Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Journal)
Not a member yet
1552 research outputs found
Sort by
Information Literacy (IL) Intervention Workshop has Positive, but Limited, Effects on Undergraduate Students’ IL Skills
No full textA Review of:
Gross, M. & Latham, D. (2013). Addressing below proficient information literacy skills: Evaluating the efficacy of an evidence-based educational intervention. Library & Information Science Research, 35(3), 181-190.
Objective – To evaluate the impact of an educational intervention workshop on students’ information literacy (IL) skills and self-perception of their own IL knowledge.
Design – Quasi-experimental design with control groups and semi-structured interviews.
Setting – Two community colleges in the United States of America, one in a rural setting and one in an urban setting.
Subjects – Ninety-two students enrolled in an entry-level English course, who scored below proficiency (65%) on the Information Literacy Test (ILT).
Methods – One hundred students from each college took the pre-session ILT and an IL self-assessment survey at the beginning of the Spring 2011 semester. The ILT used was developed and validated by James Madison University (Wise, Cameron, Yang, & Davis, n.d.) and measures understanding of all the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards (ACRL, 2000, pp. 2-3) except Standard 4. For motivation, students each received 50. Those who scored below the ILT proficiency level of 65% were invited to participate in the quasi-experiment.
Forty-nine participants were assigned to the workshop group and 43 to the control group. The two groups were comparable in demographic characteristics, prior IL learning, and ILT scores. Those in the workshop group were ask to attend one of five workshops designed around the Analyze, Search, Evaluate (ASE) process model for IL interventions (Gross, Armstrong, & Latham, 2012). The workshops were offered on both campuses and taught by the same instruction librarian.
The workshop participants completed questionnaires, which included a second ILT, self-assessment, and ASE-based questions, before and after the IL workshops. Each workshop participant received 20. The same $50 incentive was offered to both groups. Two weeks after the workshops, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 30 participants to analyze their learning experiences.
Results – Participants’ self-assessment of IL skills showed significant downgrading after they took the ILT for the first time. This downward calibration held true for both the control (t (41) = 4.077, p < 0.004) and the workshop (t (45) = 4.149, p < 0.000) groups. Subsequent self-ratings from the control group showed this downward recalibration of self-assessment was sustained over time.
For participants in the workshop group, their average self-rating of IL ability rose from a pre-ASE workshop rating of 2.79 out of a maximum score of 5, to a post-workshop rating of 3.83. However, the same participants’ post-workshop ILT scores did not show any significant improvement. Attending the ASE workshop did not help participants to achieve the “proficient” IL skill level (an ILT score of 65% or higher).
Nonetheless, the workshop group’s performance on the ASE focused questions, also administered pre- and post-session, indicated that participants did gain some IL skills during the workshop. On the ASE questions, which had a maximum score of 25 points, the workshop group’s average score increased from 10.62, pre-session to 13.40, post-session, while the control group had an average score of 10.91 pre-session and 10.77 post-session.
In the follow-up interviews, most participants reviewed the workshop positively and felt that their peers would benefit from attending. However, the skills participants reported learning primarily focused on the Search stage of the ASE model, such as exact phrase, truncation, and the advanced search options in Google.
Conclusion – This quasi-experiment examined the impact of a one-hour ASE model-based workshop on first-year English students with below-proficiency IL skill levels. Self-assessment ratings indicated that workshop attendance increased students’ confidence in their skill level, although this upward recalibration of self-view significantly overestimated participants’ actual skill gain. Pre- and post-test questionnaires indicated that, while students did gain some new IL knowledge, attending the workshop was insufficient to improve their IL skill to the proficient level
Newcastle Libraries’ Evaluation Strategy: Evidence Based Practice in Challenging Times
No full textNo abstract
UK Library and Information Science Research is Having a Significant Influence on Research in Other Subject Disciplines
No full textObjective – To quantify the value of librarianship and information science (LIS) exports knowledge to other subject disciplines.
Design – Bibliometric study.
Setting – LIS departments in U.K. universities.
