ArticleThe journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association2024
Comparison of asynchronous online versus in-person library instruction methods for teaching literature searching to graduate students.
Article in The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed 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.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.