Health literacy education: the impact of synchronous instruction

Lantzy, Tricia

doi:10.1108/rsr-02-2016-0007

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 33 studies, 21 provided data on participants' views (Anderson & May, 2010;Beile & Boote 2005;Burhanna, Eschedor Voelker & Gedeon, 2008;Byerley, 2005;Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002;Gall, 2014;Goates et al, 2016;Holman, 2000;Kaplowitz & Contini, 1998;Koenig & Novotny, 2001;Kraemer, Lombardo & Lepkowski, 2007;Lantzy, 2016;Nichols, Shaffer & Shockey, 2003;Nichols Hess, 2014;Schilling, 2012;Shaffer, 2011;Silk et al, 2015;Silver & were included -ca 50% attrition in FtF and 59% in online.…”

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 33 studies, 17 included mean IL test scores with standard deviations and could be included in the meta-analyses (Alexander & Smith, 2001;Anderson & May, 2010;Beile & Boote, 2005;Brettle & Raynor, 2013;Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002;Germain, Jacobson & Kaczor, 2000;Goates, Nelson & Frost, 2016;Greer, Hess & Kraemer, 2016;Lantzy, 2016;Mery, Newby & Peng, 2012a;Shaffer, 2011;Silk, Perrault, Ladenson & Nazione, 2015;Swain, Weightman, Farnell & Mogg unpub. ;Vander Meer & Rike, 1996;Walton & Hepworth, 2012;Wilcox Brooks, 2014).…”

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review of Information Literacy Programs in Higher Education: Effects of Face-to-Face, Online, and Blended Formats on Student Skills and Views

Weightman¹,

Farnell²,

Morris³

et al. 2017

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

212017 Weightman, Farnell, Morris, Strange, and Hallam. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. AbstractObjective -Evidence from systematic reviews a decade ago suggested that face-to-face and online methods to provide information literacy training in universities were equally effective in terms of skills learnt, but there was a lack of robust comparative research. The objectives of this review were (1) to update these findings with the inclusion of more recent primary research; (2) to further enhance the summary of existing evidence by including studies of blended formats (with components of both online and face-to-face teaching) compared to single format education; and (3) to explore student views on the various formats employed.Methods -Authors searched seven databases along with a range of supplementary search methods to identify comparative research studies, dated January 1995 to October 2016, exploring skill outcomes for students enrolled in higher education programs. There were 33 studies included, of which 19 also contained comparative data on student views. Where feasible, metaanalyses were carried out to provide summary estimates of skills development and a thematic analysis was completed to identify student views across the different formats.Results -A large majority of studies (27 of 33; 82%) found no statistically significant difference between formats in skills outcomes for students. Of 13 studies that could be included in a metaanalysis, the standardized mean difference (SMD) between skill test results for face-to-face versus online formats was -0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.28 to 0.26). Of ten studies comparing blended to single delivery format, seven (70%) found no statistically significant difference between formats, and the remaining studies had mixed outcomes. From the limited evidence available across all studies, there is a potential dichotomy between outcomes measured via skill test and assignment (course work) which is worthy of further investigation. The thematic analysis of student views found no preference in relation to format on a range of measures in 14 of 19 studies (74%). The remainder identified that students perceived advantages and disadvantages for each format but had no overall preference.Conclusions -There is compelling evidence that information literacy training is effective and well received across a range of delivery formats. Further research looking at blended versus single format methods, and the time implications for each, as well as comparing assignment to skill test outcomes would be valuable. Future studies should adopt a methodologically robus...

show abstract

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Information Literacy Programs in Higher Education: Effects of Face-to-Face, Online, and Blended Formats on Student Skills and Views

Weightman¹,

Farnell²,

Morris³

et al. 2017

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These have therefore been excluded from this study (see inclusion/exclusion criteria Table 2). Of the remaining 17 studies, 11 identify no preference relating to the delivery format of the information literacy teaching (Beile & Boote, 2004;Holman, 2000;Koenig & Novotny, 2001;Kraemer et al, 2007;Lantzy, 2016;Nichols Hess, 2014;Nichols et al, 2003;Schilling, 2012;Silk et al, 2015;Vander Meer & Rike, 1996;Wilcox Brooks, 2014). Of the five studies which suggest a student preference there are variations in what this preference is.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of information literacy programmes in higher education

Morris

2020

JIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review will aim to establish if there is strong evidence to suggest a student preference for delivery format within information literacy teaching. This research supports and builds on research previously undertaken by Cardiff University (Weightman et al., 2017). Weightman et al (2017) addressed the effect of face-to-face or online learning specifically on learning outcomes. This review specifically focuses on the effects of these methods, and blended formats, on student preference. This research informs teaching practice specifically within Cardiff University’s library service but also teaching practice generally. A comprehensive systematic literature search was undertaken in four databases: Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), British Education Index, ERIC and Scopus. Seven new papers were identified to update the previous discussions on student preference of information literacy teaching format (Weightman et al., 2017). Critical appraisal was undertaken of these newly identified papers. Weightman et al.’s (2017) systematic review suggested that there was no student preference in relation to delivery format. Of the seven new papers identified in this review, two (DaCosta, 2007; Gorman & Staley, 2018) show a slight preference for format; one for online and one for face-to-face although there are limitations to the studies. Of the five remaining studies (Craig & Friehs, 2013; Kelly, 2017; Lag, 2016; Lapidus et al., 2012; Matlin & Lantzy, 2017) all showed a comparable experience between formats, although limitations of these studies are also acknowledged. The update search and appraisal of the literature concurs with previous conclusions (Weightman et al., 2017) that experiences are comparable and student preference is generally neutral in relation to delivery format. Student learning outcomes and student preference are comparable regardless of format (Weightman et al., 2017).

show abstract

“…The HSHS Librarian has worked with the primary instructor for several years and began investigating online methods of instruction when the course first began transitioning into hybrid and totally online sections. Although finding student learning to be comparable between in-person and online synchronous instruction offered through web conferencing (Lantzy, 2016), obstacles to this type of online instruction can be burdensome for course faculty. For these reasons, the HSHS librarian decided asynchronous online instruction might be a better alternative for this course.…”

Section: Coursesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maintaining Quality While Expanding Our Reach: Using Online Information Literacy Tutorials in the Sciences and Health Sciences

Matlin¹,

Lantzy²

2017

EBLIP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncsa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. AbstractObjective -This article aims to assess student achievement of higher-order information literacy learning outcomes from online tutorials as compared to in-person instruction in science and health science courses.Methods -Information literacy instruction via online tutorials or an in-person one-shot session was implemented in multiple sections of a biology (n=100) and a kinesiology course (n=54). After instruction, students in both instructional environments completed an identical library assignment to measure the achievement of higher-order learning outcomes and an anonymous student survey to measure the student experience of instruction.Results -The data collected from library assignments revealed no statistically significant Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2017, 12.3 96 differences between the two instructional groups in total assignment scores or scores on specific questions related to higher-order learning outcomes. Student survey results indicated the student experience is comparable between instruction groups in terms of clarity of instruction, student confidence in completing the course assignment after library instruction, and comfort in asking a librarian for help after instruction.Conclusions -This study demonstrates that it is possible to replace one-shot information literacy instruction sessions with asynchronous online tutorials with no significant reduction in student learning in undergraduate science and health science courses. Replacing in-person instruction with online tutorials will allow librarians at this university to reach a greater number of students and maintain contact with certain courses that are transitioning to completely online environments. While the creation of online tutorials is initially time-intensive, over time implementing online instruction could free up librarian time to allow for the strategic integration of information literacy instruction into other courses. Additional time savings could be realized by incorporating auto-grading into the online tutorials.

show abstract

Health literacy education: the impact of synchronous instruction

Cited by 13 publications

References 24 publications

A Systematic Review of Information Literacy Programs in Higher Education: Effects of Face-to-Face, Online, and Blended Formats on Student Skills and Views

A Systematic Review of Information Literacy Programs in Higher Education: Effects of Face-to-Face, Online, and Blended Formats on Student Skills and Views

A review of information literacy programmes in higher education

Maintaining Quality While Expanding Our Reach: Using Online Information Literacy Tutorials in the Sciences and Health Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About