Subjects – 232 LIS research articles published between 2001 and 2007.
Methods – Data from the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise were checked to identify 405 research articles submitted by 10 selected university departments (out of a total of 21), which submitted research in the LIS category. The Web of Science database was then searched to see how many of these articles had been cited in other articles (n=232). If the citing article was published in a non-LIS journal it was considered a knowledge export. Journals were defined as non-LIS if they had not been assigned the subject category of Information Science & Library Science by the Journal of Citation Reports. The journal Impact Factors (IFs) of citing journals were then normalized to measure the value of individual knowledge exports to their respective subject disciplines. This was done by comparing a citing journal’s IF with the median journal IF within that subject category. If the citing journal’s IF was above this median it was considered to be a valuable knowledge export.
Main Results – The sample of LIS research articles produced a total of 1,061 knowledge exports in 444 unique non-LIS journals. These non-LIS journals covered 146 unique subject categories of which those related to computer science and chemistry/pharmacology cited LIS research with the greatest frequency. Just over three-quarters (n=798) of these citations were considered to be valuable knowledge exports. A sub-analysis showed that LIS articles published in non-LIS journals were significantly more valuable than the knowledge exports published in LIS journals.
Conclusion – The validity of bibliometric studies can be improved by adopting the two methodological innovations presented in this study. The first innovation is to avoid over-estimating the number of knowledge exports by discounting “part exports” (i.e., where the citing journal is assigned to multiple subject categories, one of which includes the same as that of the cited reference). The second innovation introduced by this study is to add an extra dimension to the analysis by measuring the value of each knowledge export by taking into account the “normalized” impact factor of citing journals
First Year Medical Students Use Library Resources Emphasized During Instruction Sessions
No full textObjective – To determine if library instruction has an effect on resources cited in student reports.
Design – Citation analysis.
Setting – The study took place in the medical school of a large American university.
Subjects - One hundred eighteen of 120 first-year medical student reports were analyzed. Two reports did not include any works cited and were excluded from the study.
Methods - Over the course of 3 years, 15 20-minute library instruction sessions were conducted. The sessions, based on five clinical cases presented each year were conducted approximately two weeks before each report due date. Eighty-five case-specific resources were demonstrated, with teaching plans being modified from year to year based on the frequency of citation of a particular resource cited the prior year. A LibGuide online course guide also directed students to specific resources shown in the class, with content updated every year based on citation trends from the previous year. Every citation referenced in a report was then categorized into a) those that were discussed during an instruction session, b) those found on a course guide, c) those accessible through the library, d) those available from course material (i.e., PowerPoint presentation, lecture notes), or e) those which did not fall under any of the other categories. A citation could be included in multiple categories.
Main Results – The 118 reports included 2983 citations. Over the 3 year period, an average of 77.51% of all citations were from library resources, 49.55% of the citations from a resource demonstrated in the class, and 21.68% from resources found in the course guide. Although citations from sources discussed in class did not increase significantly from year to year, the percent of citations from resources on the course guide significantly increased from 19.40% to 25.63%.
Conclusion – Medical students cite library resources emphasized during instruction sessions
Critical Thinking Exercises in the Classroom are Helpful but not Sufficient for Improving Critical Thinking Test Scores
No full textA Review of:
Wallace, E. D., & Jefferson, R. N. (2013). Developing Critical Thinking Skills For Information Seeking Success. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19(3): 246-255.
Objective – To determine whether a series of workbook exercises contributed to improved critical thinking test scores.
Design – Post-test design with a quasi-experimental control group.
Setting – Military college in the United States of America.
Subjects – 76 undergraduates enrolled in a required freshman orientation seminar.
Methods – Approximately one third of the enrolled participants (n=26) were provided with a copy of the book Critical Thinking: Building the Basics. A subset of exercises was completed independently over three to four class sessions during the first three weeks of the semester. The control group (n=50) did not receive any critical skills thinking instruction. The iCritical Thinking Skills Test, an online exam provided by Educational Testing Service (ETS), was administered to both groups during a class session. The exam consists of 7 types of tasks: define, access, evaluate, manage, integrate, create, communicate, evaluated using 14 tasks based on real-world scenarios.
Main Results – Approximately 20% (15) of all students passed the test, 9 from the intervention group and 6 from the control group. Significant differences were detected between the groups on the Integrate and Manage subtests. The range for individual subtests and total scores was wide. Scores for two of the seven subtests, Create and Evaluate, showed the greatest amount of variability; the Communicate subtest scores had the least.
Conclusion – Limitations of the study include potential motivational differences between the groups. Students who completed workbook exercises appeared to be motivated to do well on the test, while those who did not seemed less motivated. The effectiveness of exercises in developing critical thinking skills in this study will persuade administrators to consider using such exercises in the classroom
Editors View the Continuous Publication Model as a Satisfactory Alternative for Open Access LIS Journals
No full textA Review of:
Cirasella, J., & Bowdoin, S. (2013). Just roll with it? Rolling volumes vs. discrete issues in open access library and information science journals. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1086
Abstract
Objective – To understand the prevalence of, motivations for, and satisfaction with using a rolling-volume publishing model, as opposed to publishing discrete issues, across open access academic journals in library and information science.
Design – A 12 question survey questionnaire.
Setting – English-language, open access library and information science (LIS) journals published in the United States of America.
Subjects – A total of 21 open access LIS journals identified via the Directory of Open Access Journals that were actively publishing, and that also met the authors’ standard of scholarliness, which they established by identifying a journal’s peer-review process or other evidence of rigorous review. Based on responses, 12 journals published using discrete issues, while 9 published as rolling volumes or as rolling volumes with some discrete issues.
Methods – In late 2011, the study’s authors invited lead editors or primary journal contacts to complete the survey. Survey participants were asked to identify whether their journal published in discrete issues, rolling volumes, or rolling volumes with occasional discrete issues, with the latter two categories combined as one for ease of results analysis. Survey logic split respondents into two groups, either discrete-issue or rolling-volume. Respondents in both categories were posed similar sets of questions, with the key difference being that the questions directed at each category accounted for the publication model the journals themselves identified as using. Editors from both groups were asked about the reasons for using the publication model they identified for their journal: within the survey tool, authors provided 16 potential reasons for using a discrete-issue model, and 13 potential reasons for using a rolling-volume model. Respondents from both groups were asked to mark all reasons that applied for their respective journals. The survey also included questions about whether the journal had ever used the alternate publishing model, the editor’s satisfaction with their current model, and the likelihood of the journal switching to the alternate publishing model in the foreseeable future.
Main Results – The authors collected complete responses from 21 of the original 29 journals invited to participate in the study, a response rate of 72%. For the 12 journals that identified as using discrete issues, ease of production workflow (91.7%), clear production deadlines (75.0%), and journal publicity and promotion (75.0%) were the three most common reasons for using a discrete-issue model. For the nine journals using rolling volumes, improved production workflow (77.8%), decreased dependence on production deadlines (77.8%), and increased speed of research dissemination (66.7%) were the three most common reasons cited for using a rolling-volume model.
Findings show that overall satisfaction with a journal’s particular publication model was a common factor regardless of publishing model in use, though only the rolling-volume editors unanimously reported being very satisfied with their model. This high satisfaction rate is reflected in editors’ positions that they were very unlikely to switch away from the rolling-volume method. While a majority of editors of discrete-issue journals also reported being very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their current model, the mixed responses to whether they would contemplate switching to the alternate model suggests that awareness of the benefits of rolling-volume publishing is increasing.
Conclusion – Researchers discovered a greater incidence of rolling-volume model journals with open access LIS journals than anticipated, suggesting that this is an area where additional research is necessary. The relative newness of the rolling-volume model may be a contributing factor to the high satisfaction rate among editors of journals using this model, as journal editors are likely to be more deliberate in selecting this model over the traditional discrete-issue publishing model. Workflow and production practices were identified as key characteristics for selecting a publishing model regardless of the model selected, and therefore this is another area in need of further investigation