A
Forest plot (Lewis & Clark, 2001) shows both the results of each individual
study and the pooled results of meta-analysis. The pooled results are identified
by the diamonds within the Forest plot, where the middle of the diamond gives
the pooled point-value estimate for the SMD and its edges give the associated
95% confidence interval (CI). For specific studies, the point-value estimate of
the SMD is indicated by the central symbol and the associated 95% CI for the
SMD is indicated by the horizontal line. An overall meta-analysis that included
all studies, irrespective of subgroup, was carried out using standard
statistical software (STATA V13). When the number of studies included in
meta-analysis was large enough (i.e., equal to or greater than about 10
studies), any evidence of bias was assessed by funnel plots, Egger’s and Begg’s test of small sample size effects.
Heterogeneity
was assessed by I2 scores and P < 0.05 from a
chi-squared test of heterogeneity before deciding whether to carry out a
random-effects or fixed effects meta-analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis
takes into account both the variability within each individual study (shown by
the confidence intervals for each study) and variability between the different
studies (i.e., variability of the point-estimates of the SMD). This approach
tends to lead to larger confidence intervals than fixed-effects meta-analysis,
which includes only variability within each individual study.
(1) We also
carried out a thematic analysis of information on student views, where
available within the comparative studies, using methods described by Braun and
Clarke (2006) to generate descriptive themes. Initially, each paper was
examined line by line, by two authors independently. Codes (features of the
options expressed) were assigned to relevant sentences and paragraphs. These
codes were then organized, via discussion, into related areas to construct
descriptive themes that best reflected students’ views on the different
teaching formats. All data on student views from each paper were then imported
into Nvivo 10 software (QSR International Pty Ltd.,
2012) for analysis.
Results
Of
5,313 records identified via the various search strategies employed (Figure 1),
33 studies met the inclusion criteria for providing a direct comparison between
traditional and online IL education, and these studies were included in the
review. Summary data from all studies are provided in Table 3. Detailed
information on study characteristics and the results of skills assessments is
available (see Appendix).
Study Quality
Of
the 33 studies, 11 were randomized controlled trials (Brettle
& Raynor, 2013; Churkovich
& Oughtred, 2002; Goates
et al., 2016; Greer et al., 2016; Koenig & Novotny, 2001; Kraemer et al.,
2007; Lechner, 2007; Schilling, 2012; Shaffer, 2011;
Swain et al., unpub; Vander Meer & Rike, 1996), whereas the remaining studies were
(non-randomized) controlled before and after studies.
The
vast majority of research was carried out in the U.S. (26 studies; 79%). Of the
remaining seven studies, three were based in the U.K. (Brettle
& Raynor, 2013; Walton & Hepworth, 2012;
Swain et al., 2015 unpub.), two in Australia (Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002;
Salisbury & Ellis, 2003), one in Canada (Bordignon
et al., 2016) and one in the Czech Republic (Kratochvil,
2014).
The
11 studies that used a randomized controlled design were less prone to bias
since the study design increased the likelihood that the student groups were
well matched. However, most
of the studies had some methodological limitations (Table 3).
Of the 33 studies, 25 did
not pilot or validate the test instrument. Only two studies carried out formal
validity testing (Brettle & Raynor, 2013; Mery et al., 2012a) with a further
five piloting the test before use (Bordignon et al.
2016; Burhanna et al., 2008; Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002; Kratochvil,
2014; Swain et al., 2015 unpub.). Finally,
one study used a predetermined rubric for marking (Goates
et al., 2016).
Of the 33 studies, 17 included mean IL test scores with standard deviations and could be
included in the meta-analyses (Alexander & Smith, 2001; Anderson & May,
2010; Beile & Boote,
2005; Brettle & Raynor,
2013; Churkovich & Oughtred,
2002; Germain, Jacobson & Kaczor,
2000; Goates, Nelson & Frost, 2016; Greer, Hess
& Kraemer, 2016; Lantzy, 2016; Mery, Newby & Peng, 2012a; Shaffer, 2011; Silk,
Perrault, Ladenson & Nazione,
2015; Swain, Weightman, Farnell & Mogg unpub.; Vander Meer & Rike, 1996; Walton & Hepworth, 2012; Wilcox Brooks,
2014).
The results from the studies were ‘heterogeneous’
(i.e., effect sizes or variances varied considerably) and so a random-effects
meta-analysis was used. A sensitivity analysis was carried out in order to
study the effects of heterogeneity that was here driven by just one or two
"outlying" studies in each comparison. These studies were
systematically removed from the meta-analyses. This process did not change the
overall results of meta-analysis very greatly: i.e., effect
sizes and associated 95% confidence intervals remained broadly constant and the
statistical significance (or not) of all two-group comparisons remained
unchanged. Clearly though, caution should be exercised when interpreting pooled
results of meta-analysis when the heterogeneity is high.
For those studies that could be included in a
meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between
blended and single format training in terms of skills learnt. The SMD comparing
blended to online or face-to-face instruction were 0.15 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.34;
4 studies) and 0.36 (-0.03 to 0.75; 3 studies) respectively (Figure 5).
Based on the studies that could be included in a
meta-analysis, the single format training appeared to be more effective than
blended training when skills were measured via a specific assignment such as a
piece of persuasive presentation research (Anderson & May, 2010) or a rubric graded search strategy (Goates et al., 2016). (Figure 5) Three further
studies looked at specific assignments; two via bibliography assessment within
a piece of course work (Mery et al., 2012b; Wilcox
Brooks, 2014) and one by a search strategy assessment (Schilling, 2012). Mery et al. (2012b)
observed a statistically significant improvement in the online compared to the
face-to-face group but the other two studies found no difference between
face-to-face and blended (Wilcox Brooks, 2014) or online vs. face-to-face
groups (Schilling, 2012). No conclusions can be based on this limited evidence.
Figure 5
Comparison of information literacy skills for online or face-to-face instruction
versus blended instruction.
Student views
Overall there was evidence that students felt that the different delivery
methods had their advantages and disadvantages. However, the findings are mixed
with no clear preference for one method over another. Of the 22 studies
gathering information on student views, 3 collected data from students exposed
to the online (Byerley, 2005; Kaplowitz
& Contini, 1998) or
blended (Wilcox Brooks, 2014) training only.
From the 19 studies gathering views on both types
of format, 14 (74%) found that students expressed no preference at all in
relation to format (Table 3). In the five studies finding variations in student
views between formats, two studies found that the online course was favoured in terms of perceived benefits, attitudes to the
course, and comfort in carrying out library research (Alexander & Smith, 2001) or increased self-efficacy (a belief in one’s ability to succeed) in
choosing databases to search (Gall, 2014). Three studies identified a
preference for face-to-face delivery in terms of greater confidence
following training (Churkovich & Oughtred,
2002; Shaffer, 2011) or higher satisfaction in general and around the
clarity and length of training (Wilhite, 2004). The online group experienced technical
difficulties in the studies by Shaffer (2011) and Wilhite
(2004). Findings from the themes identified in intervention studies analyzing
student views on face-to-face versus online formats are summarized in Figure 6.
Where the findings for a particular measure are neutral, this shows that there
was no clear preference from students concerning the online and face-to-face
formats.
There were not enough data to guide conclusions
concerning perceptions of blended versus single format. However from three
studies comparing all three types of format, two found that the views of
students across formats were neutral (Beile 2005,
Kraemer 2007) while one noted a preference for the face-to-face format in terms
of confidence/self-efficacy (Churkovich 2002). A
study comparing face-to-face and blended formats found no differences in
perceived skills (Goates 2016).
Study Design Features
The interventions in 30 of the 33 studies were delivered by librarians.
