Efficiency of e-learning in an information literacy course for medical students at the Masaryk University

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to argue that e-learning can be a viable alternative teaching method for information literacy according to a comparison of librarian’s time spent on face-to-face teaching with tutoring the e-learning course, average time spent in a week on learning by the students, time flexibility of e-learning, students’ satisfaction with e-learning and students’ ability to gain practical skills and theoretical knowledge through e-learning. Design/methodology/approach – Satisfaction of medical students with e-learning and their average weekly time spent learning were assessed through surveys designed in Google Documents. Weekly time spent by students learning in class and the number of the librarian's teaching hours were set by the university schedule, and time spent on tutoring e-learning was measured. Details of accesses to study materials and submission of tasks as well as exam results were collected from Masaryk University Learning Management System. Findings – In 2011, 50 per cent less time was expended on tutoring e-learning than time spent with the same number of students in the previous three years in the classroom. One-third of the students learned for more hours a week through e-learning than students in class. No significant difference in gained theoretical knowledge between these students was found. On average, 90 per cent of tasks submitted to e-learning were correct the first time. e-learning was appreciated by the students for its time (93 per cent) and space (83 per cent) flexibility, the online materials (62 per cent) and self-managing learning time (55 per cent). Details of access to the study materials confirmed time flexibility. Originality/value – Due to time saved and considering the lack of any significant difference in the knowledge gained by students, e-learning can be a viable alternative teaching method for information literacy.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.