Fostering Information Literacy in German Psychology Students: Objective and Subjective Evaluation of a Blended Learning Course

  • Nikolas LeichnerEmail author
  • Johannes Peter
  • Anne-Kathrin Mayer
  • Günter Krampen
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 510)


This paper reports about the objective and subjective evaluation of a blended learning course to foster information literacy skills of psychology students. The course consists of three modules delivered online and two face-to-face seminars. The evaluation is conducted using a multi-method approach with objective as well as subjective measures: Participants completed an information literacy knowledge test and standardized information search tasks before and after taking the course as well as a feedback questionnaire. A sample of N = 67 undergraduate psychology students (n = 37 experimental group, n = 30 waiting control group) participated in the course. As it was expected, students’ knowledge test scores as well as performance in the search tasks improved markedly during the course. Furthermore, students were satisfied with the course, whereas online learning found better acceptance than face-to-face learning. Results are discussed with regard to the soundness of the evaluation criteria used and to further development of the course.


Information literacy Blended learning Distance education Psychology College students 


  1. 1.
    National Forum on Information Literacy: What is information literacy? (n.d.).
  2. 2.
    American Library Association: Presidential Committee on information literacy. Final report (1989).
  3. 3.
    Eisenberg, M.B.: Information literacy: essential skills for the information age. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. 28(2), 39–47 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Association of College and Research Libraries: Psychology information literacy standards (2010).
  5. 5.
    Smith, J.K., Given, L.M., Julien, H., Ouellette, D., DeLong, K.: Information literacy proficiency: assessing the gap in high school students’ readiness for undergraduate academic work. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 35(2), 88–96 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2012.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Warwick, C., Rimmer, J., Blandford, A., Gow, J., Buchanan, G.: Cognitive economy and satisfying in information seeking: a longitudinal study of undergraduate information behavior. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 60(12), 2402–2415 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thaxton, L., Faccioli, M.B., Mosby, A.P.: Leveraging collaboration for information literacy in psychology. RSR 32(2), 185–189 (2004). doi: 10.1108/00907320410537702 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carr, S.: As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle High. Educ. 46(23), A39–A41 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    López-Pérez, M., Pérez-López, M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L.: Blended learning in higher education: students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Comput. Educ. 56(3), 818–826 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clardy, A.: Distant, on-line education: effects, principles and practices (2009).
  11. 11.
    Arnold, P., Kilian, L., Thillosen, A., Zimmer, G.: E-Learning Handbuch für Hochschulen und Bildungszentren: Didaktik, Organisation, Qualität, 1st edn. BW Bildung und Wiss, Nürnberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Project SAILS: Project SAILS Information Literacy Assessment (2013).
  13. 13.
    Center for Assessment and Research Studies: Information Literacy Test (ILT) (2013).
  14. 14.
    Timmers, C.F., Glas, C.A.W.: Developing scales for information-seeking behaviour. J. Documentation 66(1), 46–69 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Julien, H., Barker, S.: How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: a basis for information literacy skills development. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 31(1), 12–17 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2008.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shavelson, R.J.: On the measurement of competency. Empirical Res. Vocat. Educ. Training 2(1), 41–63 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McClelland, D.C.: Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence”. Am. Psychol. 28(1), 1–14 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leichner, N., Peter, J., Mayer, A.-K., Krampen, G.: Assessing information literacy using information search tasks. J. Inf. Literacy 8(1), 3–20 (2014). doi: 10.11645/8.1.1870 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim, J.: Describing and predicting information-seeking behavior on the web. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 60(4), 679–693 (2009). doi: 10.1002/asi.21035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peter, J., Leichner, N., Mayer, A.-K., Krampen, G.: Das Inventar zur Evaluation von Blended Learning (IEBL): Konstruktion und Erprobung in einem Training professioneller Informationskompetenz. Paper presented at 10. Fachtagung Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation, Witten, Germany (May 2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garrison, D.R., Kanuka, H.: Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 7(2), 95–105 (2004). doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolas Leichner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johannes Peter
    • 1
  • Anne-Kathrin Mayer
    • 1
  • Günter Krampen
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz Institute for Psychology InformationTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations