Online and Face-to-Face Library Instruction: Assessing the Impact on Upper-Level Sociology Undergraduates

Hess, Amanda Nichols

doi:10.1080/01639269.2014.934122

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

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%

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%

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

“…First, as Stiwinter (2013) noted, students are motivated by grades; thus "online tutorials were more effective if they were tied to a grade or some other required aspect of a course" (p. 18). Faculty collaboration, too, shapes integration (Nichols Hess, 2014;Stiwinter, 2013). Rather than align with specific courses or instructors, we have opted for a more sustainable integration, building pedagogical resources for faculty to incorporate into their courses.…”

Section: Faculty Guidementioning

confidence: 98%

Beyond Mechanics: Reframing the Pedagogy and Development of Information Literacy Teaching Tools

Margolin¹,

Hayden²

2015

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The probability was greater than .05 that the observed difference between means in the total score would have occurred by chance if the null hypothesis were true. Although it is not uncommon for controlled studies to yield insignificant results after comparing instructional approaches (Germain et al, 2000;Hess, 2014;Kaplowitz & Contini, 1998;Yong, Levy, & Lape, 2015), such outcomes should always be considered alongside effect sizes (e.g., Walton & Hepworth, 2012), as well as within the larger research framework. In this current study, the results can be evaluated within the specific context of a quasi-experimental design: namely, did the approach itself limit the impact of the video series on students' research self-efficacy?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In each of these cases, the dependent variables were skill-based outcomes (Anderson & May, 2010;Bordignon et al, 2016;Germain et al, 2000;Hess, 2014) or a combination of skill-based and affective measures (Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002;Kaplowitz & Contini, 1998). Other studies have more thoroughly investigated students' affective approaches, though not within the context of comparing online and in-person interventions.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

First-Year Students’ Research Challenges: Does Watching Videos on Common Struggles affect Students’ Research Self-Efficacy?

Kelly

2017

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the terms of the Creative Commons-AttributionNoncommercial-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 -The purpose of this quantitative study was to measure the impact of providing research struggle videos on first-year students' research self-efficacy. The three-part video series explicated and briefly addressed common first-year roadblocks related to searching, evaluating, and caring about sources. The null hypothesis tested was that students would have similar research self-efficacy scores, regardless of exposure to the video series.Methods -The study was a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent control group design. The population included all 22 sections (N = 359) of First-Year Writing affiliated with the FASTrack Learning Community at the University of Mississippi. Of 22 sections, 12 (N = 212) served as the intervention group exposed to the videos, while the other 10 (N = 147) served as the control group. A research self-efficacy pretest -posttest measure was administered to all students. In addition, all 22 sections, regardless of control or intervention status, received a face-to-face oneshot library instruction session.Results -As a whole, this study failed to reject the null hypothesis. Students exposed to the research struggle videos reported similar research self-efficacy scores as students who were not exposed to the videos. A significant difference, however, did exist between all students' pretest and posttest scores, suggesting that something else, possibly the in-person library session, did Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2017, 12.4 159 have an impact on students' research self-efficacy.Conclusion -Although students' research self-efficacy may have increased due to the presence of an in-person library session, this current research was most interested in evaluating the effect of providing supplemental instruction via struggle videos for first-year students. As this was not substantiated, it is recommended that researchers review the findings and limitations of this current study in order to identify more effective approaches in providing instructional support for first-year students' research struggles.

show abstract

Online and Face-to-Face Library Instruction: Assessing the Impact on Upper-Level Sociology Undergraduates

Cited by 20 publications

References 38 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

Beyond Mechanics: Reframing the Pedagogy and Development of Information Literacy Teaching Tools

First-Year Students’ Research Challenges: Does Watching Videos on Common Struggles affect Students’ Research Self-Efficacy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About