Measuring the impact of information literacy e-learning and in-class courses via pre-tests and post-test at the Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University

Kratochvíl, Jiří Measuring the impact of information literacy e-learning and in-class courses via pre-tests and post-test at the Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University. MEFANET Journal, 2014, vol. 2, n. 2, pp. 41-50. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[img]
Preview
 Text (Original article)
mj-03140210.pdf - Published version
Download (260kB) | Preview

English abstract

Introduction: This paper aims to evaluate the results of the assessment and comparison of the impact of information literacy in e-learning and in-class courses at the Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Czech Republic. The objective herein is to show that e-learning can be as effective a method of teaching IL activities as in-class lessons. Methods: In the autumn of 2012 and the spring of 2013, a total of 159 medical students enrolled in the e-learning course and completed the required pre-tests and post-tests comprising 30 multiple-choice questions on information literacy topics; another 92 PhD students from in-class courses took the 22-question test. The pre-test and post-test scores along with the number of students who correctly answered the questions were counted and the overall percentage was calculated. The final outcome was the extent of knowledge increase and the number of students with correct answers, expressed in percentage. Results: On average, 95.5% and 92.5% increase in knowledge was recorded among the medical students and PhD students respectively; an average of 4.5% medical students and 7.5% of PhD students recorded low scores in the post-test. As for the number of correct answers, the average results of the 22 set questions shared among the study groups were as follows: 15 questions were answered correctly more often by medical students, 6 were answered correctly more often by PhD students and only 1 question was correctly answered in the same average percentage by both the groups. Discussion: The results point to the need for proposing several key revisions. Among these include an exercise to be included in both curricula on online search for an article (Web of Science or Scopus) without full text availability via link service, while instructions on manually creating bibliographic references shall be added to the PhD course. Additional search examples shall be added to the study materials and video records of in-class lessons shall be made available to the students for later revision. Some test questions require revision so that they are based more on practical examples rather than mere definitions. The results thus assembled, and the follow-up discussion, can then help in convincing the advocates of in-class teaching of the beneficial application of e-learning in information literacy education. Additionally, arguments based on such convincing outcomes can assist other librarians in their assessments and will serve to persuade the associated academic staff of similar professional competence towards educating university students in information literacy.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Czech Republic; educational measurement; e-learning; information literacy; libraries; medical schools; teaching
Subjects: C. Users, literacy and reading. > CE. Literacy.
G. Industry, profession and education. > GH. Education.
Depositing user: Jiří Kratochvíl
Date deposited: 02 Mar 2017 10:46
Last modified: 02 Mar 2017 10:46
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/30950

References

1. Pinto M, Cordon JA, Diaz RG. Thirty years of information literacy (1977-2007): A terminological, conceptual and statistical analysis. J Lib Inf Sci 2010; 42(1): 3-19.

2. Bailey P, Derbyshire J, Harding A, Middleton A, Rayson K, Syson L. Assessing the impact of a study skills programme on the academic development of nursing diploma students at Northumbria University, UK. Health Info Libr J 2007; 24(Suppl. 1): 77-85.

3. Barnard A, Nash R, O’Brien M. Information literacy: Developing lifelong skills through nursing education. J Nurs Educ 2005; 44(11): 505-510.

4. Childs S, Blenkinsopp E, Hall A, Walton G. Effective e-learning for health professionals and students - barriers and their solutions. A systematic review of the literature - findings from the HeXL project. Health Info Libr J 2005; 22(Suppl. 2): 20-32.

5. Craig A, Corrall S. Making a difference? Measuring the impact of an information literacy programme for pre-registration nursing students in the UK. Health Info Libr J 2007; 24(2): 118-127.

6. Horton FW. Overview of Information Literacy Resources Worldwide. [Online] UNESCO: Paris 2013 [cited Aug 12, 2013]: 64-69. ISBN 978-92-3-001131-4 . Available at WWW: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002196/219667e.pdf.

7. Emmett A, Emde J. Assessing information literacy skills using the ACRL standards as a guide. Ref Serv Rev 2007; 35(2): 210-229.

8. Hsieh ML, Holden HA. The effectiveness of a university’s single-session information literacy instruction. Ref Serv Rev 2010; 38(3): 458-473.

9. Nichols J, Shaffer B, Shockey K. Changing the face of instruction: Is online or in-class more effective? Coll Res Lib 2003; 64(5): 378-388.

10. Salisbury F, Ellis J. Online and face-to-face: Evaluating methods for teaching information literacy skills to undergraduate arts students. Lib Rev 2003; 52(5): 209-217.

11. Shaffer BA. Graduate student library research skills: Is online instruction effective? J Lib Inf Serv Distan Learn 2011; 5(1-2): 35-55.

12. Whitehurst A. Information literacy and global readiness: Library involvement can make a world of difference. Behav Soc Sci Lib 2010; 29(3): 207-232.

