Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Journal)
Not a member yet
1552 research outputs found
Sort by
Assessing the Impact of Reference Assistance and Library Instruction on Retention and Grades Using Student Tracking Technology
No full textAbstract
Objective – To assess the impact of community college academic librarians upon student retention and grades through reference desk visits and attendance in library instruction classes.
Methods – Student ID data used for this research was collected from students that visited the reference desk to consult about a course-related question or attended a library instruction class for a specific course. After consenting to share their student ID number, the students’ IDs were scanned and uploaded to a Blackboard Analytics data warehouse. A Pyramid Analytics reporting tool was used to query and extract student-level retention and grade data based upon whether the student had visited the reference desk or attended a library instruction class. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to discern any statistical difference in retention rates and grades between students that engaged a librarian through reference or instruction and the general student population.
Results – When comparing fall-to-fall retention for all degree-seeking students, students that visited the reference desk or attended a library instruction class had a statistically higher rate of retention. When comparing fall-to-fall retention within low-retention student cohorts, students that visited the reference desk or attended a library instruction class had higher rates of retention among all low-retention cohorts. Eight of 10 cohorts were statistically higher for library instruction and 6 of 10 cohorts were statistically higher for reference visits. With respect to course grades, only 1 of 5 high enrollment courses showed a higher grade average for students that attended a library instruction class. None of the differences in average grades between students that attended a library instruction class and all students in the five courses were statistically significant. For the impact of a reference visit upon a course grade, all five courses showed a higher average grade average for students that visited the reference desk for a question related to their course than all students in the course. Four of the 5 differences were statistically significant.
Conclusions – The data collected by systematically tracking students that interact with community college librarians suggests that reference desk visits and attendance of library instruction classes both have a positive, statistically significant impact upon student retention. When looking at course grades, the data does not indicate a statistically significant positive or negative impact for library instruction. The impact of visiting the reference desk upon course grades does suggest a strong, statistically significant positive correlation
Information Literacy Skills of First-Year Library and Information Science Graduate Students: An Exploratory Study
No full textAbstract
Objective – This cross-sectional, descriptive study seeks to address a gap in knowledge of both information literacy (IL) self-efficacy and IL skills of students entering Louisiana State University’s Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) program.
Methods – An online survey testing both IL self-efficacy and skills was administered through Qualtrics. The online survey instrument used items from existing instruments (Beile, 2007; Michalak & Rysavy, 2016) and was distributed to two cohorts of incoming students; the first cohort entered the MLIS program in fall 2017, and the second entered in spring 2018.
Results – Data varied between cohorts and between survey instruments for both IL self-efficacy and skills; however, bivariate analysis of data indicated a moderate positive correlation between overall IL self-efficacy and demonstrated IL skill scores in both fall 2017 and spring 2018 cohorts.
Conclusion – The study indicates a need for a larger, multi-institutional study using a rigorously validated instrument to gather data and make generalizable inferences about the IL self-efficacy and skills of incoming LIS graduate students
LIS Students at a Japanese University Use Smartphones for Social Communication more often than for Educational Purposes
No full textA Review of:
Lau, K. P., Chiu, D. K. W., Ho, K. K. W., Lo, P., & See-To, E. W. K. (2017). Educational usage of mobile devices: Differences between postgraduate and undergraduate students. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(3), 201-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.03.004
Abstract
Objective – To discover how undergraduate (UG) and graduate (G; “postgraduate” [PG] in the original article) students of library and information science (LIS) use mobile devices and to understand preferences and perceived barriers to educational use.
Design – Survey questionnaire.
Setting – University in Japan.
Subjects – Ninety undergraduate students (30 male, 60 female) and 30 graduate students (13 male, 17 female). Nineteen additional recruits were excluded from the study due to incomplete surveys. Almost all subjects (>98%) were born between 1982 and 2002.
Methods – Subjects were recruited without incentives from one LIS department. An online survey was conducted with the purpose of gathering information on how often devices were used for various activities, perceived barriers to mobile learning (m-learning), and demographic data. The survey was modeled on a 2015 study of LIS students in Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan (Ko, Chiu, Lo, & Ho, 2015). The Mann-Whitley U test was used to investigate possible significant differences between UG and G responses.
Main Results – 94.2% of participants had smartphones with Internet access; both UG and G subjects reported weekly to daily use for social communications (email, short message service [SMS], chat, and social media) and for querying search engines. Both UG and G subjects reported using finance and banking services less than once a month. Other activities (shopping, finding locations, entertainment, sports, tools and productivity software, casual reading, academic reading, accessing reference materials, accessing libraries) for both groups fell within the range of less than once per month to weekly use. Unlike G subjects, UG subjects reported significant (p < 0.05) engagement with social media and marginal (p < 0.10) engagement with accessing libraries, and productivity tools.
