A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Presentation Formats for Instruction: Teaching First-Year Students

Abstract

First-year experience (FYE) programs offer librarians opportunities to teach new students in a comprehensive fashion. However, large FYE programs can place demands on user education programs that are dif ficult to meet. Instruction librarians at the University at Albany sought to address this dilemma by developing a Web-based instructional module for one class session. The module was used by a segment of students in the Project Renaissance FYE program, whereas another segment re ceived instruction by a librarian. The effectiveness of the two instruc tional methods was compared using pre-and post-tests, and was found to be equal. Analysis of the test scores also showed that instruction, regardless of format, makes a significant difference (p < .05) in the num ber of correct test answers.he User Education Program at the University Library, Univer sity at Albany, SUNY, has worked with and supported the university's curriculum in a variety of ways over the past two decades. Dur ing most of the 1980s, librarians were able to teach all students who took a required English 100 course, but when that course was eliminated during the 1987-1988 aca demic year, the program had to redefine itself and its role. The beginning of the 1990s was a time of great change in elec tronic resources. CD-ROMs were new and attractive to users, and provided a novel approach for reaching patrons. To help students learn how to use new elec tronic resources effectively, an electronic information class program was initiated, following the model developed at the University of Texas-Austin. To keep pace with the technological developments of the 1990s, these classes have coexisted with course-related instruction and have provided an opportunity to reach stu dents who did not come to the library with their classes. Although course-re

The Librarian, the Machine, or a Little of Both: A Comparative Study of Three Information Literacy Pedagogies at Oakland University

“…One concern of librarians and teaching faculty alike is the fact that CAI tends to reduce personal contact time between student and librarian. 13 Students may also lose the chance to connect with "the physical and social space of the library. "…”

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

“…The authors concluded that CAI, although timeconsuming and expensive, was a worthwhile endeavor and likely alternative to conducting face-to-face library instruction. This research was supported a few years later by Germain, Jacobson, and Kaczor (2000) who found that their web-based instructional model improved students' library skills as effectively as in-person library instruction. While academic librarians continued to embrace online methods of instruction, Australian librarians at Deakin University published an article comparing faceto-face with standalone and meditated tutorials (Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002).…”

“…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?…”

“…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.…”

“…Shortly thereafter, Archambault (2011) analyzed student artifacts created from different methods of instruction and found that students performed better with CAI alone than with combined in-person and CAI instruction. Continuing the trend, Walton and Hepworth (2012) Kaplowitz and Contini (1998) with 423 students and Germain et al (2000) with 303 students. These smaller sample sizes are of concern, especially when comparing multiple interventions, as their size often affects the study's power to detect statistical significance as well as external validity.…”