Average faculty expectations

What, then, are faculty members actually saying about student research? What do they expect, and what do they receive?

Many faculty members view “writing” as a significant issue for undergraduates and graduate students. Singleton-Jackson, Lumsden and Newsom (2009), for example, reviewed a fairly extensive literature devoted to measuring undergraduate and graduate student writing. Their study concluded that academic writing, especially at graduate level, is complex and hard to measure. They argued that, not only are there necessary analytical and critical thinking skills, but there is also a required understanding of the nature of such writing, including its mechanics .

These researchers administered the SAT II: Writing Test, Part B, to Master’s and doctoral students studying in higher education programs. The SAT II, which measures discernment of academic writing conventions and use of language to derive meaning, scored these graduate students at not significantly higher levels than pre-college students. Such a study, while instructive in itself, is a strong example of the significant emphasis that academics place on the conventions and language of writing itself. The authors showed little concern for other research attainments such as strength of research questions or theses, ability to develop strong bibliographies, and actual use of research resources in projects developed by students.

What, then, are the common expectations for student research papers among faculty? Greasley and Cassidy (2010) polled a number of professors at Bradford University in the UK and found a common core: Faculty members expected critical analysis and argumentation with supporting evidence, signs that assignment guidelines had been followed, good representation of the conventions required in research papers (structure, grammar and style, referencing), and so on. Interestingly, structural, grammatical and referencing issues received 56 percent of the comments, ranking them ahead of critical thinking. This gives the impression that faculty are more frustrated with poor presentation than poor thinking. The researchers suggested, however, that faculty members may be considering presentation to be a marker for underlying thought processes. Sloppy papers speak of sloppy minds and shallow thinking.

Maclellan (2004) identified the following faculty expectations: an argued position, use of sources to address that position, analysis of principles and purposes, and some sort of professional/practical outcome. She found that less than 10 percent of a collection of 40 student essays that professors had assigned high grades showed the highest levels of critical thinking.

One way of analyzing the disparity between what faculty members hope for and what they receive is to study the fit between faculty expectations and college students’ mastery of the roles they need to take in order to meet those expectations. Collier and Morgan (2008) found that faculty expected students to follow the directions in research assignments, use acceptable grammar and style, and cite their sources correctly. Yet, even in such basic matters, the consensus of faculty members studied was that students often failed to grasp what was required of them. One professor commented, “They just don’t get it.” Students, in turn, said that they had received no actual training in producing research papers and faculty instructions were not detailed enough to make clear what was expected.

Faculty members’ expectations tend to decrease as a result of their past experiences of student production. Avdic and Eklund (2010) demonstrated that professors generally expected a poorer result than did their students. Professors were in the main highly negative on most measures of student performance. Their students believed that professors overemphasized the role of scientific papers (as opposed to easier-to-understand studies) and that academic research skills are really only for the benefit of meeting professorial expectations. Students tended to see their actual search abilities as good but thwarted by databases that were intentionally not user-friendly.

What we appear to have here is a disconnection between how professors view student research production and what students believe they are accomplishing. While professors find their expectations generally are not being met, students think they are more skilled than their production demonstrates, while attempting to play by the rules, though not really understanding them, and not performing up to acceptable levels.

Bury (2011) found consistent faculty disappointment with student research ability, particularly in evaluating resources, avoiding plagiarism and citing sources, though less emphasis was placed on student inability to identify information needs and find that information effectively. The latter skills, from an abundance of other research studies, are points of challenge for most students, though the faculty members in Bury’s study did not recognize the problem.

A certain amount of damaging circularity results. Students believe they are doing good work while faculty become accustomed to work that is inadequate. This, in turn, leads to lowered faculty expectations, which, in the eyes of students, is discerned as a lowering of demands upon them. Thus, these students do less rigorous work, and professors accept increasingly minimal quality research projects under the assumption that the average student’s work is not capable of meeting higher expectations. We commonly see a pattern in newer professors in which they demand much of their students at first, then experience student rebellion or “underwhelming” performance, and lower their demands in succeeding years.

Valentine (2001), in a series of studies, found that the paramount concern of many students doing research papers was discerning “what the professor wants.” That is, students were writing for the grades they received and believed that meeting professorial expectations was the key to receiving those grades. While they were quite willing to acknowledge their own failings, they blamed the professor if their low grades were seen as resulting from poor instructions or unreasonable restrictions placed upon their projects.

Professors, in turn, often had rather vague goals related to student projects, viewing them as learning experiences or attempts to learn how to participate in the discourse of the discipline. Grading criteria, based on faculty perceptions of student ability and commitment, were often changeable and subjective to the professor’s experience with each student. Overall, professors were looking for “legitimate effort” in student research projects. When objective requirements for such an effort were made plain to students, they were satisfied. When there were no such stated requirements or the requirements were vague, students were unhappy.

A salient “from the trenches” perspective comes from the following anonymous (verbatim) response to a blog posting by a graduate nursing student:

This belligerent and somewhat plaintive rant reveals some very pertinent issues surrounding the emphasis on student writing. We see in this student someone trying to succeed at a task for which he/she has been given all the rules without the explanations. Why do I have to cite people? What gives them such special status? I can’t find enough sources anyway. Why all the style rules? Why does academic writing kill creativity?

