Rethinking library instruction:

Meagan Lacy · Hsin‐Liang Chen

14 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Information Literacy

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Library Science and Information Literacy Information Retrieval and Search Behavior Web and Library Services

Abstract

Given the growing pressure on academic institutions and, by extension, academic libraries to establish student learning outcomes and demonstrate their impact on student learning, researchers at Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) explored how outcome-based instructional design can be used to 1) collect student data, 2) assess student learning, and 3) improve instruction. Two surveys were distributed to 59 undergraduate students who were enrolled in an introductory composition course at IUPUI. Because previous studies (e.g. Ford, Miller and Moss 2005) have linked human individual differences with web search strategy, the first survey collected information about the students’ demographic features. The second survey, a search log, collected information about the sources that students chose, the search terms they used and the strategies they employed in order to complete their research. The students submitted their first survey after the instructional session and the second survey after they completed their research project. Using this data, the researchers examined whether students’ achievement could be associated with their personal characteristics and/or the librarian’s instruction. In contrast to Ford, Miller and Moss’s study (2005), no significant relationships were found between students’ personal characteristics and their search behaviour. However, after receiving instruction, all students were able to create keywords and structure them into search queries using Boolean operators. These results suggest that outcome-based instructional design is an effective pedagogical method for gathering assessment data and that the survey instrument was a useful tool for assessing this outcome - by providing both a measurement of student learning and a means of evaluating the librarian’s instruction.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

References

2001A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing : a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives 2002A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview 1991Active learning : creating excitement in the classroom 1956Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals.1995Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers.2011What the Best College Teachers Do 1999Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning 1997The Seven Faces of Information Literacy

Cited by

2015Foregrounding the Research Log in Information Literacy Instruction 2022Understanding Academic Librarians' One-shot Instructional Design Process Via a Delphi Study 2023Embedded Librarians and Scaffolding for Remote Learning 2016Synthesizing Pedagogies and Engaging Students: Creating Blended eLearning Strategies for Library Research and Writing Instruction 2016Librarians Aren’t Born with Information Superpowers: Leveling the Playing Field for Incoming Library Science Graduate Students

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.