All 11 entries tagged Project Results

No other Warwick Blogs use the tag Project Results on entries | View entries tagged Project Results at Technorati | There are no images tagged Project Results on this blog

September 16, 2005

Reading list analysis – some summary statistics

The project continues – as you'll see below we're nearly up to 30%, only 10% away from our target of 40% of all department's reading lists analysed. With the help of my student Inga I hope we'll be able to get through the rest of the lists in the next three or so weeks.

However, for those who might be interested here are some figures for where we are in terms of results to date. Naturally these are very broad brush across the University – and no doubt there will always be lists that are well outside the norm (the standard deviation for some these figures is VERY high, I'd hope the faculty and dept level figures will show perhaps a little less variation)

All results are accurate as of this posting.

Reading lists

  • Reading lists analysed : 766
  • Individual references classified: 41,546
  • Total %age of lists analysed: 29.325%
  • Average %age of dept lists analysed: 34.758%

References

  • Most individal refs on a single list: 931 (History ug)
  • Least: 0/1 (various)
  • Average items on a list: 53.75

Cost

  • Most expensive (all purchased books): £500.65 (Law, postgrad)
  • Cheapest non-zero sum (all purchased books): £6 (Sociology, ug)
  • Average cost (all purchased books): £17.92
  • Average cost (minimum purchased books): £4.69

And naturally longest time to analyse a single list 5 hours – Politics, ug, shortest time 30 seconds Mathematics, ug.


August 24, 2005

Whither Reading Lists

Follow-up to Past the half way mark (mild celebrations) from Innovating Research!

Yes it is that time again – time to report on where this bless'd project has got to. Actually there have been some rather pleasing (for the project) developments. Thanks to the Subject Librarians and departmental secretaries I now have the über-pile of lists waiting to be analysed.

Which all means that whilst the end is not yet in sight, the end of the middle has begun!

So in terms completed Faculty lists:
Art: 14.6%
Medicine: 38.6%
Science: 46.4% *
Soc.Science: 18.5%

*Engineering, Psychology and Statistics still under represented.


August 19, 2005

Past the half way mark (mild celebrations)

A significant triumph today – we passed the half way mark on the reading list analysis project after 8 hard weeks of slog. Sadly this does mean there's still another 8 week's ahead of us in order to reach our target, but hopefully with a little extra help we might shave a week off that time.

Also reached the pleasing point that 6 of the 32 total departments have now passed their own 40% mark (and then some for one or two) and we can now safely ignore them and concentrate on those that remain to be completed.

The Subject Teams have helped a bit this week too by responding quite quickly to my requests for more reading lists – though it does mean there are now yet more pieces of paper piled up on my desk…


August 12, 2005

Forming Spurious Opinions

The thing is, despite the fact that I keep trying to keep myself objective at this stage of the research – I am beginning to form opinions about the various reading lists I'm looking at. I might even be able to start reeling off some broad generalisations – though until I do do the analysis there's not going to be much evidence to back them up?

Perhaps this is where the dividing line between a lot of evidenced based published LIS research and "practitioner led" work is – the latter is sadly the vast bulk of what many folks do publish.

But I'm getting off the track here – what about some broad sweeping generalisations then!

  1. Social science faculty lists are long – really long. We're talking on average around 300–500 individual references all told. Makes me glad I was a scientist!

  2. Science faculty lists are short – really short, sometimes just a few books. Rather backs up my own experiences (though I remember doing a lot of un-guided reading to support my studies).

  3. Arts faculty lists are insane. No hang on, let me rephrase that. They are variable. They run the whole gamut from well laid out, structured to scrappy single sheets with formatting shot to hell in a handcart. But for all this I'm rather fond of them as they're still shorter than social science.

So what spurious conclusions can I reach?

  1. Social science students need to be led by the nose to read around their subjects.
  2. Science students buy a course book and use their information skills to find more readings.
  3. Arts students like to look at more creatively laid out lists.

Feel free to draw your own 'well informed' conclusions…


August 10, 2005

List 500!

500th list analysed (CH222). I feel I should have a bottle of champagne on ice or something to celebrate this momentous occassion. Sadly there's still over 600 lists to go to the 40% completion target, but at least Maria Kelly started giving the project a bit of a hand today (huzzah) which should increase the speed of progress a little.

August 05, 2005

Reading lists – how do I hate thee, let me count the ways…

Follow-up to Reading lists update from Innovating Research!

Another little update on where the RIU has got to on this (very very tedious) project. We're slowing down the rate of list analysis – because even with Jenny helping out and me working on this pretty much 100% of the time the lists are getting longer (just got a 76 page module handbook from Sociology with 71 pages of reading – that should take the best part of 5+ hours to analyse fully).

The good news is that 2 departments can now be considered to be 'done' for the purposes of this project – Law is now over 40% analysed and Maths is 100% completed (bless those mathematicians and their short lists!). Engineering is a tricky one – as we've had all the lists the library's ever seen but we're still around 70% short of all their lists. May require some further investigation.

