Purpose To test the belief that only experienced librarians can effectively teach bibliographic instruction, and compare the effectiveness of active learning methods versus usual practice. Design/methodology/approach Undergraduate learning was quantitatively measured using a pre‐ and post‐assessment instrument. Two groups of library instructors, degreed librarians and graduate Library Science students participated, reporting the percentage of scripted, active‐learning instruction techniques used in classes. Findings There was no significant difference in undergraduate learning gains, regardless of instructor type. However, all library instructors using at least 80 percent of the scripted, active‐learning techniques showed more undergraduate learning than those instructors who did not use as many active learning techniques. In addition, undergraduate assessment showed few learning gains after participation in two library instruction sessions. Research limitations/implications An exclusively female undergraduate population was studied. Practical implications It is not the experience of the teacher, but rather the teaching methods used that increase student learning, indicating the need for continuing professional development in this area. Additionally, two library instruction sessions, even when integrated into a course, show few student learning gains. Consequently, other instructional approaches must be considered. Originality/value Effective library instructors will be those who integrate active learning methods into their practice. Experience does not equal effectiveness.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.