A Web-based Tutorial May Produce the Same Cognitive Outcomes as Face to Face Instruction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A review of: Beile, Penny M. and David N. Boote. “Does the Medium Matter?: A Comparison of a Web-Based Tutorial with Face-to-Face Library Instruction on Education Students’ Self-Efficacy Levels and Learning Outcomes.” Research Strategies 20 (2004): 57-68. Objective – To determine whether library skills self-efficacy levels and learning outcomes of postgraduate education students varied with different instructional delivery methods, specifically Web-based or face to face. Design – Pre- and post-intervention survey comparing three groups receiving different types of instruction. Setting – Department of Educational Studies at a large U.S. urban university. Subjects – Forty-nine masters, doctoral, and certificate-seeking education students enrolled in one of three sections of a research methods course. There were 40 female and 9 male students. Methods – Immediately before receiving library instruction, the three student groups were asked to complete a library skills self-efficacy questionnaire, comprising 30 items designed to measure students’ perceptions of their ability to successfully perform library research. They also completed a library skills test, consisting of 20 multiple choice questions, designed to assess conceptual knowledge, knowledge of database searching, and institution-specific knowledge. The intervention groups were: Group 1 (Sixteen students) – an on-campus class that received a face to face instruction session comprised of a 70-minute demonstration of key library databases followed by an activity that allowed students to practice their skills. Group 2 (Nineteen students) – an on-campus class that received a Web-based tutorial comprised of four interactive modules, requiring an average 80 minutes to complete. Group 3 (Nineteen students) - a Web-based class that received the same Web-based tutorial as Group 2. The survey and test were repeated six weeks after the instruction. Main results – Both self-efficacy scores and library skills test scores increased for all three groups post-intervention. Average self-efficacy levels increased from a mean of 68.88 (SD=19.92) to a mean of 91.90 (SD=16.24); library skills scores increased from an average score of 58.78 (SD=13.80) to an average of 73.16 (SD=12.65). There was no statistically significant difference between the post- intervention scores of the three groups on the library skills test. However, the Web-based students in Group 3 showed a statistically significant greater increase in self-efficacy score (78.86 to 102.36) when compared with Group 2 participants (64.74 to 83.68). Conclusion – The study provides evidence that library instruction is effective in increasing both skill levels and self-efficacy levels. It does not give a clear indication of the relative value of different modes of delivery, but it does support the contention that Web-based tutorials are at least as effective as face to face sessions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,022 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».