Face-to-face teaching was delivered by graduate students (Alexander &
Smith, 2001) or teaching assistants (Kaplowitz & Contini, 1998) in two studies. There was no difference in
skills between the face-to-face and online groups at posttest
in both studies. Only the study by Alexander and Smith (2001) included
comparative information on student views and they found a preference for the
online option. Mery et al. (2012a) provided the only
direct comparison between the deliverers of the intervention, with two
face-to-face groups; one trained by librarians and the other by course tutors.
The researchers found that skills increased significantly in the librarian and
online groups, but not in the tutor group.
Of 21 studies providing
information on face-to-face contact time, the typical time period was 50-60
minutes (12 studies, see Table 3). The longest contact time was for the study
by Alexander (2001) where graduate students delivered 14 one-hour sessions. The
results for the skills test (posttest only) were
neutral, but students voiced a preference for the online training. The shortest
contact time was 0.5 hour (Burhanna et al., 2008),
where the researchers reported a trend towards greater skills development
in the online group but no difference in student views.
Figure 6
Analysis of student views on face-to-face versus online formats [numbers of
studies].
Only 14 studies provided
information on the follow-up period between training and the skills test, where
the range of follow-up periods was immediately post-training to 12 months (see
Table 3). There was no statistically significant difference between the two
formats in terms of skills retained in 13 studies. There was a statistically
significant improvement in the face-to-face group in Goates
et al. (2016), where skills were measured immediately post-training.
For the 11 randomized
controlled trials, 7 studies (64%) found no difference in skills between the
formats tested (Brettle & Raynor,
2013; Greer et al., 2016; Koenig & Novotny, 2001; Schilling, 2012; Shaffer,
2011; Swain et al., unpub; Vander Meer & Rike, 1996), 3 favoured face-to-face training (Churkovich & Oughtred, 2002; Goates et al., 2016; Lechner, 2007) and 1 favoured the blended
approach (Kraemer et al., 2007).
Of the 11 randomized
controlled trials, 8 explored student views, with 2 favouring the face-to-face
format (Churkovich & Oughtred,
2002; Shaffer, 2011) and 6 (75%) with neutral findings (Goates et al., 2016; Koenig & Novotny, 2001; Kraemer et al., 2007; Schilling, 2012;
Swain et al., unpub; Vander Meer & Rike, 1996).
Discussion
Despite the methodological shortcomings of many of
the studies included in this review, there is consistent evidence across the
body of comparative studies that:
• Face-to-face (traditional) teaching strongly increases information
literacy (IL) skills when assessed directly pre- and
post-teaching.
• Online (web-based) teaching strongly increases IL skills when assessed
directly pre- and post-teaching.
• The increase in skills as a result of teaching is broadly comparable
for face-to-face and online teaching methods.
• Students do not express a clear preference for one format over another
although they perceive some differences in the delivery methods (and advantages and
disadvantages of each).
The findings from our review of student skills are
in keeping with a systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended
and face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education
(McCutcheon, Lohan, Traynor & Martin, 2015). On the basis of 19
published papers, the authors concluded that online teaching of clinical skills
was no less effective than traditional means.
Definitive evidence on the
effectiveness of blended learning methods compared to single format teaching is
limited although it appears that test score outcomes for single and blended
format teaching are similar. The potential differences between outcomes, as
measured by assignment and test performance, is intriguing and worthy of
further study. One might identify test scores and assignment scores as
measuring the different outcomes of cognitive (factual knowledge) and
behavioural (skills needed to complete a task) aspects of information literacy,
respectively.
While the majority of
studies that had a potentially more reliable methodology (i.e. the 11
randomized controlled trials) demonstrated neutral findings, four of the
studies favoured face-to-face or blended approaches. Many of the studies had
some methodological shortcomings however.
Across the full body of the
33 studies reviewed here, it seems that the choice of format can be left to the
educator. Given our awareness of the increase in the use of online and blended
formats for IL teaching, from personal experience and the published literature,
this confirmation is welcome. Both the student context (e.g., campus-based or
distance learners) and cohort sizes are likely to be decisive factors. Blended learning is perceived by academic
staff as being more time consuming (Brown, 2016), although we could not find any
empirical evidence to confirm or refute this perception; nor were any studies
identified comparing preparation time for single format face-to-face vs. online
sessions.
One development opportunity
for the online context is the personalized online learning environment using
adaptive learning software (Nguyen, 2015). This is an exciting prospect for
enhancing student learning in the increasingly online arena of information
searching that remains to be explored.
Limitations
The authors cannot
guarantee that all relevant studies were identified although this review is
based on an extensive search for published and unpublished research studies.
The quality of the included studies is moderate at best. Only 11 studies
adopted the randomized controlled trial design, which should minimize the
potential for bias, and only 7 piloted or validated the skills tests used.
Heterogeneity across studies was high so the meta-analysis results should be
interpreted with caution. There is also relatively little evidence from outside
the U.S.
Conclusions and Implications for Practice
The body of research
evidence suggests that information literacy training is equally effective, and
well received, across a range of delivery methods. The format can vary to suit
the requirements of the student population and the educational situation. In
the light of these findings, in our institutions we are confident in moving
towards a greater use of online options, particularly for routine IL sessions
such as library orientations for new students and for access by individuals at
‘point of need’.
Future comparative studies
should aim to minimize the potential for bias, perhaps by adopting a randomized
controlled design. These studies should also employ a large population and they
should use validated test instrument(s). More high quality research comparing
blended and single format delivery methods will be valuable, along with
exploration to unravel the potential dichotomies in outcomes from specific
assignments (marked course work) as opposed to IL skills tests. Further
research into the time and resource implications for educators in delivering
teaching via these different methods would also be useful.
Once these studies have been completed it should be
possible to provide clearer guidance to educators, perhaps along the lines of a
‘decision aid’ to guide the choice of teaching format for particular contexts
and student groups.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge, with thanks, the following
specialists for reading and commenting on two drafts of this manuscript: Alison
Brettle (Professor in Health Information and Evidence
Based Practice, University of Salford U.K.), Cecily
Gilbert (Research Librarian, Barwon Health Library,
Victoria Australia) and Erica Swain (Subject Librarian, Cardiff University,
U.K.).
References
Alexander, L.B. & Smith, R.C. (2001). Research findings of a
library skills instruction web course. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 1(3),
309-328. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2001.0033
Anderson, K. & May, F.A. (2010). Does the method of instruction
matter? An experimental examination of information literacy instruction in the
online, blended, and face-to-face classrooms.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(6), 495-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2010.08.005
Arnold-Garza, S. (2014). The flipped classroom teaching model and its
use for information literacy instruction. Communications in Information
Literacy, 8(1), 7-22. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1089137.pdf
Beile, P.M.
& Boote, D.N. (2005). 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, 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2005.07.002
Bordignon, M.,
Strachan, G., Peters, J., Muller, J., Otis, A., Georgievski.
A., & Tamin, R. (2016). Assessment of online
information literacy learning objects for first year community college English
composition. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 11(2),
50-57. https://doi.org/10.18438/b8t922
Braun, V. & Clarke, V.
(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brettle, A. & Raynor, M. (2013). Developing information literacy skills
in pre-registration nurses: An experimental study of teaching methods. Nurse
Education Today, 33(2), 103-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.12.003
Brown, M.G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the
empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in
face-to-face teaching. Internet and
Higher Education, 31, 1-10
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001
Burhanna, K.J., Eschedor Voelker, T.J. & Gedeon, J.A.
(2008). Virtually the same: Comparing the effectiveness of online versus
in-person library tours. Public Services Quarterly, 4(4), 317-338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15228950802461616
Byerley, S.L. (2005). Library instruction: Online or in the classroom? Academic
Exchange, 9(4), 193-197.
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-142636415/library-instruction-online-or-in-the-classroom
Churkovich, M.
& Oughtred, C. (2002). Can an online tutorial
pass the test for library instruction? An evaluation and comparison of library
skills instruction methods for first year students at Deakin University. Australian
Academic & Research Libraries, 33, 25-38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2002.10755177
CILIP. (2017). Information literacy. The library and information
association. Web page. https://www.cilip.org.uk/research/topics/information-literacy
Gall, D. (2014). Facing off: Comparing an in-person library orientation
lecture with an asynchronous online library orientation. Journal of Library
& Information Services in Distance Learning, 8(3/4), 275-287.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290x.2014.945873
Germain, C.A., Jacobson, T.E. & Kaczor,
S.A.A. (2000). Comparison of the effectiveness of presentation formats for
instruction: Teaching first-year students. College & Research Libraries,
61(1), 65-72.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.61.1.65
Goates, M.C., Nelson, G.M. & Frost, M. (2016). Search strategy development in a flipped library classroom: A
student-focused assessment. College & Research Libraries,
anticipated publication date 1 May 2017.
Greer, K., Hess, A.N. &
Kraemer, E.W. (2016). The librarian leading the machine: A reassessment
of library instruction methods. College & Research Libraries, 77(3),
286-301.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.3.286
Holman, L. (2000). A comparison of computer-assisted instruction and
classroom bibliographic instruction. Reference & User Services
Quarterly, 40(1), 53-60.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20863900
Kaplowitz, J. & Contini, J. (1998). Computer-assisted instruction: Is it an
option for bibliographic instruction in large undergraduate survey classes? College
& Research Libraries, 59(1), 19-27.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.59.1.19
Koenig, M. & Novotny,
E. (2001). On-line
course integrated library instruction modules as an alternative delivery method. Chapter 26, pp.200-208 In: Dewey BI, editor. Library User
Education. Lanham, Maryland and London: Scarecrow Press; 2001.
Koufogiannakis,
D., Booth, A. & Brettle, A. (2005). ReLIANT: Reader's guide to the literature on interventions
addressing the need for education and training.
Library and Information Research, 30(94), 8.
http://eprints.rclis.org/8082/1/RELIANT__final_.pdf
Koufogiannakis, D. & Wiebe, N. (2006). Effective methods for teaching information literacy skills to
undergraduate students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice, 1(3), 3-43.
https://doi.org/10.18438/b8ms3d
Kraemer, E.W., Lombardo, S.V. & Lepkowski,
F.J. (2007). The librarian, the machine, or a little of both: A comparative
study of three information literacy pedagogies at Oakland University. College
& Research Libraries, 68(4), 330-342.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.68.4.330
Kratochvil, J.
(2014). Measuring the impact of information literacy e-learning and in-class
courses via pre-tests and post-test at the Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University.
Mefanet J, 2(2), 41-50.
https://is.muni.cz/repo/1214193/en/Kratochvil/Measuring-the-impact-of-information-literacy-e-learning-and-in-class-courses-via-pre-tests-and-post-test-at-the-Faculty-of-Medicine-Masaryk-University?lang=en
Lantzy, T.
(2016). Health literacy education: the impact of synchronous instruction. Reference
Services Review, 44(2), 100-21.
https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-02-2016-0007
Lechner, D.L.
(2007). Graduate student research instruction: Testing an interactive web-based
library tutorial for a health sciences database. Research Strategies, 20,
469-481.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2006.12.017
Lewis, S. & Clarke, M. (2001). Forest Plots: Trying to see the wood
and the trees. BMJ, 322(7300), 1479-1480.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1479
Light, R.J. & Pillemer, D.B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing
research. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1984
Liu, Q., Peng, W., Zhang, F., Hu, R., Yingzue,
L. & Yan, W. (2016). The effectiveness of blended learning in health
professions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical
Internet Research, 18(1), e2.
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4807
McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M. &
Martin, D. (2015). A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or
blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate
nurse education. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 71(2), 255-270
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12509
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Baki, M.
