Transcript
Page 1: The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty expectations

The Legitimate Effort in Research Papers:Student Commitment versusFaculty Expectationsby Barbara Valentine

Interviews with studentswriting research papers reveala disparity between their and

faculty expectations of theplace of academic work in the

educational process.Understanding the conflicts

and tacit agreements that comeout of this disparity may help

librarians to become moreactive participants in the

research process.

Barbara Valentine is Reference and SystemsLibrarian, Linfield College, 900 SE Baker,

McMinnville, Oregon 97128,[email protected]..

T he college library is often por-trayed in brochures and other in-stitutional literature as the center

of academic and intellectual activity oncampus. Deborah J. Grimes’ research in-dicates that the library as “the heart of theuniversity” plays a more symbolic thanactual role in describing the value of ac-ademic libraries to constituents on collegecampuses.1

The ambiguity of the library’s place inthe academic life of students may call intoquestion the primary aim of institutions ofhigher education in general. Academic in-stitutions presumably set program goalsto enhance the educational experiences ofstudents. Instructors, accordingly, preparecourses with the students’ education inmind, librarians plan library services tofacilitate the learning process, and othercollege staff provide administrative andsupport services. Ideally, all constituentsof the organization function in concert forthe students’ educational benefit.

Librarians hold a unique position inthe academic institution, often strad-dling the line between educator and ad-ministrator. Some hold faculty statusand rank, others fall organizationallyinto the administrator camp. While afew librarians teach credit courses, alarger number are actively involved inteaching students research concepts andskills through library instructionclasses. And, all librarians are con-cerned in some way with facilitatingresearch to all campus constituents.

Grimes’ research suggests that it is theuser’s success in achieving educationalgoals as a result of a library’s services,access, and tradition that defines the cen-trality of libraries in academic institutionstoday.2 And yet, how much is known

about that success in institutional terms?In the past decade, rapid changes in tech-nology have forced librarians to rethinkhow students use library services. Libraryliterature provides a plethora of student-centered studies that tell how studentssearch databases,3 ask questions,4 respondto bibliographic instruction,5 feel aboutlibrarians and services,6 and use the Inter-net for research.7 What seems to be miss-ing is the context for all these activities.What gets students into the library in thefirst place? How do they actually com-plete a research paper from start to finish?What are their major motivations alongthe way? How much of a factor is thelibrary and its staff in the achievement ofa student’s academic goals?

The current study attempts to capture amore holistic picture of student researchthan these other investigations by concen-trating on the context within which stu-dents carry on academic activities. By fo-cusing on how students complete aresearch project—from assignment in theclassroom to submitting it to the profes-sor—one, in essence, traverses campuswith students and along the way gains abetter understanding of how they view therole of academic work, professors, librar-ians, and others in their undergraduatelives. Such a perspective is valuable forlibrarians who need to identify when,where, and how to reach students mosteffectively in this changing technologicalenvironment.

This study was designed around thesuccesses of a 1989 pilot project, in whichthe researcher asked library student assis-tants about their research paper-writingexperiences.8 Focus group interviews,supplemented by individual interviews,

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 27, Number 2, pages 107–115 March 2001107

Page 2: The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty expectations

were a useful method for gathering per-ceptions of the research process thatmight then be developed into theory“grounded” in real experiences.9 One ofthe problems with analyzing the data fromthat study, however, was that the studentsinterviewed described different assign-ments of varying lengths from differentclasses. With no uniformity, it was diffi-cult to make comparisons across cases.Therefore, in 1993 a subsequent studywas designed to enable examination ofstudents who shared the same classroom,assignment, and professor in both collegeand university settings. This study wasrepeated with different participants in1998.

The research paper as a basic criterionwas selected for three reasons. First, re-search papers usually force students topursue learning opportunities in otherparts of the academic institution, such asthe library. This allows one to see how thewhole institution fits into the process.Second, research papers often require stu-dents to work more independently thanclass activities do. Students have an op-portunity to explore a topic that, thoughrelated to the course, does not mirror itscontent. This kind of assignment usuallyencourages, at least theoretically, a cer-tain amount of creativity, resourcefulness,and critical thought. Finally, because theresearch assignment by its nature is usu-ally less structured, even more ambigu-ous, than other assignments, the expecta-tions may be less clear and grading moresubjective. Analyzing a research project,then, creates a unique opportunity to an-alyze students’ relationship to academicwork outside the structure of the class-room. In so doing, one can see moreclearly how they balance their need foracademic success with other desires forpersonal growth.

PROCEDURES

The choice of academic institutions tostudy was based purely on logistics. Theresearcher selected small local collegesand a state university in the Pacific North-west that would be easy to visit severaltimes and that could provide a space forinterviews. She identified appropriateclasses at those institutions by lookingthrough course catalogs and schedules forwriting intensive classes that might re-quire term papers. She then made furtherinquiries by phone until she found four tofive course professors willing to partici-pate in the study.

At the beginning of the term the re-

searcher introduced herself and the pro-cedures of the study to the selectedclasses and distributed a questionnairethat served both to recruit participantsand gather class statistics. At the end ofthe term, when papers were complete,the researcher rounded up volunteersand managed to interview at least onethird of the students in each class, eitherin a focus group or individually, abouthow they accomplished the task of com-pleting a substantial research paper dur-ing the course of a particular assign-ment. Professors from each class alsoanswered questions about expectationsand what, in their view, students deliv-ered.

By using Carol Kuhlthau’s Informa-tion Search Process10 as a framework forthe interview questions, the researcherprobed students for their thoughts, feel-ings, and actions about the research pro-cess at the beginning, middle, and endingstages. She avoided asking any directquestions about the library, allowing re-sponses to come from the context of thestudents’ own experiences. Students alsoanswered questions about whom theyconsulted along the way and, if the issuewas not raised naturally elsewhere,whether or not there had been library in-struction.