In terms of educational use, neither UG nor G subjects reported daily m-learning behaviors, instead reporting monthly to weekly browsing of online information and social networking sites, with far less (i.e., less than once a month) engagement with professional articles, e-books, learning management platforms, and several other activities (listening to podcasts, viewing videos, “other”). UG subjects reported significant marginal (p < 0.10) engagement with “other” materials, unlike G subjects. Library catalogs and databases were less likely to be used when compared to reference sources, with UG and G subjects reporting monthly or less use for these. When asked if they would use mobile library services, respondents answered “maybe interested if available”, with UG subject reporting significant marginal (p < 0.10) engagement vs. G subjects for several of these services. Regarding productivity activities, both UG and G subjects reported monthly or less use of note taking, word processing, and scheduling tools. For communication and sharing activities, subjects reported monthly or less activity for communicating with classmates, using email for study-related issues, posting to discussions on learning management platforms, posting or commenting about their studies on social networking sites, sending photos or videos to social media, moving document files, and scanning Quick Response (QR) codes. UG subjects were marginally (p < 0.10) more engaged in communicating with classmates than G subjects.
Barriers to m-learning were not considered “high” barriers, with “low” to “medium” barriers for both UG and G subjects being small screen size, non-mobile format, difficulty typing, challenges with authentication, no Wi-Fi, difficulty reading, lack of specialized apps, and slow loading times.
Conclusion – This study provides a snapshot of how participants used mobile devices at the time the survey was conducted. Both UG and G subjects used their devices for social communication more than for educational purposes
Low Levels of Teacher Information Literacy Awareness and Collaboration Between Librarians and Teachers in Information Literacy Instruction
No full textA Review of:
McKeever, C., Bates, J., & Reilly, J. (2017). School library staff perspectives on teacher information literacy and collaboration. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2187
Abstract
Objective – Researchers sought to determine school library staff perspectives on the information literacy knowledge held by secondary school teachers, and teacher relationships with the library.
Design – Interviews analyzed with thematic and axial coding.
Setting – Secondary schools in Northern Ireland.
Subjects – 21 schools across Northern Ireland were selected as a sample, including urban, rural, integrated, grammar, and secondary schools. 16 schools ultimately participated.
Methods – Semi-structured interviews were conducted with one library staff member at each selected secondary school. Interview audio and notes were transcribed and coded thematically both manually by the researchers and using NVivo. Categories were identified by open coding, then relationships identified via axial coding.
Main Results – The majority (10 of 16) of library staff members interviewed expressed that they had not been asked about information literacy by teachers, and only one library staff member described a truly collaborative instructional relationship with teaching staff. The majority of staff expressed either that teachers were familiar with concepts related to information literacy but did not know the name for them, or, that they thought information literacy was entirely unfamiliar to teachers at their school. Staff frequently cited competing priorities (for example, standardized testing) and limited class time as potential causes for teachers not focusing on information literacy concepts.
Conclusion – Both cultural and policy changes need to be made in schools to prioritize information literacy as a core competency for both students and teachers. The researchers call for greater intra-school collaboration as a means to achieve this cultural change
Research Support Priorities of and Relationships among Librarians and Research Administrators: A Content Analysis of the Professional Literature
No full textAbstract
Objective - This research studied the recent literature of two professions, library and information studies (LIS) and research administration (RA), to map the priorities and concerns of each with regard to research support. Specifically, the research sought to answer these research questions: (1) What are the similarities and differences emerging from the LIS and RA literatures on research support? (2) How do librarians and research administrators understand and engage with each other’s activities through their professional literatures? (3) Do Whitchurch’s (2008a, 2008b, 2015) concepts of bounded-cross-boundary-unbounded professionals and theory of the “third space” provide a useful framework for understanding research support?
Methods - The research method was a content analysis of journal articles on research-related topics published in select journals in the LIS (n = 195) and RA (n = 95) fields from 2012-2017. The titles and abstracts of articles to be included were reviewed to guide the creation of thematic coding categories. The coded articles were then analyzed to characterize and compare the topics and concerns addressed by the literature of each profession.
Results - Only two (2.2%) RA articles referred to librarians and libraries in their exploration of research support topics, while six (3.1%) LIS articles referred to the research office or research administrators in a meaningful way. Of these six, two focused on undergraduate research programs, two on research data management, and two on scholarly communications. Thematic coding revealed five broad topics that appeared repeatedly in both bodies of literature: research funding, research impact, research methodologies, research infrastructure, and use of research. However, within these broad categories, the focus varied widely between the professions. There were also several topics that received considerable attention in the literature of one field without a major presence in that of the other, including research collaboration in the RA literature, and institutional repositories, research data management, citation analysis or bibliometrics, scholarly communication, and open access in the LIS literature.
Conclusion - This content analysis of the LIS and RA literature provided insight into the priorities and concerns of each profession with respect to research support. It found that, even in instances where the professions engaged on the same broad topics, they largely focused on different aspects of issues. The literature of each profession demonstrated little awareness of the activities and concerns of the other. In Whitchurch’s (2008a) taxonomy, librarians and research administrators are largely working as “bounded” professionals, with occasional forays into “cross-boundary” activities (p. 377). There is not yet evidence of “unbounded” professionalism or a move to a “third space” of research support activity involving these professions (Whitchurch, 2015, p. 85). Librarians and research administrators will benefit from a better understanding of the current research support landscape and new modes of working, like the third space, that could prove transformative
Terminology for Librarian Help on the Home Page
No full textA usability study was run to validate terminology (labels) for seeking librarians from the UTA Libraries homepage. Seven new labels were proposed by librarians. They hoped these labels would help users in finding them and discovering librarians various skills to meet users\u27 needs.
