A Web-based Tutorial May Produce the Same Cognitive Outcomes as Face to Face Instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".