The 1993 study included 28 students,seven each from two college and twouniversity classes, and the four classprofessors. The group included 13 fe-males and 16 males that were mostlyupper division history majors. The re-searcher analyzed the data from thisstudy by using grounded theory tech-niques as outlined by Anselm Strauss.11

These findings formed the basis of aMasters thesis in Sociology.12

In 1998, the researcher decided tolook at the results of this study again,focusing more specifically on its rele-vance for the library field. But by thenthe Internet had so permeated libraryservices that it made sense to repeat thestudy with new participants to see whatdifferences in student research behav-iors might emerge. Thirty-one students(21 female, 10 male) from three collegeand two university classes participatedin this round of interviews, along withthe 5 class professors. They majored ina variety of humanities and social sci-ences areas. Transcriptions of inter-views were coded with the aid of qual-itative software called Atlas.ti.

“Initial findings of thisresearch, derived from coding

the data into meaningfulcategories, revealed a patternof behaviors suggesting that

students grappling with aresearch assignment are

motivated largely by gradesand, therefore, focus muchtime and energy trying to

figure out what the professorwants.”

Initial findings of this research,13 de-rived from coding the data into meaning-ful categories, revealed a pattern of be-haviors suggesting that students grapplingwith a research assignment are motivatedlargely by grades and therefore focusmuch time and energy trying to figure outwhat the professor wants. When theycome to the library, they look for whatthey perceive to be the most time-effec-tive and cost-effective methods of findinginformation. This translates into usingfirst what is most familiar (previouslybrowsed indexes and Internet search en-gines, such as Yahoo) and easiest to ob-tain (printing online full-text documentsbefore considering citation only resourc-es). They move into new territory reluc-tantly, chaotically, and many times only ifthey feel the professor requires it. Thoughthey may have many questions along theway, many students are largely reluctantto ask librarians and even professors formuch help, turning instead to peers, rela-tives, or their own resources.

These strategies often mean that stu-dents do not find the best or most relevantinformation for their topics, a fact not loston librarians, who try in vain at times toencourage them to use appropriate data-bases and pursue useful citations, or pro-fessors, who lament the lack of goodsources in the final product. But in theend, most students felt they received ac-ceptable grades for the effort they hadexpended, though what constituted “ac-ceptable” varied by student.

Probing the data further, the researcherdiscovers a disparity between what edu-cators expect students to accomplish andwhat students expect from themselves.The disparity exists at the macro level,institutionally, because students definethe value of the academic experience dif-

108 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Page 3: The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty expectations

ferently than professors, librarians, andadministrators. It manifests itself moreprominently at the micro level, the assign-ment, where, despite faculty expectations,the students make their own choices abouthow much effort they put into the assign-ment, based on its value to them bothacademically and personally.

This article expands on these findings,focusing more deeply on the issues thatseparate students and educators in theirdefinitions of the academic experience, togain further insight into what is importantto and motivates students. It will demon-strate that as they balance academic suc-cess with their desires for personalgrowth, students make choices along theway that sometimes subvert the intellec-tual goals professors and librarians mayintend for them, but which satisfy theirown generalized goals for the undergrad-uate experience. This disparity is miti-gated to a degree by an agreement be-tween professor and student, either tacitor overt, about what constitutes a “legiti-mate effort” for a given assignment. Thisdisjuncture manifests itself in the way re-search is carried out and has importantimplications for library services.

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES

In this study, students’ understanding ofthe purpose and expectations of the par-ticular research assignment usually variedwith what many of the course professorsexpressed. Students were very pragmaticin their approach to academic work. Theyevaluated the importance of the assign-ment given other responsibilities in col-lege life and then concentrated on findingout what the professor wanted(WPW).

“Students were very pragmaticin their approach to academic

work.”

Commitment to an Assignment

Undergraduates looked at both the ac-ademic and personal value of each assign-ment, to see how to fit it into the range ofactivities that awaited them in a term.When the paper was assigned, many, eventhose intimidated by research papers, ex-pressed initial excitement about pursuinga new avenue of knowledge. But moststudents also had multiple extra-curricularcommitments and/or activities that com-peted for their time as the term wore on.Some were active in clubs, sports, and

fraternal organizations. Others workedseveral hours a week. Illness and otherpersonal and family problems plaguedmany as well. In addition, they all hadother classes to tend. One student ex-pressed her exhaustion this way: “I hadn’tslept in 72 hours by the time I gave mypresentation [in this class] because I hadso many other things due for otherclasses” (Sophomore, Art).

Students seemed to base a commitmentto an assignment on the need for a goodgrade and its value as a good personal oracademic learning experience. For manythe grade was the major motivation.Sophomores, especially, noted the need towork hard to build their grade point aver-age (GPA) overall so, as a result, eachclass counted. In some courses, the paperconstituted the major grade. One sopho-more in Politics noted: “. . . the weightthat this paper has on your shoulders ismassive.” But for some students, the as-signment grade in this class was less crit-ical than the need to excel in another,especially if the subject covered was notin their major area of study. The credit forthe course and the weight of the assign-ment in the course also contributed tostudents’ assessment of the effort to begiven to the project.

Still, motivation to devote more effortto an assignment might also be deter-mined by personal factors. Some foundthe topics personally inspiring. Seniorsespecially appreciated an assignment that,they perceived, prepared them for gradu-ate school or employment. In one class,all students interviewed noted with satis-faction the applicability of their grant pro-posal assignments to future employment.But such practical coursework was theexception. One student from the classmused: “You begin to wonder whatyou’ve learned [after taking a course], butthis is one class that I can walk away withand say, ‘This is what I’ve learned, this iswhat I’ve gained’. . . it’s different fromother classes” (Senior, Social Work).

