Comparison of asynchronous online versus in-person library instruction methods for teaching literature searching to graduate students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The objectives of this comparative study were 1) to compare the effectiveness of in-person classroom instruction versus an online video for teaching literature searching skills to graduate students, and 2) to evaluate their perceptions of the instruction methods received and their instruction preferences for learning literature searching skills. Methods: Students enrolled in a translational medicine graduate course in Fall 2022 were invited to participate in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group (receiving in-person instruction) or to an intervention group (receiving a link to a narrated PowerPoint video). Using Qualtrics online survey tool, participants completed one pre-test and two post-tests to assess learning and retention, and a survey to evaluate their perceptions and attitudes. Results: 12 out of 17 students participated. Both instruction methods were effective for delivering this information literacy content. The in-person group improved more than the online video group from pre- to post-test 1 and from pre- to post-test 2, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, the online video group rated the pace, perceived effectiveness, and clarity of library instruction, and their confidence to perform specific search tasks, more favourably than the in-person group, although the difference was not significant. Participants valued being able to access library training on their own schedule most of all. Discussion: The sample size for this study was small, making it difficult for differences to attain statistical significance. Creating an online video to deliver this content ended up being very time-intensive compared to providing synchronous instruction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".