Digital Learning: Teaching Information Literacy through Online Research Guides

1. Innovations in Online Learning 2012, San Antonio, Texas
Jody Bailey, Reference and Instruction Librarian
Rafia Mirza, Reference and Instruction Librarian
Gretchen Trkay, Information Literacy Librarian
University of Texas at Arlington
Digital Learning: Teaching Information
Literacy through Online Research Guides

2. Overview
 History of research guides.
 Literature review.
 UT Arlington usability studies.
 Problem: Students need research help,
especially distance-ed students.
 Solution: Add information literacy (instructional)
content to online research guides so that they
will be more useful.
2

3. Synonyms
 Bibliographies (annotated,
subject, biographical, topical, etc.)
 Reading lists
 Readers’ aids
 Pathfinders
 Information portals
 Webliographies
 Resource lists
 Study guides
 Subject guides
 Topic guides
 Research guides
3

4. Detail from Annotated Syllabus for the Systematic Study
of Librarianship, page 4.
Note that this 1904 study guide comprised only 27 pages.
4

5. Transition to Digital Form
Example of a research guide on Literature
 Started in 1990s from 1997.
 Basic transfer: print
 digital
 Little/no thought
given to hypertext
environment
 Guides remain
fairly linear with
long lists of links http://web.archive.org/web/19971024115756/http://www.lib.lsu.edu/hum/lit.html
(Vileno, 2007)
5

6. Assessment of Online Research Guides: Literature Review
Themes
 Most students do not use
research guides.
 Paucity of user-centered
data.
 “One size does not fit
all.”
 “Students do not relate
well to subject guides”
and find them “difficult
to use.”
(Adebonojo, 2010; Ouellette, 2011, pp. 442, 436; Reeb & Gibbons,
2004, pp. 123-124; Staley, 2007, pp. 119, 126; Vileno, 2007, p. 436;
Vileno, 2010, p. 1).
6

7. Assessment of Online Research Guides: Literature Review
Students want . . .
 A “simple and clean layout”
 “Search feature”
 “Succinct annotations to resources”
 “Limited page scrolling”
 “Embedded instruction”
 “Librarian contact info”
 Clear navigation
 Faculty recommendations of guides and librarian
recommendations of resources
 Content customized to their needs
(Hintz et al., 2010, pp. 40, 45-46; Ouellette, 2011, p. 443-444, 448; Stitz, Laster, Bove, & Wise, 2011, p. 191; Vileno, 2010, p. 19).
7

8. Assessment of Online Research Guides: Literature Review
Students don’t want . . .
 Jargon and unclear,
confusing labels
 Cluttered, crowded sites
 Web 2.0 functionality:
user-generated “rating
systems, discussion
forums, student
recommendations, and
. . . personalization
features”
(Hintz et al., 2010, pp. 45-46; Ouellette, 2011, p. 444; Reeb &
Gibbons, 2004, p. 127; Stitz et al., 2011, p. 191; Vileno, 2010, p.
19)
8

9. UT Arlington’s Research Guide Platform: LibGuides
 Produced by
Springshare
 Content
management
system
 Widely used by
academic libraries
 Easy to learn
 Superb tech support
9

10. LibGuides: Functionality
 WYSIWYG and point-and-click editing.
 No experience with HTML needed.
 Content types: links to resources (e.g., books, databases, podcasts),
embedded video and images, RSS feeds, polls, various search boxes.
 APIs and widgets.
10

11. UT Arlington Usability Study: Methodology
Our interpretation of University of
Washington’s recommendations
for LibGuide design
Our baseline design
11

12. UT Arlington Usability Study: Methodology
Graduate Students Undergraduate Students
&
12

13. UT Arlington Usability Study: Methodology
Infrequent users Frequent Users
13

14. UT Arlington Usability Study: Methodology
Tasks: Each User Completed One Task
 Task 1
You are writing a paper on high-stakes testing in education. Where can you find a resource to give
you a brief overview of this topic?
 Task 2
You are writing a 10-page research paper for English about depictions of women in Shakespeare's
Hamlet. You must find reliable, scholarly sources that will help you better understand this topic. You
are uncertain what makes a source reliable and/or scholarly. Use the LibGuide to find out the
characteristics of reliable and scholarly sources.
 Task 3
You need to write about an issue related to a home based nursing. Locate one peer-reviewed article.
 Task 4
Using the Subject Guide for electrical engineering, find a paper on the topic of wireless sensors in
biological research.
 Task 5
Locate this article: Burke, E. (2009). Islam at the center: Technological complexes and the roots of
modernity. Journal of World History, 20(2), 165-186.
14

15. UT Arlington Usability Study: Methodology
-Question Survey
15

16. UT Arlington Usability Study: Methodology
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samdogs/3253791356/
16

17. Round 1 Findings: Contextualized Content
Students want guides contextualized to their
assignments
“Where is the tab for my
assignment?”
“Why are there so many
tabs?”
17

18. Round 1 Findings: Jargon
Students found some of our language to
be confusing.
“What are reference resources?”
“What is interlibrary loan?”
18

19. Round 1 Findings: Landing Page Confusion
 Students found the
home page insufficient
and the amount of
content overwhelming
 Students partially
scanned text instead of
reading and searched
using only the keywords
provided in an
assignment prompt.
19

20. Round 1 Findings: Search Box Confusion
Students equate ALL search boxes with Google-like search.
20

21. Basic Principles of Web Design
 Define a target audience.
 Articulate the site’s purpose.
 Use targeted navigation.
 Choose readable font size and colors.
 Include white space.
 Avoid walls of text.
21