Seniors had also learned where andwhen to place their effort for greatest ef-fect. One student suggested: “I think be-ing a senior and almost done and alreadyaccepted to graduate school, I just reallydon’t care anymore. . . I think I spendmore time trying to find out how I can doless” (Senior, Social Work). Another sim-ilarly notes: “When I was a freshman, Iput in so much time . . . I studied my rearoff for finals and I ended up doing reallywell. And I found out that I don’t need to

study that hard and I can still do reallywell” (Senior, Social Work).

What the Professor Wants (WPW)

Knowing what the professor wantedwas a key motivator for all students. Intrying to discern professors’ expectations,students tended to focus on objective cri-teria of the assignments. How many pageswere required? How picky was this pro-fessor about bibliographic format? Whatkinds of sources were required? Whatkind of leeway was there with the choiceof topic? Answering these and a host ofrelated queries would help nail down ex-pectations. Students looked for clues incourse syllabi, written guidelines aboutthe assignment, class announcements, andconversations with other students andwith the professor individually.

Taking the Blame for Low Grades

The average GPA of all students in the1998 study was 3.36 so these were gen-erally high achievers. Nevertheless, therewas no standard definition of what con-stituted a high or low grade. In fact,grades varied not only by student, butoften by assignment and course as well.For instance, some students thought a Bwas an acceptable or even high grade,especially for a research paper. Other stu-dents, who normally received A’s, mightfeel a B was a good grade if the coursewas in an unfamiliar field or taught by anespecially demanding professor. Othersthought a B in anything was low. So anydiscussion about grades depends on thestudent’s own perception of what a highgrade or desired grade might be in a par-ticular instance. Generally speaking, how-ever, C was the lowest grade received onthe research papers in this study and wasuniversally considered a low grade.

In this context, then, students willinglytook the blame for what they perceived aslow grades, when they felt this conditionwas due to inadequate time spent on theassignment or failure to meet objectiverequirements, such as number of pages orresources. They readily admitted whenthey had procrastinated on a particularassignment, but they also took responsi-bility for illness, personal problems, andthe multiple commitments that tied themup. In general, they tried to fit academicwork into the array of activities availableto them and viewed degree of commit-ment to an assignment as a consciouschoice.

But they blamed professors for lowgrades when they felt the assignment

March 2001 109

Page 4: The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty expectations

guidelines were unclear, when topicchoices were too narrow or uninteresting,or when they otherwise could not discernWPW specifically. Students suspectedgrading of research papers was subjectiveeven as they tried to fulfill the more ob-jective criteria. One student said, “It’s sosubjective how he’s going to look at thatpaper . . . he might like what I write, buthe also knows a lot about this topic and hemight not agree with anything I say . . . ”(Sophomore, Politics). Those baffled bypoor grades often held superstitions aboutacademic work to explain the discrepan-cies between what they felt they hadearned and the grade they had received.Some students felt grades were somehowpredestined for work with this professor.One complained: “I think a lot of times itjust doesn’t matter how much effort I putinto it, he expects the same level of stuffout of me and he just gives me the samegrade all the time . . . B1” (Junior, Poli-tics). Some students felt they had to get toknow the professor to get a good grade.Even if they mentioned their inexperiencedoing papers, these students never ques-tioned their own ability to do the work,provided they spent a significant amountof time on the project and understood therequirements.

PROFESSORS’ PERSPECTIVES

Whereas students focused on the assign-ment’s objective criteria and the ways inwhich they could fit the work into theirbusy schedules, professors often definedthe value of the research assignment moreintangibly. They viewed the assignmentas a “meaningful learning experience” forthe students rather than as a set of guide-lines. Many instructors hoped the assign-ment would provide experience writing inthe discipline. Others saw it as a way forstudents to gain an independent researchexperience. One professor noted: “I wantthem to get more of an experience think-ing for themselves, finding things forthemselves, collating information, and,even more so, beginning to do analysis inthe research paper, [by asking them-selves]: ‘What can I conclude from theresearch? How do scholars work?’” An-other professor expressed her desire thatstudents “get shocked, get excited” aboutthe topic they researched and bring thatenthusiasm to class discussions. Some feltit gave students a chance to be creative,incorporating both research and individ-ual interests.

Basis for Evaluation

Because the professor’s learning goalsfor the research project often tended to bemore undefined than for other types ofacademic work, it is not surprising thatcriteria for grading also tended to be moresubjective. Professors looked for evidenceof commitment to the assignment, whichtook into consideration time and effortexpended, student interaction with theprofessor during the process, and the ex-tent to which the student demonstrated anunderstanding of the writing in the disci-pline. Other issues, such as how the papershowed progress made in the wholecourse and class participation, weighed inas well. And while professors might havebeen aware that students had other activ-ities vying for their attention, these issuesdid not seem to arise when it came toexpectations.

“Because the professor’slearning goals for the research

project often tended to bemore undefined than for othertypes of academic work, it isnot surprising that criteria for

grading also tended to be moresubjective.”

Professors tended to look at factorsrelating to student ability. Two instructorscomplained about the number of studentsthey had to admit to the class who werenot able to handle the intellectual de-mands of the course. One professor sug-gested that students new to his style ofteaching did not do as well in the class.Although he told the class what percent-age of the grade was assigned for papersand tests, he noted he did not always usethis measure, giving credit for improve-ment rather than simply averaging points.He said: “I also like to see progress madeduring the course. [I give credit to] astudent [who] starts off miserably in thefirst exam, but does a decent job on thepaper. . . what the student has become [iswhat is important].” The tendency to fac-tor in ability was also noted in the 1993study as articulated by this professor:

I have an opinion of what I think they shouldbe able to do. I’m very strict. I also tend tograde them against themselves . . . [One] stu-dent . . . turned in a paper that was good, butit wasn’t his best work. . . .

When professors evaluated an assign-ment, then, they seemed to take into con-sideration the intellectual ability of thestudents, pushing some harder than othersdo. They expected students to engagefully in the assignment, up to their poten-tials. Although both student and professorconcur that commitment is an importantcriterion for grades, students may do justenough to meet perceived expectations.

THE LEGITIMATE EFFORT

The goal for students seemed to be to putin a “legitimate effort.” This term wasoften used to describe academic work thatsatisfied the minimum requirements forgetting a desired grade in a given class oron a given assignment. Each student’sdefinition of a legitimate effort varied ac-cording to his or her interpretation ofWPW and his or her own academic goalsand commitment. Some students lookedonly at the objective criteria of the assign-ment which might be found on a classhandout, such as number of pages, desiredtype and number of sources, topic choice,and deadline for completion, and thentried to estimate how long it would take tomeet these. Other students spent moretime trying to get additional informationfrom the professor, either in class discus-sion or after class. Some students knewtheir teachers from previous classes,which supplemented their understandingof professor expectations.

But what professors considered a “le-gitimate effort” could be more intangiblethan the objective criteria. As mentioned,professors might focus on what theycould discern as a student’s dedication(time and care) to the assignment or stu-dent progress in the course overall. Inaddition, professors might expect differ-ent levels of work from different students,based on preconceived notions about stu-dent abilities.

Regardless of how it was defined, the“legitimate effort” indicated a tacit oreven overt agreement with the professoron the terms of the assignment. Whenproperly interpreted by both parties, pro-fessors and students were satisfied withresults. When not, dissatisfaction from ei-ther side arose.

The Agreement: Negotiating theTerms of an Assignment

Students used a variety of methods forascertaining from the professors whatwould and would not constitute a legiti-mate effort. The most obvious way to findout was to ask the professor. In three of

110 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Page 5: The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty expectations

the five classes, professors required meet-ings with students at various stages of theresearch process, so many students had tomeet with the professor whether theyplanned to or not. But some had betterresults than others did in finding outWPW. One student appreciated the direc-tion he had gotten from the professor:

I felt like he has set me up for successbecause he basically mapped everything outfor me. I felt like a Boy Scout and the masterwho says, “Here’s how to get a merit badge,”as opposed to someone who says, “you haveto go do this.” (Junior, Music)

But some students found such meetingsmore problematic and confusing. Anotherstudent from the class said meeting withthe professor “is like presenting anotherpuzzle to try and solve the puzzle whichyou already have got” (Senior, Music). Astudent from another class similarly com-plained: “I talked to [the professor] threetimes and each time I got more confused.It seems like I always do with that man”(Junior, Politics).

Yet, some professors seemed more ac-cessible than others did. In one class, theprofessor used e-mail quite a bit to com-municate with students. Several studentsmentioned e-mailing her for informationand in return getting citations to specificsources. But this straightforward interac-tion seemed an exception, as one studentsuggested: “I’m used to professors whosay ‘look a little harder.’ With her, it’slike she just tells you the call number. Inever felt inhibited to go in and talk withher” (Junior, Art).

Some students who visited professorsavoided asking any direct questions aboutthe assignment, preferring instead to usethat time to establish a rapport. A studentnoted: “I talked to him once after therequired visit and discussed the topic, butit was more like, ‘how’s it going, finehow are you’. . . but not really in detailabout content” (Sophomore, Politics). Infact, asking for help seemed to carry somekind of stigma for some. A student said hevisited the professor for many reasons,but “I don’t really walk in there and say Ineed to talk about this vase” (Sophomore,Art). Another student felt that the moreshe got to know the professor, the betterher grades would get. She said:

We had a lot of meetings with him thathelped us to get to the point of whatever hewanted since we will probably get a gradeaccording to how well we do what he wants.See, I think I deserve an A or B, and I thinkhe’s starting to understand that I am more

intelligent than he gives me credit for. (Jun-ior, Music)

But there were many students who per-ceived meetings with professors as moreof a liability than a benefit. They avoidedprofessors, preferring to find out WPW inother ways. Several noted that such meet-ings included the added responsibility andeffort of following up on the professor’ssuggestions. One college student re-marked: “I didn’t go talk to her aboutresources mainly because I didn’t feel Ineeded to. I didn’t have time to do extra-neous research for the fun of it” (Junior,Sociology). Some did not want to showthe professor an unfinished product. Oth-ers were afraid to reveal their own inse-curities about the process. “War stories”about encounters with certain professorsalso circulated, as one student suggest: “Ididn’t [go back to see him]. It soundsmean, but I didn’t really care . . . every-one [else] had come back with really neg-ative responses from him” (Sophomore,Politics). Several independent types gotthe message that they were supposed todo the work on their own. One whosought advice referred to it as “handhold-ing” (Senior, Social Work).

If students could not negotiate the spe-cifics of WPW by talking with the profes-sor, they depended on course guidelinesand other students in the class. But some-times an agreement or bargain could ap-pear more explicitly at the class level aswell. In one instance, the professor clearlyoutlined the guidelines for grading theclass projects. The work was to be com-pleted in stages, each stage would begraded with points for specific work, re-visions were then suggested by theteacher, and, if students modified thework, grades would be adjusted upwardaccordingly. It appeared a kind of contractwas struck with the whole class and def-initions of a “legitimate effort” seemedclear enough to the students.

