PhD on Track – designing learning for PhD students

By Gunhild Austrheim and Eystein Gullbekk

National Qualification Framework (examples)

Knowledge:- is in the forefront of knowledge within his/her

academic field and masters the field´s philosophy of science and/or artistic issues and methods

General competence:- can communicate research and development work

through recognized Norwegian and international channels

(The Ministry of Education and Research, 2009)

A doctoral programme has booked a librarian!

Research supportResearch support

What kind of support do they need?

Which challenges do our librarians face?

Presentation in two parts

12

Introducing PhD on Track

User involvement

1 PhD on Track

Information Management for Knowledge Creation (2010 – 2013)

1. A study on PhD students’ information behavior and their perceived needs

2. Developing and testing online modules

• Project partners: The university libraries in Oslo, Bergen and Ålborg and the libraries at The Norwegian School of Economics and Bergen University College

• Partly funded by the National Library of Norway

Gullbekk, E., Rullestad, T., & Torras i Calvo, M.-C. (ed.) (2012). PhD candidates and the research process:The library's contribution. (Vol. 8). Oslo: Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo.

Evaluating Research

Mapping Research

Publishing Research

Literature Review

Reference Chasing

MotivationChoosing where to publish

How to get published

Publishing

Open Access Authorship Copyright

Reference Management

Principles in content development

• Illustrate challenges

• Demonstrate possible procedures

• Explain and clarify principles and perspectives

• Provoke decision making and reflection

Developing digital resources

1. Design and technical development (contract, Centre for New Media)

2. Developing and editing content (project group)

3. User testing and quality assurance(project group)

The project: second phase

2 User involvement- adjusting PhD on Track

User involvement

• Getting to know the target audience

• Characteristics of PhD students are often determined by:– Discipline– Research projects– Prior educational

experiences– Familiarity with our

topics

User testing methodology

• Focus group interviews with phd students and supervisors (2011)

• Testing with wireframes (2012)

• Usability testing (2012/2013)

• Personas and expert evaluation (2012/2013)

Testing…

• We tested:– Navigation – how to find…– Content – important with feedback

• Students involved in testing were selected as to give variation on: – Disciplines– Stage of PhD – Age and gender

Feedback from user involvement

• Navigation works – logic and meaningful• Understood as a course• Positive to content and the need for the site• Well-liked design• Relevance – useful, one-stop, topics

• Feedback from librarians indicated this would be useful in connection with PhD courses

Necessary adjustments

• Front page – Present the web site

• Language – Avoid library jargon

• Concise text on introductory pages• More depth on content• More examples • More discipline specific content

Illustrate challenges

Explain and clarify principles and perspectives

Provoke decision making and reflection

Gains from user involvement

• Awareness of issues and challenges – we could make changes

• Adjustments vis-à-vis the vendor• Helped us focus on the user needs – and not

library needs• Confirming the right choices• Focus on target audience – new PhD students• Focus on strategies – not recipies

Looking forward

• Further development – Editors– Dialogue with similar projects/products– Considerations on additional topics– Follow-up user testing– Marketing and implementation

• Continuing feedback - ASK US button

Thank you for your attention!