Google-Trained Minds Can't Deal with Terrible Research Database UI
College and university librarians are concerned about students’ search skills, and no wonder:
At Illinois Wesleyan University, “The majority of students — of all levels — exhibited significant difficulties that ranged across nearly every aspect of the search process,” according to researchers there. They tended to overuse Google and misuse scholarly databases. They preferred simple database searches to other methods of discovery, but generally exhibited “a lack of understanding of search logic” that often foiled their attempts to find good sources.
The librarians quoted here understand most of the key problems, and are especially sharp about “the myth of the digital native” — about which see also this deeply sobering Metafilter thread — but there’s one vital issue they’re neglecting: research databases have the worst user interfaces in the whole world.
» via The Atlantic
Research database UI are truly abysmal, followed closely by the UI of most popular online course management systems, and by the UI for most college and university web sites for course registration and other student management activities.
Yet miraculously the forward facing web sites for most colleges and universities are glitzy and dazzling, precisely because they are seen primarily as a recruiting tool.
So there are two Internets in higher education: there’s the spectacularly slick 2012 Internet students see before they enroll, and there’s the barely usable and archaic throwback to a 1997 Internet that students must endure to interact with the registrar, the library, and their courses throughout the remainder of their college career.
Source: infoneer-pulse
![Say bye-bye to the Likert scale!
A really interesting research paper on an experiment comparing responses between a five-point Likert scale and a 250-value “visual analog scale.”
Randomly assigned participants spent the same amount of time on each, but those using the visual scale made finer adjustments to their responses, resulting in more precise data. If you have ever felt you’ve had to compromise between choosing a “3” or a “4” on a Likert scale, you can understand why this research matters.
Even more interesting is the description in the paper of a similar device from the early 19th century: “a metal plate […] had 10 scales, each marked off in 100 parts, and labeled […]. A system of sliding markers was provided so that a […] judged position on each scale could be graphically displayed.”
The authors of this paper argue that use of such visual scales permit the ”detection of small differences and far more possibilities for data analyses” through fine-grained web-based data collection.
Frederik Funke and Ulf-Dietrich Reips (In press). Why Semantic Differentials in Web-Based Research Should be Made From Visual Analogue Scales and Not From 5-Point Scales. (pdf)](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls0o2tVGBR1qzowgeo1_r1_1280.jpg)
Say bye-bye to the Likert scale!
A really interesting research paper on an experiment comparing responses between a five-point Likert scale and a 250-value “visual analog scale.”
Randomly assigned participants spent the same amount of time on each, but those using the visual scale made finer adjustments to their responses, resulting in more precise data. If you have ever felt you’ve had to compromise between choosing a “3” or a “4” on a Likert scale, you can understand why this research matters.
Even more interesting is the description in the paper of a similar device from the early 19th century: “a metal plate […] had 10 scales, each marked off in 100 parts, and labeled […]. A system of sliding markers was provided so that a […] judged position on each scale could be graphically displayed.”
The authors of this paper argue that use of such visual scales permit the ”detection of small differences and far more possibilities for data analyses” through fine-grained web-based data collection.
Frederik Funke and Ulf-Dietrich Reips (In press). Why Semantic Differentials in Web-Based Research Should be Made From Visual Analogue Scales and Not From 5-Point Scales. (pdf)
Mobile phones are a main source of internet access for one-quarter of the smartphone population (U.S.)
Some 87% of smartphone owners access the internet or email on their handheld, including two-thirds (68%) who do so on a typical day. When asked what device they normally use to access the internet, 25% of smartphone owners say that they mostly go online using their phone, rather than with a computer. While many of these individuals have other sources of online access at home, roughly one third of these “cell mostly” internet users lack a high-speed home broadband connection.
Higher education needs to pay attention to this.
Source: pewresearch.org
Readability is a nifty little tool for your Safari, Firefox, or Chrome browser. Set a couple of options, drag Readability to your toolbar, and click it whenever you want to remove the clutter and focus exclusively on the main text of a web site. Nice!