But this kind of arrangement may notwork out well for both parties. All thestudents interviewed felt very positiveabout the level of work they had accom-plished, especially the opportunity to re-vise the paper. The professor, however,was less enthusiastic with the results, la-menting the lack of thoroughness andcommitment evident in many of theprojects. Although she had devoted con-siderable class time to allowing studentsto start on the various parts of the project,to consult with her on difficult aspects,and to critique each other’s progress, she

felt this time had not produced the cohe-sion in the projects she had expected. Shesaid: “I think expectations for college se-niors are a little unrealistic. I have torealize where they are at with this. Whenthey get on the job or in graduate work,they may do better.” Despite her disap-pointment, however, she did assign thegrades students expected, thereby keepingher end of the bargain and vowed to re-vise the assignment.

Similarly a professor in the 1993 studynoted his disappointment in the overallresults of the papers in his class. “A fewwere really good papers, the overwhelm-ing majority showed hard work, but therewere problems . . . Very few people un-derstood what a thesis statement was andhow it should be woven throughout thepaper.” Nevertheless, he admitted gradingmost of the papers “in the B1 range.”

In these cases, professors adjustedtheir expectations somewhat to meet therealities of class results. Yet in this lastcase, the professor apparently gradedhigher than many expected which was asource of confusion for several students inhis class who did not feel they had ac-complished the point of the assignment.One student said: “The grade I got mys-tified me. It was not an ”A“ paper. Italmost seemed that after we hit it off andwe talked and agreed on a lot of the samethings . . . I have a premonition that thegrade might have been predetermined”(Senior, History). Another student felt hishigh grade said more about the class thanhimself. “I don’t know if everyone elsemessed up so he gave me a B” (Senior,History).

In these cases, students sought to jus-tify inflated grades with factors unrelatedto their effort and ability. In the 1998study, students similarly perceived thatprofessors sometimes graded less accord-ing to merit than personal factors. Onestudent complained: “It really seems thathe doesn’t read anything that we do andhe gives us a grade according to howevermuch he likes you” (Junior, Music). An-other student in the class tried to justifyhis success with the same teacher. Hesaid: “I felt lucky doing a topic the pro-fessor liked. He gave me a lot of material. . . made a lot of comments on the draft”(Junior, Music).

When the basis for grading was some-how mutually agreed upon, no matter howtacit the agreement, students and profes-sors seemed to accept the results. Miscon-nections and misunderstandings occurredwhen the basis for grading was unclear. In

March 2001 111

Page 6: The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty expectations

the case of inflated grades, this is not sucha difficult issue to accept. But when astudent and professor misconnect on thewhole point of the assignment, one orboth may get frustrated and angry.

Communication Breakdown

The breakdown of agreement mani-fested itself most clearly in the misunder-standings between professors and stu-dents about the aim of the assignment. Inone class, most students interviewed ex-pressed initial concern about doing a casestudy for their project. They were baffledby what it was and feared it was morethan they could handle. The professor ex-plained the assignment to the researcherin this way:

I’m asking them to do a case study and thento go beyond that in one aspect . . . I expectthem to get some greater identification withthe situation of women in their country wher-ever it is, try to fit themselves in that positionas they try to explain it to the class.

The professor was disappointed withthe results of a number of papers. But thestudents first had to put “case study” in acontext that made more sense to them. Inso doing, they may or may not have sat-isfied what the professor intended. Onestudent remarked: “At first I didn’t knowwhat a case study meant, but eventually [Ifigured out that] it is just informational. . .a kind of book report” (Junior, Sociolo-gy). Another said: “It doesn’t have any-thing it sets out to prove . . . it seems morelike a narrative, we’re just describingwhat’s going on” (Junior, Sociology). Athird suggested that the case study was“definitely more hyped up than it reallyshould have been . . . you are used to aterm paper. ‘Case study’ just sounds alittle more official” (Senior, Sociology).

Sometimes, professors perceived thatcertain students had not dedicated enoughtime to a paper. One professor noted:“The students who did well I could tellstarted early” (Professor, Art). But whenstudents believed faculty expectationswere unrealistic, they circumvented them.

One student explained the situationthis way:

I went in to ask him for help and told himwhat I wanted to do and he was not veryhappy. He said, “You know, if you want toget a good grade in this class you have tostart working on this every day for the nextmonth until it is due.” I said, “You know, Idon’t know anybody who actually doesthat.” I was really blunt about it. I’m notsaying that I wasn’t [going to do that], but I

just know a lot of people are going to waituntil the last week. And he says, “Not if theywant to get an A in my class.” He justsounded really surprised. . . . (Sophomore,Politics)

In this case, the student was right. Manystudents from this class raised the pointthat, although it was expected, they hadnot spent the whole term on the project.Instead, they turned in to the professor therequired outline and bibliography withinthe first few weeks and then put theproject away until the last part of the term.These students mentioned the scramble topull the paper together at the end. Onestudent remarked: “I hadn’t opened any ofthe books that I put on the [initial] bibli-ography. . . and then I sent them back andhad to reorder them. I also ordered differ-ent ones, so my paper actually ended uphaving different sources than my outline”(Sophomore, Politics). In this class, theprofessor did not compromise on grades.And although they grumbled, studentsgenerally accepted the lower grades be-cause they knew his reputation in advanceas a “difficult grader.”

Research Challenges

Other misunderstandings occurredwhen students had failed, in the profes-sor’s estimation, to use appropriate and/ora wide enough variety of sources. Oneprofessor felt the resources used for thepapers in this class were inferior to thosein past years. He blamed the easy avail-ability of the Internet for students’ lack ofgood sources, thinking they had spent toomuch time there and not in academic da-tabases and indexes. Another professorsimilarly noted: “The research aspect [ofthe papers] were not as good. Only four orfive got the research part. . . .”

“ But the source of thiscommunication breakdownmay have been the research

process itself.”