(2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of
the empirical literature. Teachers College Record 115, 1-47
https://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/publications/effectiveness_of_online_and_blended_learning.pdf
Mery, Y.,
Newby, J. & Peng, K. (2012a). Why one-shot information literacy sessions
are not the future of instruction: A case for online credit courses. College
& Research Libraries, 73(4), 366-377.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-271
Mery, Y.,
Newby, J. & Peng, K. (2012b).
Performance-based assessment in an online course: Comparing different
types of information literacy instruction. portal: Libraries and the
Academy, 12(3), 283-298
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2012.0029
Morrison, J.M., Sullivan, F., Murray, E. &
Jolly, B. (1999). Evidence-based education: Development of an
instrument to critically appraise reports of educational interventions. Medical
Education, 33(12), 890-893.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00479.x
National Centre for Text Mining. Termine web demonstration, 2012. Web page. http://www.nactem.ac.uk/software/termine/
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no
significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 309-319.
http://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Nguyen_0615.pdf
Nichols, J., Shaffer, B. & Shockey, K. (2003). Changing the face of
instruction: Is online or in-class more effective? College & Research
Libraries, 64(5), 378-388.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.64.5.378
Nichols Hess, A.N. (2014). Online and face-to-face library instruction:
Assessing the impact on upper-level sociology undergraduates. Behavioral
& Social Sciences Librarian, 3, 132-147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2014.934122
Orme, W.A. (2004). A study of the residual impact of the Texas
Information Literacy Tutorial on the information-seeking ability of first year
college students. College & Research Libraries, 65(3), 205-215.
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.3.205
QSR International Pty Ltd.
NVivo 10 software. Released 2012. http://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-support/downloads
Salisbury, F. & Ellis, J. (2003). Online and face-to-face: Evaluating methods for teaching information
literacy skills to undergraduate arts students. Library Review, 52(5),
209-217.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530310476715
Schilling, K. (2012). The
efficacy of elearning for information-retrieval
skills in medical education. European Conference on e-Learning,
October 2012.
Shaffer, B.A. (2011). Graduate student library research skills: Is
online instruction effective? Journal
of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 5(1/2),
35-55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290x.2011.570546
Silk, K.J., Perrault, E.K., Ladenson, S. &
Nazione, S.A. (2015). The effectiveness of online versus in-person
library instruction on finding empirical communication research. The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 41,149-154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.12.007
Silver, S.L. & Nickel, L.T. (2007). Are online tutorials
effective? A comparison of online and classroom library instruction methods. Research
Strategies, 20(4), 389-396.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2006.12.012
Swain, E., Weightman, A.L., Farnell, D.J.J
& Mogg, R. (2016). An experimental study of
online versus face-to-face student induction at a university library: Both
formats are equally effective and well received. Unpublished.
Vander Meer, P.F. and Rike, G.E. (1996).
Multimedia: Meeting the demand for user education with a self-instructional
tutorial. Research Strategies, 14(3), 145-158.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/82581
Walton, G. & Hepworth, M. (2012). Using assignment data to analyse a blended information literacy intervention: A
quantitative approach. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science,
45(1), 53-63.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000611434999
Weightman, A.L.,
Farnell, D.J.J., Morris, D. & Strange, H. (2015). Information literacy
teaching in universities – A systematic review of evaluation studies.
Preliminary findings for online versus traditional methods. [Poster] Eighth
Evidence Based Library & Information Practice Conference (EBLIP8), Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia, 6-8 July 2015.
Wilcox Brooks, A.W. (2014). Information literacy and the flipped
classroom: Examining the impact of a one-shot flipped class on student learning
and perceptions. Communications in Information Literacy, 8(2),
225-235.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1089274.pdf
Wilhite, J.M.
(2004). Internet versus live: Assessment of government documents bibliographic
instruction. Journal of Government Information, 30(5/6), 561-574.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgi.2004.10.002
Zhang, L., Watson, E.M. & Banfield. L.
(2007). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction versus face-to-face
instruction in academic libraries: A systematic review. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 33(4), 478-484.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.03.006
2017 Weightman, Farnell, Morris, Strange, and Hallam.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
