I provide you with additional feedback on your original submission and give you some advice about how to improve your work: Please note that your makers has given you complete feedback, The two books you have referenced are a good start, but you need to use more, and more up to date journal papers as your evidence base. I would suggest the following: ACRL. (2016). 2016 top trends in academic libraries A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education. College & Research Libraries News, 77(6), 274-281. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/77/6/274.full.pdf+html Sanders, L. (2015). Academic libraries’ strategic plans: top trends and under-recognized areas. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 285-291. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.011 Seal, R. A. (2015). Library spaces in the 21st century: Meeting the challenges of user needs for information, technology and expertise. Library Management, 36(8-9), 558-569. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LM-11-2014-0136 Cox, A. M., & Corrall, S. (2013). Evolving academic library specialties. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1526–1542. doi:10.1002/asi.22847 I would be looking for you to define a number of areas to focus on in your essay to explore the question of key challenges in academic libraries. For example you could look at changing roles in academic librarians; how academic librarians are teaching information literacy; the changes in scholarly communication and open access; libraries as learning spaces; the marketisation of higher education. What is important is that you state clearly in your introduction that your essay is going to focus on these particular issues. You should also define the key terms used in your essay in the introduction, or as appropriate in other paragraphs, this is good practice and assures the marker that you understand the context of your essay, and demonstrates knowledge of the literature. Use the key words form your choice of focus to look for literature in the LISA database - this is probably the best database for information studies literature. Focus on retrieving journal papers that are less that 6 or seven years old. Some of the issues you have chosen to look at in your original essay are probably not seen as key challenges, e.g. copyright and plagiarism. While these are challenges, I would suggest that how to teach IL effectively is arguably a bigger umbrella problem. In general it is important that the points you want to make are supported by evidence. Every paragraph should have a supporting citation - arguably every sentence that makes a new point should have a supporting citation. Individual Essay GRADEMARK REPORT GENERAL COMMENTS Instructor This is a very under-researched essay and almost everything you cite is over five years old. Indeed, your 'issues of the moment' seem to be drawn mostly from a conference paper written 15 years ago (Foo et al, 2005). You have a tendency to present your own opinions and build on them. You should be basing your statements on evidence derived from an analysis of your reading. Where you do refer to research, you sometimes take it out of context or interpret it inappropriately. You need to make more effort to draw on up-todate research and to present analysis based on evidence-based arguments rather than on your opinions. Marker PAGE 1 PAGE 2 Comment 1 This is meant to be anonymous PAGE 3 Comment 2 This is more of an informative abstract than an indicative one (which is what you were asked to write). Comment 3 Your introduction is too vague. You should be using it to explain how you are interpreting the essay question and to define any key concepts. QM Grammatical Error QM Grammatical Error QM Grammatical Error QM Grammatical Error Comment 4 Avoid phrases such as "general perception", "it is common knowledge", etc. If something is generally perceived to be the case it will be easy to cite an example. QM Grammatical Error Comment 5 They still do - but nowadays the catalogues are generally online. Comment 6 which are still catalogues Comment 7 All rather vague, and without supporting evidence. PAGE 4 Comment 8 Several studies into what? QM Grammatical Error QM Reference to a whole book is unhelpful Referencing an entire book does not help a reader to assess the information you are using to support your arguments. Reference the relevant chapter or section. Comment 9 Was there ever a time when librarians should not have been familiar with the contents of their libraries? QM Inappropriate choice of words Additional Comment ...the librarians Comment 10 What are these assertions based on? If you have evidence, cite it. QM Inappropriate choice of words Additional Comment advanced library management skills Comment 11 The article you referred to reports on a survey of cataloguers in the USA. Only 143 responses were analysed. This is a long way