13. American Educational Research Association. Standardy pro pedagogické a psychologické testování. Testcentrum: Praha 2001.

14. American Library Association. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. [Online] Association of College & Research Libraries: Chicago 2000. Available at WWW: http://www.ala.org/acrl/files/standards/standards.pdf.

15. Association of Libraries of Czech Universities. Information Education Strategy at Universities in the Czech Republic: Reference Document of the Association of Libraries of Czech Universities. [Online]. Available at WWW: http://www.ivig.cz/en-koncepce.pdf.

16. Kratochvíl J, Sejk P. Získávání a zpracování vědeckých informací: pracovní sešit. Masarykova univerzita: Brno 2011.

17. Kratochvíl J. Evaluation of e-learning course, Information Literacy, for medical students. Electron Lib 2013; 31(1): 55-69.

18. Blanchett H, Powis C, Webb J. A Guide to Teaching Information Literacy: 101 Practical Tips. Facet: London 2012.

19. Walsh A. Information literacy assessment: Where do we start? J Lib Inf Sci 2009; 41(1): 19-28.

20. Mackey TP, Jacobson TE (eds). Collaborative Information Literacy Assessments: Strategies for Evaluating Teaching and Learning. Facet Publishing: London 2010.

21. Mulherrin EA, Abdul-Hamid H. The evolution of a testing tool for measuring undergraduate information literacy skills in the online environment. Commun Inf Lit 2009; 3(2): 204-215.

22. O’Neil CA, Fisher CA. Assessment and Evaluation of Online Learning. In: O’Neil CA, Fisher CA, Newbold SK (eds). Developing Online Learning Environments in Nursing Education. [Online] Springer Publishing Company: New York 2009 [cited Aug 13, 2013]. Available at WWW: site.ebrary.com/lib/masaryk/docDetail.action?docID=10265302&p00.

23. Radcliff CJ, Jensen ML, Salem JA, Burhanna KJ, Gedeon JA. A Practical Guide To Information Literacy Assessment For Academic Librarians. Libraries Unlimited: Westport 2007.

24. Schilling K, Applegate R. Best methods for evaluating educational impact: A comparison of the efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction. J Med Libr Assoc 2012; 100(4): 258-269.

25. O’Connor LG, Radcliff CJ, Gedeon JA. Applying systems design and item response theory to the problem of measuring information literacy skills. Coll Res Lib 2002; 63(6): 528-543.

26. Staley SM, Branch NA, Hewitt TL. Standardised library instruction assessment: An institution-specific approach. Inf Res 2010; 15(3): 436.

27. Hodgens C, Sendall MC, Evans L. Post-graduate health promotion students assess their information literacy. Ref Serv Rev 2012; 40(3): 408-422.

28. Conway K. How prepared are students for postgraduate study? A comparison of the information literacy skills of commencing undergraduate and postgraduate information studies students at Curtin University. Aust Acad Res Lib 2011; 42(2): 121-135.

29. Jackson PA. Plagiarism instruction online: Assessing undergraduate students’ ability to avoid plagiarism. Coll Res Lib 2006; 67(5): 418-428.

30. Byerly G, Downey A, Ramin L. Footholds and foundations: Setting freshmen on the path to lifelong learning. Ref Serv Rev 2006; 34(4): 589-598.

31. Zoellner K, Samson S, Hines S. Continuing assessment of library instruction to undergraduates: A general education course survey research project. Coll Res Lib 2008; 69(4): 370-383.

32. Stec EM. Using best practices: librarians, graduate students and instruction. Reference Services Review. 2006; 34(1): 97-116.

33. Tancheva K, Andrews C, Steinhart G. Library instruction assessment in academic libraries. Public Serv Q 2007;3(1-2): 29-56.

34. Beile PM, Boote DN. Does the medium matter?: A comparison of a Web-based tutorial with face-to-face library instruction on education students’ self-efficacy levels and learning outcomes. Res Strateg 2004; 20(1): 57-68.

35. Anderson K, May FA. Does the method of instruction matter? An experimental examination of information literacy instruction in the online, blended, and face-to-face classrooms. J Acad Librarianship 2010; 36(6): 495-500.

36. Kraemer EW, Lombardo SV, Lepkowski FJ. The librarian, the machine, or a little of both: A comparative study of three information literacy pedagogies at Oakland University. Coll Res Lib 2007; 68(4): 330-342.

37. Silver SL, Nickel LT. Are online tutorials effective? A comparison of online and classroom library instruction methods. Res Strateg 2005; 20(4): 389-396.

38. Orme WA. A study of the residual impact of the Texas information literacy tutorial on the information-seeking ability of first year college students. Coll Res Lib 2004; 65(3): 205-215.

39. Mery Y, Newby J, Peng K. Why one-shot information literacy sessions are not the future of instruction: A case for online credit courses. Coll Res Lib 2012; 73(4): 366-377.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS