European Conference on Information Literacy

Information Literacy: Moving Toward Sustainability pp 283-292 | Cite as

One Size Doesn’t Fit All – Effectiveness and Subjective Evaluations of Adaptable Information Literacy Instruction

  • Anne-Kathrin Mayer
  • Johannes Peter
  • Nikolas Leichner
  • Günter Krampen
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 552)

Abstract

The paper examines whether effects of an adaptable information literacy instruction program are associated with (a) adherence to the recommendations of online learning contents derived from a test of prior knowledge and (b) subjective evaluations of the program. An adaptable blended learning training for German psychology students was evaluated in a study with a pretest-posttest design. N = 64 advanced students completed two tests of scholarly information literacy, an information literacy self-efficacy scale, and an evaluation questionnaire. Participants who worked on more online materials than recommended based on their pretest performance did not differ in their gain scores from participants who exactly followed the recommendations. However, both groups outperformed participants who omitted recommended materials. According to subjective evaluations, the latter participants constitute a “risk group” with low subjective acceptance of online teaching which might need additional support during online learning or alternative forms of instruction.

Keywords

Information literacy Blended-learning Adaptability Learning-on-demand Psychology 

References

  1. 1.
    Spitzer, K.L., Eisenberg, M.B., Lowe, C.A.: Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age. Information Resources Publications, Syracuse University, Syracuse (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grassian, E.S., Kaplowitz, J.R.: Information Literacy Instruction Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Neal-Schuman, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mery, Y., Newby, J., Peng, K.: Why one-shot information literacy sessions are not the future of instruction a case for online credit courses. Coll. Res. Libr. 73, 366–377 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Snow, R.: Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction. Educ. Psychol. 15, 151–158 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jonassen, D.H., Grabowski, B.L.: Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cronbach, L.J., Snow, R.E.: Aptitudes and Instructional Methods - A Handbook for Research on Interactions. Halsted Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heacox, D.: Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. Free Spirit Publishing, Minneapolis (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leutner, D.: Instructional design principles for adaptivity in open learning environments. In: Seel, N.M., Dijkstra, S. (eds.) Curriculum, Plans, and Processes in Instructional Design, pp. 289–307. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer, G.: Supporting learning on demand with design environments. In: Birnbaum, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Learning Sciences, pp. 165–172. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Evanston (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brophy, J.E.: Motivating Students to Learn, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karich, A.C., Burns, M.K., Maki, K.E.: Updated meta-analysis of learner control within educational technology. Rev. Educ. Res. 84, 392–410 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kruger, J., Dunning, D.: Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1121–1134 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shin, E.C., Schallert, D.L., Savenye, W.C.: Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students’ learning in a hypertext environment. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 42, 33–46 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andretta, S.: Information Literacy: a Practitioner’s Guide. Chandos, Oxford (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gross, M., Latham, D.: Undergraduate perceptions of information literacy: defining, attaining, and self-assessing skills. Coll. Res. Libr. 70, 336–350 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park, O., Lee, J.: Adaptive instructional systems. In: Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Elen, J., Bishop, M.J. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, vol. 25, 3rd edn, pp. 469–484. Routledge, London (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirschner, P.A., van Merriënboer, J.J.: Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educ. Psychol. 48, 169–183 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Owston, R., York, D., Murtha, S.: Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. Internet High. Educ. 18, 38–46 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL): Psychology information literacy standards (2010). http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/psych_info_lit
  20. 20.
    Leichner, N., Peter, J., Mayer, A.-K., Krampen, G.: Assessing information literacy among German psychology students. Ref. Serv. Rev. 41, 660–674 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosman, T., Mayer, A.-K., Krampen, G.: Measuring psychology students’ information-seeking skills in a situational judgment test format: construction and validation of the PIKE-P test. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. (2015). doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000239
  22. 22.
    Leichner, N.: Multimethodale Erfassung von Informationskompetenz bei Psychologiestudierenden [Multimethodal Assessment of Information Literacy in Psychology Students]. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Trier, Trier (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 [Inventory for the Evaluation of Blended Learning. Construction and Testing Within a Training of Scholarly Information Literacy]. In: Krämer, M., Weger, U., Zupanic, M. (eds.) Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation X [Didactics of Psychology and Evaluation X], pp. 275–282. Shaker, Aachen (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cronbach, L.J., Furby, L.: How we should measure “change”: or should we? Psychol. Bull. 74, 68–80 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Price, R., Becker, K., Clark, L., Collins, S.: Embedding information literacy in a first-year business undergraduate course. Stud. High. Educ. 36, 705–718 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Webber, S., Boon, S., Johnston, B.: A comparison of UK academics’ conceptions of information literacy in two disciplines: English and marketing. Libr. Inf. Res. 29, 4–15 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosman, T., Birke, P.: Fachspezifische Erfassung von Recherchekompetenz durch prozedurale Wissenstests: Psychologie vs. Informatik [Domain-Specific Assessment of Information Searching Skills by Procedural Knowledge Tests: Psychology vs. Computer Sciences]. In: Mayer, A.-K. (ed.) Informationskompetenz im Hochschulkontext – Interdisziplinäre Forschungsperspektiven [Information Literacy in the University Context – Interdisciplinary Research Perspectives], pp. 103–120. Pabst, Lengerich (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Kathrin Mayer
    • 1
  • Johannes Peter
    • 1
  • Nikolas Leichner
    • 1
  • Günter Krampen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ZPID - Leibniz Institute for Psychology InformationTrierGermany
  2. 2.University of TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations