotte, and Peter Stray Jørgensen. Den gode opgave : håndbog i opgaveskrivning på videregående uddannelser. 5th ed. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur, 2017.
THE STAK PROJECT
This learning element is an edited version of a learning pattern from the research project STAK (Studerendes Akademiske Digitale Kompetencer).
Through a particular method, the project developed a number of learning patterns/paths, especially within information literacy. The elements are aimed
primarily at teachers, either as inspiration or to be integrated directly into teaching.
If you are curious about the method, you can see the original research website at: https://web.archive.org/web/20251118005249/https://www.stak.dk/