Faculty expectations may well include such elements as critical thinking, a keen understanding of how to write in the discipline and a modicum of adherence to style, along with a watchful eye for plagiarism, but the problem is much bigger than this. What we are seeing is a wholesale misunderstanding by many students of the essential goals of academic research. Students are writing to rules set out by their professors without having much of a grasp of why those rules are there or what are the higher goals of the research process.

Common definitions

Definitions of “research” itself and “student research” in particular are many and varied. We have seen some of them embodied in the faculty expectations just examined. In general, while being somewhat simplistic, “student research” is commonly viewed as sending students out to address topic with a keen eye to resources provided by scholars in the field. While not as often actually found to be the case, faculty retain at least a faint hope that the topic will be expressed as a research problem which demands that evidence be gathered, analysis (critical thinking) be done, and some sort of proposed solution be presented.

There are, of course, disciplinary nuances that modify the common definitions of research in general and student research in particular. A good historian would not consider any project as research if it did not address primary sources and provide rigorous analysis involving interpretation of those sources or a challenge of existing views about its subject matter. A scientist generally would not consider anything as research that did not involve a hypothesis and some sort of experimental or observational procedure. How, in the midst of such diversity as is found in the disciplines, can we speak of research at all, if we are referring to a singular process we expect our students to perform?

The fact is that we cannot. Disciplinary thinking always informs and modifies the research process, thus creating research processes. Yet there is a common core. First, all research that moves beyond mere description demands some sort of research problem, whether expressed as a question or a hypothesis. Second, research involves the acquisition and judicious use of relevant information. Here, the historian with a focus on primary sources, and their secondary accompaniments, has at least something in common with a scientist who must perform a literature review prior to determining a procedure to test a hypothesis. Information provides a common core to every research process even when the nature of that information is diverse. Third, all research that is more than descriptive in nature, requires a “quest,” a search for something that is beyond what is already known or understood.

The argument may thus be made that “student research” is something of an oxymoron since what students do is predominantly derivative and secondary, making use of the work of others but contributing little that is original or advances the discipline. That is what we might expect, however, because students are students. They are inexperienced in the process, lacking the knowledge and sophistication of their professors who actually do “genuine research.” This distinction between genuine research and student research, however, is unfortunate, since the essence of what we call “student research” is inevitably an imitation of what professors do, an attempt to embark upon a similar road without yet having the knowledge, skills and sophistication of seasoned researchers. To dismiss “student research” as not meeting the criteria of real research is to doom students never to learn how to become researchers. Such a gap becomes, as we will see, detrimental to their education and future careers.

We thus recognize diversity in the various disciplinary forms of research, while arguing that there is a common core that embodies defining a research problem, using information to address that problem, and creating an overall sense of “quest” that intends to move the researcher beyond what currently exists, even if that quest is followed inexpertly. “Student research,” as inadequate as it often seems to be, is still research, even if it mimics the professional version to a large degree.

The capabilities actually required by students

What, then, do students actually need to accomplish to meet the highest expectations of their professors? The common term used to summarize the required capabilities, at least in the world of library and information science, is “information literacy,” which we have re-expressed as ability with “research processes.” Not only is information literacy a more significant need than most academics acknowledge, but it involves complex understandings and skills. In what follows, we will predominantly use the term “information literacy,” because it is the label applied to the concept in the literature. Later we will refer more to ability with “research processes,” as we move the concept into the disciplines, where it finds its best expression.

Bundy (2002) saw information literacy as “the key competency for the 21st century.” Andretta (2007) described it as “the functional literacy of the 21st century.” Is this mere hyperbole, or does information literacy have the potential to achieve first place in the competencies of educated people? The answer to that question really depends upon what we mean by this potentially nebulous term, “information literacy.” What, indeed, are we meaning when we describe someone as an information-literate person?

Initially, let’s define “information” itself. While simplistic, we can argue that information is that which informs. Whether it is verbal or auditory or visual, information is grist for the mill, the foundation of what we think about and know. It is genuine if it truly informs and mere data if it adds nothing to whatever subject matter we are dealing with. These days, it is important to recognize that information can come in many forms, from print to audio to video, and to be carried on a variety of media, from a hard cover book to a PDF to an iPad to a YouTube video. Though both simplistic and rather nebulous, I believe it’s best to leave what we mean by “information” rather broad and allow it to be defined by its function – to inform.

Moving to the concept of information literacy, Webber and Johnston (2006) engaged the concept of the “learning organization” introduced by Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell (1991), to argue:

This is the essence of information literacy and of the information literate person – someone who can harness information in order to grow or learn.

But it involves a great deal more than a set of skills. In today’s information environment, it begins with understanding the nature of our knowledge base. It then demands sufficient critical ability to be able to identify a problem and crystallize a statement or question that sets the path to a solution. Further, it calls for skills to acquire the needed information. It assumes then that, once having appropriated information, there will be an ability to evaluate it critically, and to understand its biases, shortcomings and erroneous assumptions. Finally, the information-literate person will be able to relate found resources to other information, sifting out the wheat from the chaff, and using the resulting best information and evidence ethically to provide an effective solution to the identified problem.