Faculty of Arts
Average progress = 7.31% of total lists analysed

  • Classics and Ancient History 8.3%
  • Centre for English Language Teacher Education 0%
  • Centre for Translation & Comparative Cultural Studies 3.6%
  • Culture of the European Renaissance 0%
  • Comparative American Studies 23.5%
  • English & Comparative Literary Studies 3.6%
  • Film and Television Studies 30.4%
  • French Studies 6.6%
  • German Studies 0%
  • History 6.0%
  • History of Art 7.0%
  • Italian 2.9%
  • Language Centre 4.8%
  • Theatre Studies 4.3%

Faculty of Science
Average progress = 33.00% of total lists analysed

  • Biological Sciences 1.3%
  • Chemistry 0%
  • Computer Science 34.8%
  • Engineering 28.8%
  • Mathematics 100%
  • Physics 42.5%
  • Psychology 25.7%
  • Statistics 31.0%

Faculty of Science
Average progress = 12.50% of total lists analysed

  • Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations 0%
  • Economics 26.0%
  • Education 0.3%
  • English Language Teacher Education 0%
  • Law 43.4%
  • Philosophy 14.8%
  • Politics and International Studies 14.8%
  • Sociology 7.5%
  • Warwick Business School 5.6%

Faculty of Medicine
Average progress = 0 of total lists analysed

So overall we're somewhere between 14–16% of all lists analysed (depending on which total module # figure I go for) with 456 lists actually done. Since this marks the 6th week we've been working on this, it is becoming more readily apparent that our target of the end of September is unrealistic in terms of completing data gathering and analysis (as I've been saying all along). We might (and it's a slim might requiring the input of a lot of additional staff time) just reach our 40% target list data gathering by then – but it will need a good month after that to really do a analysis on this rich data set.

So hopefully by the beginning of November we should see a report to LMG on reading list models in current use at Warwick. Will it be worth it? Ask me next year…


July 29, 2005

Reading lists update

Follow-up to We have a new most expensive reading list! from Innovating Research!

Sorry – it's about this all over again (I'd love to write about something a tad more appealing but I think I'll keep that for my external blog!)

Where are we with the reading lists:

Lists completed

  • Medical: 0%
  • Science: 30.86%
  • Arts: 6.53%
  • Soc.Sci: 8.76%

Overall: 12.37% of total number of actual reading lists (or 14.61% of listed modules) done.

The Science number is probably artificially high due to the Math's lists being all done now – yes 100% of lists analysed! But then again as they generally turn out to be half a dozen books long at most they take but a few seconds. Working on a few economics lists currently, and may turn to Sociology early in the new week.

The good news is we may be (finally) getting a bit of extra help. Only a few hours a week to start with – but that's going to be better than nothing. I still do not believe we'll be finished data collection until the end of September mind you, and analysis will take a large chunk of October – but then I could be wrong.

But I seriously doubt it.


July 28, 2005

We have a new most expensive reading list!

Follow-up to Reading lists update from Innovating Research!

Taking over from the Economics course is the post graduate Law course Theory and Practice in Law in Development – which strongly adivises students to collect (purchase) a massive 28 books on their reading list – at a small cost of £500 (and 65p). Ouch – no wonder lawyers need to make a decent wage after university…

July 21, 2005

Reading lists update

Follow-up to We have a new most expensive reading list! from Innovating Research!

Sorry – it's about this all over again (I'd love to write about something a tad more appealing but I think I'll keep that for my external blog!)

Where are we with the reading lists:

Lists completed

  • Medical: 0%
  • Science: 30.86%
  • Arts: 6.53%
  • Soc.Sci: 8.76%

Overall: 12.37% of total number of actual reading lists (or 14.61% of listed modules) done.

The Science number is probably artificially high due to the Math's lists being all done now – yes 100% of lists analysed! But then again as they generally turn out to be half a dozen books long at most they take but a few seconds. Working on a few economics lists currently, and may turn to Sociology early in the new week.

The good news is we may be (finally) getting a bit of extra help. Only a few hours a week to start with – but that's going to be better than nothing. I still do not believe we'll be finished data collection until the end of September mind you, and analysis will take a large chunk of October – but then I could be wrong.

But I seriously doubt it.


June 16, 2005

Learning Grid user survey

Writing about web page http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/staffweb/store/ri/

For anyone interested in the results/findings of the Learning Grid's recent user survey - you'll find a report in the RIU Research Reports section. In PDF or plain old Web page formats – enjoy!

June 2022

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
May |  Today  |
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30         

Search this blog

Tags

Most recent comments

  • Are you guys still pursuing the VLE route? There has been some advance made by the open university o… by Alejandro Chiner Arias on this entry
  • Well, yes, there are all sort of fascinating stories about the human factors in the fate VLE develop… by on this entry
  • estimating the different costs involved in each particular case Is there anyone anywhere capable of… by Robert O'Toole on this entry
  • Thanks for the link to Shared Copy. I've been looking for a site like that. The sites I've found bef… by Emma on this entry
  • I read about these "knol"s recently, and I'm not too sure what they will do. As with all these techn… by Jenny Delasalle on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…

Galleries

RSS2.0 Atom

UK Copyright Swicki

check out the UK copyright swicki at eurekster.com
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXXII