English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We recorded 10 undergraduate law students responding to a research task at the University of York, UK. Analysing these videos was like observing research magpies: darting ruthlessly from source to source in search of the shiniest material to determine, as quickly as possible, the ‘content’ of the law. These students cast their search widely, using ‘unofficial knowledge’ – largely from Google – to supplement their use of ‘official knowledge’ signposted by Law School staff. They distinguish between ‘normative’ and ‘substantive’ legal research, neglecting the former in favour of the latter. And they prize efficiency, dismissing sources perceived as too unwieldly. After outlining these behaviours we make three arguments: (i) students do not engage with ‘official knowledge’ resources in the way that curriculum designers intend or expect, (ii) there is a tension between encouraging independent learning and the use of ‘unofficial’ knowledge, and (iii) normative sources are relegated in favour of ‘substantive’ ones.

Research magpies: student sourcing behaviours on an undergraduate law degree