Keeping the goal consistent with higher education’s mission

Hodge (2007) has posited the “student as scholar” model for higher education, with a focus on learning rather than on teaching. In essence, students learn to share the understandings and skills of their professors by doing research through the curriculum. Hodge’s view is not particularly radical within a higher education that is moving (slowly to be sure) in the direction of a constructivist approach that puts learning more in the hands of students. He argues that “developing skills to find, critically evaluate, analyze, and synthesize information” is foundational to such an approach (ibid., p. 9).

On a broader scale, Cronon argued that it is the goal of liberal education to “nurture the growth of human talent in the service of human freedom” (1998, p. 74). Cronon’s statement of outcomes needed in students – listening and hearing; reading and understanding; ability to talk with anyone; writing clearly, persuasively and movingly; ability to solve a “wide variety of puzzles and problems;” respecting rigor as a way of seeking truth; practicing “humility, tolerance and self-criticism;” understanding how to “get things done in the world,” and nurturing and empowering others – would likely be on the lists of most higher educators. Cronon adds one more, the ability to “connect,” that is, “being able to see connections that allow one to make sense of the world and act within it in creative ways” (ibid., p. 78).

Viewing Cronon’s goals, we can see that information literacy weaves in and out them in perfect congruence. A student has to understand the nature of information sources available, know how to state problem questions clearly, have the ability to find the right information for the need and then to evaluate it well, on the way to using it effectively and ethically in order to “connect.”

A related concept to “connecting” is that of “reflection,” which is akin to critical thinking but emphasizes continuous evaluation and rethinking throughout the research process. Hughes, Bruce, and Edwards (2007) argue that such reflection should not be relegated to the evaluation of resources once they are found but should be a characteristic mindset while research is being conducted. “In other words, it underpins an active metacognitive approach to information literacy that encompasses critical analysis and evaluation as well as digital capabilities and information seeking processes” (ibid., p. 68).

The Partnership for 21st Century Learning Skills (2009) has expressed the goals of education this way: “Citizens of the 21st century need to think critically and creatively, embrace diversity and ambiguity, and create as well as consume information. They need to be resourceful and self-reliant, while also skilled at collaboration and group process.” Information literacy is at the core of such aspirations.

We are thus, in discussing information literacy (ability within research processes), not looking for something alien from higher education’s commonly stated goals for university students. Information and its use are integral to the mission of higher education, whether that mission should include critical thinking or analytical appropriation of sources or, indeed, creativity. The ability to do skilled information research is foundational to a good education. An information-literate student should be able to navigate with much greater facility within academic programs than a student who is information-illiterate.

What are we looking for?

Information literacy is a difficult concept for most academics. How can one speak intelligently about information itself as a topic of discussion? Information is an abstraction that appears impossibly vague, only really making sense when we are speaking about actual content.

Yet, as we have seen, the abstract idea of information does indeed need to be addressed, though it can find concrete form within actual subject disciplines. Where does the information vital to your discipline come from? Who produces it? Under what circumstances? With what kinds of evidence and discourse? In which vehicles of publication? These are questions of crucial importance to our students.

More than grasping the epistemology of information, students need to become adept at both understanding and handling the particular information in their field(s) of study. Whether this be the “student as scholar” model in which students learn the research patterns of their professors (Hodge, 2007), or some other approach, several of which will be suggested later in this book, in the end, students need to become competent handlers of information. Research processes can be taught, and students can become proficient handlers of information.

An image that comes to mind is that of the sports professional. A professional basketball player is not just someone who can dribble and pass and score. Such a player has taken the various elements of the game and woven them together into performance. It’s not just a matter of skill but of knowledge, motivation, heart and fluid motion that shows profound integration of the elements of the sport. When a skilled player goes into action, there is seamless poetry in motion.

In the same way, an information literate student should be able to conceptualize a research problem, state it clearly, identify the nature and scope of information needed, find that information efficiently and effectively, evaluate it well, organize it, and apply it competently and ethically to the problem at hand. Such a student should use technology well and should have the ability to judge information for its worth, its “truth” value, and its applicability to whatever issue is under consideration.

We are speaking of competent information handlers, people who are not afraid of the massive amounts of information available to them, nor of the changing packages and technologies within which it is found. We are considering students who understand that, while they must master content, they also need to have a clear reading of the cultures and processes that form its context. Ultimately, we are seeking to create information sports stars.

The idea of research processes

“Research processes” represent the procedural side of the academic disciplines. Students, as we have seen, require a rigorous complex of understandings and skills in order to find success in their research. The study of and instruction in those understandings and skills form what we are calling ability in “research processes,” equivalent to the technical term used by information professionals, “information literacy.”

Is there actually a need to teach such processes? Surely students develop research skills on their own despite our early despair of their ever doing so? Some of them go on to graduate school and even become academics themselves. There must be a time when they finally “get it.” The sad truth, as we shall see, is that such a time rarely comes unless we as educators ensure that our students are intentionally brought into the world of research processes.