Electronic library glossaries: jargonbusting essentials or wasted resource?

Ayre, Catherine; Smith, Inese A.; Cleeve, Marigold

doi:10.1108/02640470610660323

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When necessary, terms should include brief descriptions. Another proposed solution is to provide a website glossary of library vocabulary (Gillis, 2017); however, Catherine Ayre, et al (2006) questioned the effectiveness and use of library website glossaries.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Librarian Fascination and Student Confusion with “RE” words: Research, Reference, Resources, and Reserves

Lynn

Imler

2020

palrap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student confusion regarding the use of library jargon on websites, during instruction sessions, and in conversation is nothing new; however, four commonly used terms have recently lost context both inside and outside of the library setting. Coincidently, all four words begin with “RE”: research, reference, resources, and reserves. By asking our students what they believe these “RE” words mean, we were able to get a clearer indication of their perceptions and specific information needs. We believe that finding a common linguistic foundation with limited library jargon reduces barriers and promotes student comprehension and satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Librarian Fascination and Student Confusion with “RE” words: Research, Reference, Resources, and Reserves

Lynn

Imler

2020

palrap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much has been written about librarians' efforts to help patrons understand this language (Adedibu & Ajala, 2011;Ayre, Smith, & Cleeve, 2006;Chaudhry & Choo, 2001;Dewey, 1999;Doran, 1998;Foster, 2010;Houdyshell, 1998;Hutcherson, 2004;Imler & Eichelberger, 2014;Naismith & Stein, 1989;Pinto, Cordon, & Gómez Diaz, 2010;Sonsteby & DeJonghe, 2013;Spivey, 2000;Swanson & Green, 2011). Rather than alluding to tangible objects and services, information literacy jargon, on the other hand, may elicit abstract thoughts and actions that require a higher-degree of critical thinking to comprehend and apply (Pinto, Cordon, & Gómez Diaz, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Collision of Two Lexicons: Librarians, Composition Instructors and the Vocabulary of Source Evaluation

Carter

Aldridge

2016

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncsa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. AbstractObjective -The study has two aims. The first is to identify words and phrases from information literacy and rhetoric and composition that students used to justify the comparability of two sources. The second is to interpret the effectiveness of students' application of these evaluative vocabularies and explore the implications for librarians and first-year composition instructors' collaborations.Methods -A librarian and a first-year composition instructor taught a class on source evaluation using the language of information literacy, composition, and rhetorical analysis (i.e., classical, Aristotelian, rhetorical appeals). Students applied the information learned from the instruction session to help them locate and select two sources of comparable genre and rigor for the purpose Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2016, 11.1 24 of an essay assignment. The authors assessed this writing assignment for students' evaluative diction to identify how they could improve their understanding of each other's discourse. Results -The authors' analysis of the student writing sample exposes struggles in how students understand, apply, and integrate the jargon of information literacy and rhetoric and composition. Assessment shows that students chose the language of rhetoric and composition rather than the language of information literacy, they selected the broadest and/or vaguest terms to evaluate their sources, and they applied circular reasoning when justifying their choices. When introduced to analogous concepts or terms between the two discourses, students cherry-picked the terms that allowed for the easiest, albeit, least-meaningful evaluations.Conclusion -The authors found that their unfamiliarity with each other's discourse revealed itself in both the class and the student writing. They discovered that these miscommunications affected students' language use in their written source evaluations. In fact, the authors conclude that this oversight in addressing the subtle differences between the two vocabularies was detrimental to student learning. To improve communication and students' source evaluation, the authors consider developing a common vocabulary for more consistency between the two lexicons.

show abstract

Electronic library glossaries: jargonbusting essentials or wasted resource?

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Librarian Fascination and Student Confusion with “RE” words: Research, Reference, Resources, and Reserves

Librarian Fascination and Student Confusion with “RE” words: Research, Reference, Resources, and Reserves

The Collision of Two Lexicons: Librarians, Composition Instructors and the Vocabulary of Source Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About