Assessment of Online Information Literacy Learning Objects For First Year Community College English Composition

Abstract

Objective -The main objective was to determine whether information literacy (IL) learning objects (LOs) impact student IL competency, specifically in a foundational first year English composition course. The primary research question was: What is the effectiveness of IL LOs compared to face-to-face instruction in terms of students' skill acquisition?Methods -The methods involved testing student IL competency through a multiple-choice test given pre-and post-IL intervention. Effectiveness was measured by assessing whether IL competency improves after exposure to one of two interventions: online IL LOs or face-to-face librarian-led workshop. Over two semesters, equal sections of the course were tested for each of these interventions. For the IL LOs group, students first completed a pre-test, then they worked independently through three online IL LOs. The three IL LOs were videos comprised of animation, screen casting, and video capture on these topics: Finding Articles at Seneca Libraries (hereafter referred to as Finding Articles), Finding Articles on Current Issues, and Popular and Scholarly Sources. The students were then given the same test again. For the face-to-face group, the pre-and post-tests were also required for the same number of sections. This study was conducted under institutional ethics approval.Results -Descriptive analysis revealed student test scores increased for both interventions, IL LOs and face-to-face. Test scores increased, on average, between 14 to 37%. In comparing posttests, results revealed a statistically significant difference only with the first topic, Finding Articles. In this case, the IL LOs (video) group outperformed the face-to-face group by at least 10%. No significance, in terms of performance from pre-and post-test scores, was found for the other two topics.Conclusion -Both IL LO and face-to-face library led workshop interventions had a positive impact on students' IL skill acquisition as evidenced by an overall increase in average test Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2016, 11.2 52 scores. One IL LO on Finding Articles significantly outperformed the face-to-face class equivalent. Further study is needed to track individual student performance.

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

“…Of the remaining seven studies, three were based in the U.K. (Brettle & Raynor, 2013;Walton & Hepworth, 2012;Swain et al, 2015 unpub. ), two in Australia (Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002;Salisbury & Ellis, 2003), one in Canada (Bordignon et al, 2016) and one in the Czech Republic (Kratochvil, 2014).…”

“…Only two studies carried out formal validity testing (Brettle & Raynor, 2013;Mery et al, 2012a) with a further five piloting the test before use (Bordignon et al 2016;Burhanna et al, 2008;Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002;Kratochvil, 2014;Swain et al, 2015 unpub.). Finally, one study used a predetermined rubric for marking (Goates et al, 2016).…”

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

“…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. Most recently in the literature, Bordignon et al (2016) conducted a controlled study comparing students' information literacy skills in response to online IL learning objects and face-to-face workshops. Their sample (N = 110) was comprised of 75 students during Spring semester and 35 students the subsequent Fall term.…”

“…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.…”

Contribution to the authoring, distribution, evaluation and integration of learning objects

“…More studies can be found in the literature reporting on consistent findings of the use of Learning Objects in primary education [15]- [17], secondary education [15], [16], [18] and higher education [19]- [23]. It is also worth pointing out that some studies did not found significant difference between the performance of students taught using Learning Objects and those students taught with traditional methods [203]- [206]. Nevertheless, in general, these studies found that using Learning Objects is at least as effective as traditional learning.…”