MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107369670 · doi:10.18438/b8wc8n

No Pedagogical Advantage Found Between LibGuides and Other Web Page Information Literacy Tutorials

2015· article· en· W2107369670 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kimberly Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation literacyPsychologyLiteracyWeb pageMedical educationLibrary scienceMathematics educationWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of:
 Bowen, A. (2014). LibGuides and web-based library guides in comparison: Is there a pedagogical advantage? Journal of Web Librarianship, 8(2), 147-171. doi:10.1080/19322909.2014.903709
 
 Abstract
 
 Objective – This study compares two versions of an online information literacy tutorial – one built with Springshare’s LibGuides and one built as a series of web pages – in order to determine if either platform provides a pedagogical advantage in delivering online instruction.
 
 Design – Experimental, posttest only.
 
 Setting – Large, public, primarily undergraduate four-year university in the Western United States of America with 16,000 full time equivalent student enrollment.
 
 Subjects – The sample consists of 812 students enrolled in 25 sections of a 100-level Communications Studies course. Of those students, 89 responded to the study’s posttest survey (11% response rate). 
 
 Of the 89 respondents, 53 viewed the LibGuide tutorial: 12 respondents were male, 33 respondents were female, and 8 respondents did not report their gender. Of the 53 LibGuide participants, 47 responded to other demographic questions, and were primarily 18-20 years old (94%), first-year students (79%), and non-Communication Studies majors (91%).
 
 The remaining 36 respondents viewed the web page tutorial: 7 respondents were male, 25 respondents were female, and 4 did not report their gender. Of the 32 respondents that provided demographic information, all participants were 18-20 years old, 31 of 32 were first-year students, and the majority were non-Communication Studies majors (78%).
 
 Methods – Students completed an online tutorial designed to teach them information literacy skills necessary to find resources for a class debate. Each section was randomly assigned to one of two information literacy tutorials: 12 sections viewed a tutorial built with LibGuides and 13 sections viewed a web page tutorial. The two tutorials included identical instructional content and worksheet. Each of the tutorials’ six sections were tied to the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. A seventh section in both tutorials administered a voluntary survey. Six knowledge-based survey questions tested students’ abilities on the six skills covered in the tutorials. Three affective questions asked students to use a four-point Likert scale to report ease (1 = very easy, 4 = very difficult), clarity (1 = very clear, 4 = very unclear), and convenience (1 = very convenient, 4 = very inconvenient) of six research skills, including: identifying keywords and main concepts in a topic, identifying scholarly versus non-scholarly sources, finding relevant scholarly articles, locating a book’s call number in the library catalog and on the shelf, finding newspaper articles, and constructing an annotated bibliography. Two affective survey questions asked students to use a four-point Likert scale (1 = very significant increase, 4 = no increase) to rate the impact the tutorial had on their knowledge of and satisfaction with using the library in each of the six areas of research.
 
 Main Results – The overall response patterns for the six information literacy knowledge-based questions were similar for both groups. Students who viewed the LibGuides tutorial performed better than the web page group on four of the six knowledge-based questions. The web page group performed better than the LibGuides group on two of the six knowledge-based questions. Across the board, students performed poorly on the first question, which measured students’ abilities to form a search 
 string (39.2% correct in the LibGuides group; 25.7% correct in the web page group), and on the fifth question which asked students to identify the best source of current information from a list of resources (32% correct in the LibGuides group; 17% correct in the web page group). 
 
 Response means on the first three affective questions indicate that students in both groups found searching for relevant scholarly articles and constructing an annotated bibliography to be more difficult than the other four skills. Additionally, students in the LibGuide group reported slightly higher means than the web page group concerning the clarity of finding newspaper articles, and were therefore less clear on the task. Students in the web page group reported slightly higher means than the LibGuide group when reporting the convenience of constructing an annotated bibliography, suggesting they found creating a bibliography more inconvenient. Students in both groups also responded similarly to the final two affective questions measuring the perceived impact the tutorial had on their knowledge of and satisfaction with using library resources.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.819
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207