22. Students’ Information Seeking Behavior
 Carol Kuhlthau’s
Information Search
Process
 Project Information
Literacy’s (PIL) Model of
the Undergraduate
Research Process
22

23. Information Search Process
(Kuhlthau, 2012)
23

24. Model of the Undergraduate Research Process
Big Picture Language
Contexts
Information
Situational
Gathering
(PIL, 2009)
24

25. Changes Made After Round 1
Redesign After
Round 1
Original Guide Design
25

26. Mapping Content to Information-Seeking Behavior
(Herzog, Huddleston, & Trkay, 2012)
26

27. Adaptation for Subject Guides
27

28. Testing the Redesign
 9 Participants.
 Infrequent users of subject guides.
 Each completed 5 tasks.
 Answered 8 open-ended survey questions.
 One committee member facilitated in person
while another member remotely observed and
coded.
28

29. Task 1 — Gather Background Information
 Average task score – 0.40 points  Average task score – 2.33 points
 Average time on task – 6.54 minutes  Average time on task – 4.26 minutes
29

30. Comparative Results: Task 1 Errors
Statistically significant decrease in errors made
using the redesigned guide
 Inappropriate use of search box
 Inappropriate use of resource
 Deviation from expected path
 Total errors
30

31. Task 2 — What is a Scholarly Source?
 Average task score – 1.20 points  Average task score – 0.22 points
 Average time on task – 11.51 minutes  Average time on task – 2.86 minutes
31

32. Comparative Results: Task 2 Errors
Statistically significant decrease in errors made
using the redesigned guide
 Inappropriate use of resource
 Language confusion
 Deviation from expected path
 Total errors
32

33. Task 3 — Find a Peer-Reviewed Article
 Average task score – 1.60 points  Average task score – 1.63 points
 Average time on task – 5.54 minutes  Average time on task – 4 minutes
33

34. Task 4 — Find a Primary Source
 Average task score – 1.78 points
 Average time on task – 3.22 minutes
 No round-1 comparison
34

35. Task 5 — Find an Article from a Citation
 Average task score – 2.0 points  Average task score – 2.5 points
 Average time on task – 6.33 minutes  Average time on task – 2.34 minutes
35

36. Comparative Results: Task 5 Errors
Statistically significant decrease in errors made
using the redesigned guide
 Inappropriate use of search box
 Inappropriate use of resource
 Deviation from expected path
 Total errors
36

37. Next Steps
 Refining instructional content.
 Creating content that can be used throughout
all the guides.
 Adapting content to individual subject guides.
37

38. References
 Adebonojo, L. G. (2010). LibGuides: Customizing subject guides for individual courses. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 17,
398-412. doi: 10.1080/10691316.2010.525426
 Brown, J. D. (1904). Annotated Syllabus for the Systematic Study of Librarianship. London, United Kingdom: Library Supply Co.
Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=aspvMHvmOSoC&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
 Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2009, December 1). Lessons learned: How college students seek information in the digital age.
Project Information Literacy. Retrieved from http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2009_finalv_YR1_12_2009v2.pdf
 Herzog, A., Huddleston, B., & Trkay, G. (2012, February 23). Digital learning: Teaching information literacy through LibGuides.
Poster session presented at Educause West/Southwest Regional Conference, Portland, OR.
 Hintz, K., et al. (2010). Letting students take the lead: A user-centred approach to evaluating subject guides. Evidence Based
Library And Information Practice, 5(4), 39-52. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP
 Kuhlthau, C. C. (2012, January). Information search process. Retrieved from
http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~kuhlthau/information_search_process.htm
 Literature. (1997). LSU Libraries webliography. Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/19971024115756/http://www.lib.lsu.edu/hum/lit.html
 Ouellelte, D. (2011). Subject guides in academic libraries: A user-centred study of uses and perceptions. Canadian Journal Of
Information & Library Sciences, 35, 436-451. Retrieved from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/journal/journal.htm
 Pathfinder (Library Science). (2012). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(Library_Science)
 Reeb, B., & Gibbons, S. (2004). Students, librarians, and subject guides: Improving a poor rate of return. Portal: Libraries & The
Academy, 4(1), 123-130. Retrieved from http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/
 Reitz, J. M. (2012). Pathfinder. ODLIS: Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science. Retrieved from http://www.abc-
clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_p.aspx#pathfinder
 Reitz, J. M. (2012). Research guide. ODLIS: Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science. Retrieved from http://www.abc-
clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_R.aspx?#researchguide
 Staley, S. M. (2007). Academic subject guides: A case study of use at San Jose State University. College & Research Libraries, 68,
119-139. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/68/2/119.full.pdf+html
 Stitz, T., Laster, S., Bove, F. J., & Wise, C. (2011). A path to providing user-centered subject guides. Internet Reference Services
Quarterly, 16(4), 183-198. doi: 10.1080/10875301.2011.621819
 Vileno, L. (2007). From paper to electronic, the evolution of pathfinders: A review of the literature. Reference Services Review, 35,
434-451. doi: 10.1108/00907320710774300
 Vileno, L. (2010). Testing the usability of two online research guides. Partnership: The Canadian Journal Of Library And Information
Practice And Research, 5(2), 1-21. Retrieved from http://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/
38

39. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this
license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a
letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View,
California, 94041, USA.
39