But the source of this communicationbreakdown may have been the researchprocess itself. Getting materials fromwhich to create the paper was more daunt-ing, and took much more time, than manyof these students had expected. And, it ispossible that professors are unaware ofjust how tangled up students can get try-

ing to do research in this age of informa-tion overload.

Students did seem to understand thatprofessors wanted “good sources,” butthey were not always sure what thatmeant or how best to go about getting“them.” In fact, students often used verychaotic, what they themselves termed“random,” methods for finding materialsfor their papers. A characteristic commentwas: “I felt kind of aimless, kind of likeshooting in the dark, you’re going to getsomething eventually” (Junior, Sociolo-gy). In addition, the process of findingsources took lots of time, time many ofthem had not bargained for, leaving themdiscouraged and wearing down their re-solve to do a good job. A student re-marked: “I was glad I foundsomethingand didn’t really care how good it was”(Senior, Social Work).

The barriers to getting good sourceswent beyond the common issues ofsearching efficiently, such as finding theright database, using keywords effec-tively, and finding focus for the topic.Many ran into snags locating books andjournals in the library, using microfiche,printing, and getting computer programsto work. A Junior Art student trying to usethe Perseus Project CD collection had thistale: “I spent the entire afternoon . . . try-ing to figure out how to get the picture upand the [librarian] is helping me anddidn’t know why it was not working so Igave up. . . . ”

Students commonly found interlibraryloan requesting a risky business becauseone was never sure if the material wouldarrive in time. One student reasoned: “If Iwere a [real] researcher, possibly therewouldn’t be a problem [depending onloans], but in a hectic student’s life, it’sjust a little hard [to do it in time]. . . Ithink everything should be electronicallybased anyhow. . . I don’t understand whyit wasn’t just all on the Web to beginwith” (Senior, Social Work).

To save time, students used variousworkarounds, which did not necessarilyreap the best results. Several selected fulltext articles only, avoiding either interli-brary loan or having to locate journalslocally. One student found all her refer-ences from the same journal. Another dis-covered some efficiency in using ERICdocuments:

Basically I did it all on microfiche . . . once[my friend] pointed me in the right direction. . . I stayed there because it was easy to haveeverything right there. I was tired of walking

112 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Page 7: The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty expectations

up and down flights of stairs and not findinganything. (Senior, Social Work)

Whatever the method for determiningor negotiating with the professor theterms of a “legitimate effort,” many stu-dents felt they had reached such an un-derstanding. But even if students thoughtthey understood WPW, they could gettied up in circles just getting their handson the right resources. Nevertheless, moststudents either received the expectedgrade or accepted the blames themselvesfor a poorer grade. But when professorand student disagreed on the fairness of agrade, disappointment ensued.

Much of the misunderstandings andmisconnections may have to do with thedifferent positions that professors and stu-dents take on the meaning of academicwork. Although students may view theassignment as simply another hurdle onthe road to graduation, the teacher mayhope the student will explore a topic withindependent research, creativity, and in-terest. In the end, students and professorsmust agree on what constitutes a legiti-mate effort and compromise on both sidesis inevitable.

DISCUSSION: THE ACADEMIC

MACHINERY

Thinking organizationally, it is not hard tounderstand why students and professorsoften do not see eye to eye on the purposeand expectations of an assignment. Theydo, in fact, play completely different rolesin the organization, and so they developcommitments at times along parallelpaths. Stanton Wheeler notes that in so-cializing institutions there are “agents”—those who act on behalf of the organiza-tion to educate and change those whoenter, and the “recruits”—those who areexpected to be educated.14 The agents setthe agenda and establish rules which therecruits follow to become socialized, or,in the case of colleges and universities, tobecome educated. In fact, agents and re-cruits have very different goals becausethey are positioned so differently in theorganization.

Students move through school with thegoal of graduating. They are there tolearn, but, ultimately, they are preparingfor a life outside the institution. For manytraditional-age students, higher educationis also a place to mature, to learn to man-age their lives as they must in the adultworld. Their extracurricular commit-ments—employment, sports, sociallives—are just as important to them per-

sonally as their academic ones. Studentsbecome creative time managers to takeadvantage of all areas of college life whilestill succeeding in meeting academic ex-pectations (i.e., reaching graduation).

Educators, in contrast, are bound tostay, develop professionally within thesystem, carry on the traditions of thecollege, and define the rules by whichstudents become “educated.” The extra-curricular aspects of student lives maybe irrelevant or even unknown to the“agent” instructors. In fact, the agent’soperational space on campus is fairlynarrow. For, while students tend to in-teract with the whole organization, pro-fessors and administrators tend to focuson one area of campus (e.g., disci-plines, departments, and specializedservices).

As a result, recruits have more in com-mon with each other than they do with theagents and their perspectives derive fromthese differences. In some ways the pro-gression through college from “freshman”to mature senior is also a progressionfrom dependence on organizational rulesto increasing independence from them.And, although professors may contendthat a research paper assignment can mea-sure this passage to independence, at leastin academic terms, students may not takethe same view, especially if they do notplan to attend graduate school. The closerstudents get to leaving the organization,the more aware they are of the role theywill have to play on the “outside.” Ineffect, they increasingly lose commitmentto the organization as a condition of grad-uation. By the last term in school, manystudents are quite literally “sick” ofschool, hence the appropriateness of theterm used by many in this study: ’seniori-tis.’

Yet, the bottom line for everyone inthe organization is that students gradu-ate, and in order for them to do so theymust obtain acceptable grades. HowardS. Becker, Blanche Geer, and Everett C.Hughes observed a similar disconnectbetween professor expectations and stu-dent commitment to an assignment intheir two-year study at the University ofKansas decades ago. Their research sug-gests that students develop a “GPA per-spective” that reflects the organizationalemphasis on grades. They noted thatgrades are the “currency” of campus,the “major institutionalized valuable ofcampus.” All the organizational constit-uents—students, teachers, administra-tors, and parents—agree that grades are

important, though “they may disagreeabout their value relative to otherthings.”15

“In addition, students defineclasses as places to earn the

grades which lead to eventualgraduation and that they view

the academic work as a kind ofcontract—a classroomcontract—with their

professors.”

