Evidence
Summary
One-Shot Library Instruction Sessions May Not Increase Student Use of
Academic Journals or Diversity of Sources
A Review of:
Howard, K., Nicholas, T., Hayes, T., & Appelt, C. W. (2014).
Evaluating one-shot library sessions: Impact on the quality and diversity of
student source use. Community &
Junior College Libraries, 20(1-2), 27-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763915.2014.1009749
Reviewed by:
Aislinn Conway
PhD Fellow
National University of Ireland Galway
Galway, Ireland
Email: [email protected]
Received: 21 Sept. 2015 Accepted: 4 Nov.
2015
2015 Conway.
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.
Abstract
Objective – To assess the effect of
one-shot library research workshops focused on database searching on student
coursework bibliographies.
Design – Comparative bibliometric
analysis of student bibliographies.
Setting – Career and Transfer
Program at a community college in Illinois, United States of America.
Subjects – Students taking an
English 101 course.
Methods – During the study, 39
sections of English 101 occurred. An optional library instruction session was
offered to faculty and as a result students from 18 sections participated. Each
session consisted of a 45-minute lecture and 30 minutes of independent research
time. The librarian delivering the session introduced students to keyword
searching and demonstrated the online library catalogue and two core electronic
databases; Academic Search Complete, and Opposing Viewpoints in Context (OVC),
and other databases of their choosing. Students in each session were required
to submit a variety of assignments in an exit portfolio at the end of the semester.
Sections of students were excluded if the instructors did not submit the
students’ portfolios and they no longer taught at the community college, making
it impossible to track down the portfolios. Exclusion also occurred in cases
where sections were taught by the researchers. Seventeen sections who had
attended library instruction group and 14 sections who had not attended the
library instruction group were included in the study and randomised.
Researchers evaluated portfolios according to the
following criteria: whether the student who submitted the portfolio attended
library instruction; whether their portfolio earned a pass or fail mark; total
number of citations in bibliographies; number of each type of source (e.g.,
book, journal, Internet resource, or other; and dates of sources).
Main Results – Data were
collected from 115 portfolios submitted by students who had attended a library
session and 92 portfolios from students who had not attended a library session.
Student pass or fail status was not reported. Attending library instruction did
not have a significant effect on the mean number of total citations: 5.513 for
attendees vs. 6.076 for non-attendees.
Of 205 student portfolios evaluated, there was no difference in the
number of types of resources used by students who had library instruction (2.3
± 0.1) and those who had none (2.2 ± 0.1; p > 0.05).
Conclusion – The library
instruction sessions did not increase the use of academic journals or the
diversity of sources used. However, students were more likely to use library
sources if they attended training. The authors recommend that demonstrating
multiple databases should be covered in later sessions and more conceptual
information literacy instruction should be the first step. Librarians could teach the value of different
types of sources; connect the sources to the tools needed to locate and access
them; and demonstrate how to effectively evaluate sources. The authors
recommend further research to evaluate objectives, content and outcomes of this
type of library instruction.
Commentary
To date, several studies report that one-off
workshops, tailored to the needs of student groups, may result in the increased
use of specific databases (Rafferty, 2013; Van Epps, 2013). Similar to the
results of this article, these studies found that the educational interventions
used had a positive impact on student assignments. Current evidence is
insufficient to provide us with a systematic understanding of how library
instruction contributes to student-focused outcomes. The authors attempt to
tackle this issue. Heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of previous
library instruction sessions make them difficult to generalise to wider
populations.
Elements of the results section of the ReLIANT
(Reader’s guide to the Literature on Interventions Addressing the Need for
education and Training) instrument were used to critically appraise the study.
This is a tool generally used by library professionals for appraising published
reports of educational and training interventions.
The authors address an important question regarding
one-shot library sessions: how can they be designed to improve the standard of
student citations? Our knowledge of the impact of library instruction sessions
is largely based on small studies; however, these authors collected an adequate
sample size. They make important recommendations to focus more on information
literacy for students.
The study lacks baseline information and there are too
many unacknowledged variables. For example, we do not know the level of prior
experience students had with literature searching, database usage, or
additional training that might have impacted the quality of their portfolios.
This information would be a valuable addition, allowing readers to judge whether
the study could have external validity to other populations. While p-values are
given for outcomes, confidence intervals are not reported.
The researchers describe how they altered their
instruction as a result of their findings.
The researchers measured and recorded short-term
outcomes based on the bibliographies in the students’ portfolios. Therefore, it
is not possible to predict whether students continued to benefit from the
instruction in the long-term. The author concludes that the order of
demonstration of the databases in the session was the reason a high number of
students consulted the final database (OVC) more frequently. This reasoning
does not account for factors such as ease of use, accessibility, or relevance
to the assignments. In addition, the authors state that they made “numerous
assumptions” during the study and that the way they determined whether a
citation was a library or non-library resource was “highly subjective.” These
limitations undermine the overall research findings and conclusions. Therefore,
data reported in the study may not support the authors’ conclusions.
This article is significant to library and information
practice because it adds to the growing body of evidence that draws attention
to the limitations of one-shot library instruction sessions. It points to the
need to capture long-term learning outcomes. It highlights the lack of a
reporting guideline in this field which could improve the quality and
consistency between studies to facilitate comparison. The study demonstrates
the complex challenges related to making claims about the impact of library
instruction. Library and information professionals who are planning and
developing one-shot library instruction sessions should aim to prioritise active
learning and information literacy instruction over database demonstrations to
increase the potential depth of student learning and knowledge transfer.
References
Koufogiannakis, D., Booth, A., & Brettle, A. (2006). ReLIANT:
Reader’s guide to the literature on interventions addressing the need for
education and training. Library &
Information Research, 30(94), 44-51. Retrieved from http://www.lirgjournal.org.uk/lir/ojs/index.php/lir/article/view/271/318
Rafferty, R. S. (2013). The impact of library instruction: Do first-year
medical students use library resources specifically highlighted during
instructional sessions? Journal of the
Medical Library Association, 101(3),
213-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.011
Van Epps, A. & Nelson, M. S. (2013). One-shot or embedded? Assessing
different delivery timing for information resources relevant to assignments. Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 8(1), 4-18. Retrieved
from https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/18027/14854