from being "Most librarians", as you claim. Comment 12 You are misrepresenting the article. It referred to low pay, but pay was not so low that the librarians surveyed were dissatisfied. QM Confusing Confusing Comment 13 By whom? In what ways? QM Grammatical Error QM Grammatical Error QM Reference over 10 years old Is this up-to-date? Additional Comment This is based on US research from 13 years ago. How relevant is it to a discussion on issues currently affecting librarians in the UK? QM Grammatical Error Comment 14 Define your terms properly. It is far from clear how computer labs compete with libraries. QM Grammatical Error QM Grammatical Error QM Grammatical Error Additional Comment that PAGE 5 QM Confusing Confusing Additional Comment Your argument here does not make sense. QM Reference to a whole book is unhelpful Referencing an entire book does not help a reader to assess the information you are using to support your arguments. Reference the relevant chapter or section. Comment 15 Who are these librarians? Which librarians in the UK do not use digital systems? Comment 16 What is a technological currency? Comment 17 Why is this the duty of librarians rather than of archivists? QM Grammatical Error Comment 18 I doubt that these are a serious target for hackers. What you have described are the kind of online security measures that should be adopted by any organisation that makes significant use of the Internet. They are not specific to libraries. Comment 19 What does this mean? If you argue that something is significant, you need to make clear what it is, preferably using definitions from published sources. PAGE 6 You should have cited an instance of this happening. It is a theoretical possibility, but has been so for a long time. You were supposed to write about what you see as the key challenges for librarians at the moment. Comment 21 If you had an example, you should have cited it. Comment 22 New? Students have been interested in web-based research for over 20 years. QM Reference over 10 years old Is this up-to-date? Additional Comment You rely a lot on this article. Has anything changed since it was published? QM Confusing Confusing PAGE 7 Again, you appear to be extrapolating from your own views, without any attempt to offer supporting evidence. QM Confusing Confusing Comment 24 Is it the role of librarian to contain users? PAGE 8 RUBRIC: PGT MARKING GRID IS_COPY INTER + SCOPE Interpretation and scope 59-50, A pass 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL SUBJECT Understanding of su a) Outstanding attempt to reflect the scope of the assignment. b) Understood and addressed all aspects of the assignment with no omissions and misunderstandings. a) Excellent attempt to reflect the scope of the assignment. b) Understood and addressed most aspects of the assignment with almost no omissions and misunderstandings. a) Good attempt to cover scope of assignment. b) Minor omissions, misunderstandings or irrelevant material. a) Fair attempt to cover scope of assignment. b) Some omissions, misunderstandings or irrelevant material. a) Scope of assignment not fully understood. b) Much irrelevant material and many omissions and misunderstandings. a) Scope of assignment completely misunderstood. b) Little or no relevant material. 59-50, A pass bject (conceptual framework, issues, themes etc.) 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL EVAL + SYNTH Evaluation and synthesis of evidence Outstanding understanding and exposition, with excellent awareness of nuances and complexities. Excellent understanding of subject and exposition, with good awareness of nuances and complexities Good understanding of the subject. Some understanding of the subject but at a general level. Establishes a few relevant points but superficial and confused. Little understanding of the subject No understanding of the subject. 49-40, A fail 100-80, Outstanding approach to evaluation and synthesis of relevant evidence to support OUTSTANDING arguments/ points. 79-70, EXCELLENT Excellent evaluation and synthesis of relevant evidence to support arguments/ points 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL CRIT ANALYSIS Critical analysis Good evaluation and synthesis of relevant evidence to support arguments/points Some evaluation and synthesis of relevant evidence to support arguments/points Evidence presented with little attempt at evaluation and synthesis Evidence presented with no attempt at evaluation or synthesis. 49-40, A fail 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL ARGUMENT Argument Outstanding standard of critical analysis. Excellent standard of critical analysis Good critical analysis but some omissions. Some critical analysis but omissions and/or errors Analysis very superficial. No meaningful analysis. 49-40, A fail 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL STRUCTURE Structure Convincing arguments fully developed. Arguments clear and well constructed. Arguments generally well developed. Arguments not always followed through and sometimes confusing. Little logical argument No logical argument. 59-50, A pass 100-80, a) Structure excellent; logical order; appropriate to task b) Introduction and OUTSTANDING conclusion excellent 79-70, EXCELLENT a) Clear structure appropriate to task. b) Introduction and conclusion excellent. 69-60, GOOD a) Overall structure good. b) Introduction and conclusion good. 59-50, A PASS a) Structure fair but could be improved. b) Introduction and/or conclusion adequate. 49-40, A FAIL a) Poor structure. b) Poor introduction and/or conclusion. 39-1, A BAD FAIL a) Structure lacking. b) No recognisable introduction and conclusion. ENGLISH 59-50, A pass Use of English 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL WRITING STYLE Writing style Excellent standard with no errors. Excellent standard with occasional errors only. Good standard but with occasional errors (punctuation, misuse of words, spelling and sentence construction). Reasonable standard but with a number of errors (punctuation, misuse of words, spelling and sentence construction). Poor standard with frequent errors (punctuation, misuse of words spelling and sentence construction). Very poor standard with frequent errors (punctuation, misuse of words, spelling and sentence construction) 59-50, A pass 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL DATA + REF Presentation of data and references Exceptionally clear and easy to read. Very clear and easy to read. Clear writing style and generally easy to understand. Fair, but writing style makes work difficult to understand in places. Writing style makes work difficult to understand throughout. Work incomprehensible 59-50, A pass 100-80, a) Excellent use of relevant data, examples, figs., models. b) All references OUTSTANDING accurately cited and listed. 79-70, EXCELLENT a) Very good use of relevant data etc. b) Most references accurately cited and listed. 69-60, GOOD a) Some good use of relevant data etc. b) Some missing or incorrect citations and/or bib. entries. 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL PRESENTATION a) Superficial use of relevant data etc b) Fair number of missing or incorrect citations and/or bib. entries. a) Very few appropriate references to data etc. b) Very little understanding of referencing systems. a) No appropriate references to data etc. b) No understanding of referencing systems 69-60, Good Overall presentation 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL ABSTRACT Abstract or Executiv Outstanding organisation and presentation. Excellent organisation and presentation. Good organisation and presentation. Organisation and presentation generally satisfactory. Organisation and presentation poor. Unacceptable organisation and presentation. e Summary 59-50, A pass 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL ID OF INFO Identification of info Includes aims and conclusion, and all key points; clear and concise. Includes aims and conclusion and most key points. Generally a good summary, but some aspects missing or poorly expressed. Fair; a number of aspects missing or poorly expressed. Text does not fulfil function of Abstract/ Executive Summary. Abstract/Executive Summary missing. 49-40, A fail rmation 100-80, Substantial evidence of independent information-seeking or data gathering OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT Very clear evidence of independent information-seeking or data gathering 69-60, GOOD Some evidence of independent information-seeking or data gathering. 59-50, A PASS Little evidence of independent information-seeking or data gathering. 49-40, A FAIL No evidence of independent information-seeking or data gathering. 39-1, A BAD FAIL Evidence of potential use of unfair means. TEAM WORK Evidence of team work 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL Evidence of excellent, effective teamwork. Evidence of good teamwork. Some evidence of good teamwork, but areas of weakness, or evidence lacking. Little evidence that team has worked together effectively. No evidence that team has worked together effectively. REFLECTION Evidence of reflection on the assignment Evidence that team has not worked together effectively. 100-80, OUTSTANDING 79-70, EXCELLENT 69-60, GOOD 59-50, A PASS 49-40, A FAIL 39-1, A BAD FAIL a) Excellent, insightful and analytical reflection; shows self questioning and considers others. b) Clear evidence of learning and suggestions for change. a) An excellent range of reflective comments; shows evidence of analysis and self-questioning. b) Evidence of learning. A reasonable range of reflective comments; shows some evidence of deep reflection. Some reflective comments but lacking insights and depth. Descriptive writing with very limited or undeveloped refection. No evidence of reflection; descriptive only.