Students were presented with a paper prototype of the library\u27s homepage that included the seven proposed labels. They were asked to find information using two search goals as it related to seeking assistance from a librarian
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP) is Seeking an Editorial Intern
No full textNo abstract
A Survey of Provosts Indicates that Academic Libraries Should Connect Outcomes to University Goals
No full textA Review of:
Murray, A. & Ireland, A. (2018). Provosts’ perceptions of academic library value and preferences for communication: A national study. College & Research Libraries, 79(3), 336-365. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.3.336
Abstract
Objective – To understand how public and private university provosts understand and interpret the value of academic libraries.
Design – Electronic survey.
Setting – Public and private colleges and universities in the United States with Carnegie classifications of master’s (small), master’s (medium), master’s (large), doctoral/research (DRU), research (RU/H), and research very high (RU/VH).
Subjects – 209 provosts and chief academic officers.
Methods – The authors distributed the survey to a pool of 935 provosts and chief academic officers in academic institutions. Questions were organized toward understanding participants’ perceptions of their libraries’ involvement with issues of institutional importance inspired by the Association of College & Research Libraries’ Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report, and high impact educational practices (HIPs) based on the work of George Kuh (2008). The survey also asked participants to select their data preferences when making library funding allocation decisions and their library communication preferences when making funding decisions. The authors received 209 responses and analyzed the content using Qualtrics to determine the highest and lowest ranked responses to each question. In addition, responses for specific survey questions were cross tabulated with demographic information about the institution to identify any potential trends that conformed to or deviated from the overall set of responses. Chi squares were then calculated to determine potential significance.
Main Results – In terms of involvement with university initiatives, almost all of the 209 provosts and chief academic officers who responded to the survey had the perception that their respective libraries are either very involved or somewhat involved. The highest areas of involvement included: faculty research productivity (85.02%), accreditation (82.15%), student academic success (75%). and undergraduate retention (67.26%). Of note, only 9% of provosts indicated their libraries were very involved with enrollment. The authors found a trend that suggests that higher-enrollment institutions with a Carnegie ranking of doctoral/research, research, or research very high, increased provosts’ perceptions of their institutions’ libraries involvement in retention initiatives, student academic success, and faculty research productivity. A significant point of note: when asked why provosts did not view their institutions’ academic libraries as being involved in undergraduate retention initiatives, a significant number (76.12%) of respondents indicated that it was because the campuses overall did not recognize the role the libraries could play in retention initiatives. This position co-exists in an environment where the demographic, economic, and cultural transitions taking place in the United States are continuing to have a disruptive impact on higher education. Library directors need to make these connections much more tangible.
Utilizing Kuh’s (2008) 10 high-impact educational practices, the authors gauged the participants’ perception of their libraries’ involvement in educationally purposeful activities. They found that 84.43% of provosts perceived their libraries as highly involved with undergraduate research, 78.39% with first-year seminars/experiences, 77.38% with collaborative assignments and projects, 75.76% with writing-intensive courses, 71.34% with common intellectual experiences, and 69.64% with capstone courses/projects. Fewer provosts indicated that their libraries were involved in diversity and global learning, learning communities, service learning/community-based learning, or internships. A significant point of note: when asked if their institution’s library had an impact on students’ decisions to continue enrollment, opinion was divided. Of the total respondents, a combined total of 91 indicated yes, based on demonstrated evidence or anecdotal or suspected evidence, while 81 respondents indicated unclear or no. This suggests further work is required for libraries in terms of investigating the potential role they might play in enrollment and how to demonstrate such.
The authors also asked participants to indicate their opinion on the level of influence 11 different data types would have on a moderate (non-capital) funding request for the library. In terms of highest influence, 72.02% indicated they would like to see correlations linking the use of library services/resources with student success, 66.07% with undergraduate retention, and 56.55% with enrollment. Of moderate influence, 57.14% indicated they would like to see library usage data, 55.36% user satisfaction data, and 50% focus groups or other qualitative data. A total of 60% of the provosts also indicated that anecdotal evidence had a low influence on their funding allocations. Most provosts preferred the information to be communicated in a formal annual report, and indicated that the report should include information literacy student learning outcomes (SLOs) (50.9%), user satisfaction data (46.11%), correlations with faculty productivity (45.45%), correlations with student success (44.91%), correlations with undergraduate retention (43.11%), correlations with enrollment (42.51%), basic use data (40.12%), and faculty feedback (39.1%).
Conclusion – Most provosts have an understanding that their libraries play an important role on campus, but demonstrating a strong connection to university goals and outcomes is essential. When seeking funding, academic library administrators should focus on projects or initiatives that support the priorities of the institution as a whole, and work to communicate evidence of the value of library services and resources within this context. This is achieved through communication channels that are both timely and relevant, and include a formal annual report or a dedicated budget meeting