In addition, students define classes asplaces to earn the grades which lead toeventual graduation and that they viewthe academic work as a kind of con-tract—a classroom contract—with theirprofessors: “However the terms of thecontract are arrived at and communicated,the important point is that students defineit as an agreement that is binding . . . onthe professor” and get angry or upset ifthey think the professor changes the rulesmidstream.16 For their part, professorsmay be unaware of the specifics of thebargain, to which they are being held. Infact, their view of the bargain is quitedifferent. “In their [the professors’] view,students either do or do not have the abil-ity to learn what is being taught . . . [but]every student who can do the work shouldbe interested enough to do so and to wantto do so.”17 In essence, if a student is able,the work should be done with commit-ment.

The authors further suggest that, fromthe students’ perspective, the professors’bargain conflicts with the students’ goalsof personal growth while still in college.Maturity includes learning to balanceone’s life in college, just as one might inthe adult world: “One implication of astudents’ emphasis on maturity . . . is thatit raises the question whether a matureperson will devote all his time and effortto just one of the several major aspects ofcollege life,”18 such as academic work.Personal growth for students, then, in-cludes balancing academic rewardsagainst those rewards available in extra-curricular activities and personal relation-ships on campus.

At some point there must be sharednotions of what it takes to “make thegrade.” But how does that come about?Noted sociologist Erving Goffman de-

March 2001 113

Page 8: The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty expectations

fines agreements in which each party hasdifferent interests as a “working consen-sus.” He notes:

Together the participants contribute to a sin-gle over-all definition of the situation whichinvolves not so much a real agreement as towhat exists but rather a real agreement as towhose claims concerning what issues will betemporarily honored. Real agreement willalso exist concerning the desirability ofavoiding an open conflict of the definition ofthe situation.19

In the end, for the academic machine towork, students may be required to put inmore academic effort than they wouldlike and professors might need to suspendsome of their high expectations.

The term “legitimate effort” may be astarting point for understanding how stu-dents and professors come to Goffman’snotion of a working consensus on thesubject of grades. It seems also to mirrorthe kind of contract with instructors thatBecker et al. discovered in their research.

LIBRARIANS : I MPLICATIONS

How does all of this affect the work ref-erence and teaching librarians do? Stu-dents are heavily invested in doing WPWand within a time frame that makes sensefor them in light of their other priorities.Ultimately, they do the work for a grade,no matter how academically gifted theyare. Many students assess how much timeto commit to each assignment. At thesame time, they try to gauge, or in someway negotiate, what the professor willaccept as a legitimate effort. They mayalso run into unexpected difficulty at theresearch level, which derails or alterswhat they can accomplish with the timethey have allotted. These issues affect notonly the kinds and amount of informationthey will pursue, but the energy and carewith which they pursue it. If librarians aremore sensitive to what motivates studentsto seek information, and with the issueswhich frustrate their efforts, they might bebetter able to help make student researchmore effective and rewarding.

“ Librarians are in the uniqueposition in the organization ofbeing intermediaries between

teaching faculty and students.”

Librarians are in the unique position inthe organization of being intermediaries

between teaching faculty and students.They deal with a wider cross-section ofthe student population than professors oncampus so may have a better chance tosee patterns in “recruit” behavior that cutacross disciplines. In some ways, studentscan be more frank with librarians abouttheir frustrations with a research assign-ment or the time they have to commit to aproject than they might be with the grad-ing professor. The library is also a placewhere the social life of the students playsout more dramatically than it might in theclassroom. In short, librarians may havethe opportunity to view more holisticallythe social and academic aspects of stu-dents’ lives than teaching faculty do.

But research also suggests that stu-dents do not readily ask librarians forhelp. When so many are reluctant to“waste the time” talking even with theprofessors evaluating their work, it is notsurprising that most students ask librari-ans for help only in a pinch.20 So librar-ians need to find better ways to get tostudents “where they live,” relating to re-search needs from the recruit’s perspec-tive.

One thing librarians can do in this ca-pacity is be a bridge in helping studentsunderstand WPW. The more librarianscommunicate with professors about theseassignments, the better they can assistthose students who may be confusedabout the guidelines or reluctant to ask forprofessors’ help. Instruction librarians cancollaborate with professors on creatingmore effective library instruction sessionsthat also address assignment guidelinesand expectations. Instruction classes are agreat opportunity to get to know studentsand encourage them to come into the li-brary later or communicate later via e-mail.

Making the library Web page moreresponsive to students’ research needs isalso important. Librarians can try localweb usability testing21 to find out howstudents use the pages and modify the siteaccordingly. They can also work on cre-ative and effective ways for students toconnect with reference staff online whenthey have a question.

Actively pursuing contact with stu-dents in the library is perhaps the mostobvious place to start. Those seated atcomputers will rarely get up to ask forhelp even if they recognize they need it.The trick is to detect when students arestruggling and, at those strategic mo-ments, inquire tactfully about theirprogress. Interacting with students doing

computer research may be the single mostimportant place to get students at point ofneed. Some ways to focus onwhat theyneed are:

● Try to gain a better understanding ofthe assignment from their perspective.Do they need a quick overview for aspeech or are they looking for a topicfor an extensive paper? Ask studentsto describe the assignment and pro-duce a copy of the guidelines if possi-ble.

● Try to determine where students are inthe process of research. Are they ex-ploring, focusing, tying up loose ends,starting over? Are they gathering abunch of stuff to look at later or fer-reting out one particular fact?

