The guided experimentation method requires that students learn how a database works by generating and testing hypotheses about it (i.e., become skilled at strategies of experimentation). These strategies are essential to learning by inquiry, which is linked to argumentation. We conducted a quasi-experimental field study to show that students who experimented with a library database in a structured manner (n = 60) wrote better argumentative papers than those who did not (n = 29). Future research should examine whether those who approach a task with the aim of learning it benefit more from opportunities to learn from experimentation with it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Association for College & Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Chicago: Author.
2.
BernerE. S.McGowanJ. J.HardinJ. M.SpoonerS. A.RaszkaW. V.Jr.BerkowR. L. (2002). A model for assessing information retrieval and application skills of medical students [Electronic version]. Academic Medicine, 77, 547–551.
3.
CameronL.HartJ. (1992). Assessment of PsycLIT competence, attitudes, and instructional methods [Electronic version]. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 239–242.
4.
DebowskiS.WoodR. E.BanduraA. (2001). Impact of guided exploration and enactive exploration on self-regulatory mechanisms and information acquisition through electronic search [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1129–1141.
5.
GleasonM. M. (1999). The role of evidence in argumentative writing [Electronic version]. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15, 81–106.
6.
HillocksG.Jr. (1982). Inquiry and the composing process: Theory and research [Electronic version]. College English, 44, 659–673.
7.
HillocksG.Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English.
8.
HillocksG.Jr. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
KnudsonR. E. (1992). Analysis of argumentative writing at two grade levels [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 169–179.
10.
MaorD. (1991, April). Development of student inquiry skills: A constructivist approach in a computerized classroom environment. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.
11.
McCannT. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing: Knowledge and ability at three grade levels [Electronic version]. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62–76.
12.
McCarthyM.PusateriT. P. (2006). Teaching students to use electronic databases. In BuskistW.DavisS. F. (Eds.), Handbook of the teaching of psychology (pp. 107–111). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
13.
PayneS. C.YoungcourtS. S.BeaubienJ. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomo-logical net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150.
14.
PoeR. E. (1990). A strategy for improving literature reviews in psychology courses [Electronic version]. Teaching of Psychology, 17, 54–55.
15.
ScharfD.ElliotN.HueyH. A.BrillerV.JoshiK. (2007). Direct assessment of information literacy using writing portfolios [Electronic version]. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33, 462–478.
16.
ToulminS. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
TrudelC.PayneS. J. (1995). Reflection and goal management in exploratory learning [Electronic version]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42, 307–339.
18.
Van Der LindenD.SonnentagS.FreseM.Van DyckC. (2001). Exploration strategies, performance, and error consequences when learning a complex computer task [Electronic version]. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20, 189–198.
19.
WangR. (2006). The lasting impact of a library credit course [Electronic version]. Libraries and the Academy, 6, 79–92.