● Be sensitive to students’ time con-straints, helping them to determinehow long the research process mighttake without passing judgment on theirinability to put in time immediately.What does the student hope to accom-plish in the library now? Do they havefive minutes or half an hour to spendon this now? Have they been flailingalready for an hour?

● Simplify the process for them when-ever possible. The more that is knownabout the time constraints and stage ofthe research process, the better ableone is to suggest a course of actionwhich is appropriate and not over-whelming.

● Follow-up a reference encounter withsuggestions or queries by e-mail.

The bottom line is that, if librarians getactively involved in the research processand help students engage in productiveresearch time, the students will seek themout again whether in the library or bye-mail from across campus.

There is evidence that the traditional roleof education may be changing from a class-room-centered environment to an emphasison student learning throughout the institu-tion. Steven J. Bell suggests that librarianscan contribute to this trend toward a seam-less learning culture (SLC) by paying atten-tion to the whole learning environment ofthe institution and finding ways to intersectwith it.22 Libraries and academic depart-ments traditionally have been separatespaces in the academic machine that stu-dents traverse in pursuit of an education.Librarians can be special agents in the re-search process, helping to connect studentswith faculty and information across learning

114 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Page 9: The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty expectations

environments, or they can remain just an-other agent-cog in the wheels of academia.Understanding instructor and student per-spectives in the process and acting upon thatknowledge is key.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Deborah J. Grimes,Academic LibraryCentrality: User Success through Service,Access, and Tradition(Chicago, IL: As-sociation of College and Research Librar-ies, 1998).

2. Ibid., p. 111.3. Shu Ching Yang, “Information Seeking

As Problem-Solving Using a QualitativeApproach to Uncover the Novice Learn-ers’ Information-Seeking Processes in aPerseus Hypertext System,”Library & In-formation Science Research19 (1997):71–92.

4. Benjamin O. Alafiatayo & John C. P.Blunden–Ellis, “Reference Transactionsand the Nature of the Process for GeneralReference Assistance,”Library & Infor-mation Science Research18 (Fall 1996):357–384; Carol C. Kuhlthau, “Impact ofthe Information Search Process Model onLibrary Services,”RQ34 (Fall 1994): 21–26; Heidi Julien, “A Content Analysis ofthe Recent Information Needs and UsesLiterature,” Library & Information Sci-ence Research18 (Winter 1996): 53–65.

5. Heather Morrison, “Information LiteracySkills: An Exploratory Focus GroupStudy of Student Perceptions,”ResearchStrategies15 (1997): 4–17.

6. Edgar C. Bailey, Jr., “Help-SeekingBehavior in the Research Process of

College Students,” Online. Association ofCollege and Research Libraries (April1997). Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/d35.html (Accessed January 24,2001); Virginia Massey–Burzio, “Fromthe Other Side of the Reference Desk: AFocus Group Study,”Journal of AcademicLibrarianship 24 (May 1998): 208–215.

7. Peggy Seiden, Kris Szymborski, & Bar-bara Norelli, “Undergraduate Students inthe Digital Library: Information SeekingBehavior in an Heterogeneous Environ-ment.” Available: http://www.ala.org/acrl/paperhtm/c26.html (Accessed October, 172000); John Lubans, Jr., “How First-yearUniversity Students Use and Regard Inter-net Resources” (Duke University, April1998) Available: http://www.lib.duke.edu/lubans/docs/1styear/firstyear.html(Accessed October 17, 2000).

8. Barbara Valentine, “Undergraduate Re-search Behavior: Using Focus Groups toGenerate Theory,”Journal of AcademicLibrarianship19 (November 1993): 300–304.

9. Anselm L. Strauss, and Juliet Corbin,Ba-sics of Qualitative Research : Techniquesand Procedures for Developing GroundedTheory (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,1998).

10. Carol C. Kuhlthau, “Information SearchProcess: A Summary of Research and Im-plications for School Library Media Pro-grams,”School Library Media Quarterly17 (Fall 1989): 19–25.

11. Anselm L. Strauss,Qualitative Analysisfor Social Scientists(Cambridge, En-gland: Cambridge University Press,1987).

12. Barbara Valentine, “The GPA PerspectiveRevisited: Agents Vs. Recruits.” Unpub-lished thesis, Master of Arts. University ofGeorgia, Department of Sociology,1994.

13. Barbara Valentine, “Students Versus theResearch Paper: What Can We Learn? ”Racing toward Tomorrow: Proceedings ofthe Ninth National Conference of the As-sociation of College and Research Librar-ies, edited by Hugh A. Thompson (Chica-go, IL: American Library Association,1999), pp. 380–389.

14. Stanton Wheeler, “The Structure of For-mally Organized Socialization Settings”Socialization After Childhood: Two Es-says,by Orville G. Brim, Jr. & StantonWheeler (New York: Wiley, 1966), pp.51–116.

15. Howard S. Becker, Blanche Geer, & Ever-ett C. Hughes,Making the Grade: TheAcademic Side of College Life(NewYork: Wiley, 1968).

16. Ibid., pp. 65.17. Ibid., pp. 65–66.18. Ibid., pp. 32–33.19. Erving Goffman,The Presentation of Self

in Everyday Life (Garden City, NY:Doubleday Anchor, 1959).

20. Valentine, “Student Versus the ResearchPaper.”

21. Janet Chisman, Karen Diller, & SharonWalbridge, “Usability Testing: A CaseStudy,” College & Research Libraries60(November 1999): 552–569.

22. Steven J. Bell, “Creating Learning Librar-ies in Support of Seamless Learning Cul-tures,”College & Undergraduate Librar-ies 6(2) (2000): 45–58.

March 2001 115


Recommended