Presented at LILAC 2010

1. Interactive
Learning using
Xerte:
Minding the skills gap
Jenny Coombs
Wendy Stanton
University of Nottingham

2. Format of the presentation
 Aim of the project
 What is Xerte?
 Evaluation
 Findings

3. Aim of the project
 Create an online tutorial for
pre-reg nursing students
 Used within scheduled
information skills sessions
and independently
 Evaluate use of the tutorial
 Tutorial created and
evaluated by Rachael Adair
and Ruth Curtis

4. Background facts
 Distributed centres
 900 pre-registration
students
 1000 post-registration
students
 Mature students – 66%
 Academic work fitted in
around placements

5. Why was the project needed?
 Traditional face-to-face
teaching was not totally
successful
 Problem of one-size fits all
 Need for post-training help
 Particular needs of nursing
students
 Introduction of more self-
directed learning

6. The final product
Allow self-paced,
independent learning
Revisit anytime,
anywhere
Facilitate interactivity
Provide immediate
feedback
Support different
learning styles

7. Using Xerte
 Online toolkit
 Created by University
of Nottingham Learning
Team
 Available open source
 Association of Learning Technology (ALT) award
2009
“Provides a reusable
solution to common
elearning development
problems”
“Provides a reusable
solution to common
elearning development
problems”

8. What can Xerte do?
 Customisable interface
 Accessibility features
 Colour scheme
 Screen size
 Font or text size
 Text to speech
 Extensible
 Publish to OER Repository
 Sharing and re-use
 Interactivity

9. Evaluation
 Questionnaires pre and post-library sessions
 Levels of confidence
 Information skills learnt
 Pre-course:
 Almost 100% return
 Post-course:
 Derby 43%, Mansfield 36%
 Semi-structured interviews
 3 students from each centre

10. Observations during the sessions
 Positive
 Most students got on well
with the tutorials
 Negative
 Finished too quickly
 Didn’t finish
 Skipped over key
interactions

11. Observations after the session
 Continued to receive
frequent requests for
further one-to-one help
 Most students hadn’t
referred back to
tutorials

12. Specific Findings
Post-training questionnaire
Question Derby (Xerte) Mansfield
(Traditional)
Selecting appropriate
resources
Correct answers
increased
Correct answers
decreased
Selecting appropriate
keywords
Correct answers
increased
Correct answers
decreased
Confidence in using the
library and resources
Decreased Increased

13. Student feedback
Students highlighted the following as a means of
improving skills and confidence
Practice/
Trial and error
Frequent use/
familiarity
Asking for
help
Using supporting
materials from
sessions

14. Positive feedback from Derby
Ability to read through information
Ability to learn at own pace
Quizzes
Practical Helped build confidence
Tutorials to refer back to
Library support

15. Negative feedback
Derby and Mansfield Mansfield only
Too fast /
insufficient time
Too much
to take in
Groups too
large
Difficult to see
overhead screen

16. Changes made for next session
 Simplified the content
 Re-instated brief demos
of databases (captivate)
 Replaced original activities
with Informs tutorials
 Provided simple handouts
 Suggested approximate
length of time to be spent
on each tutorial

17. Second experience
 Students appeared to
get on better during sessions
 Much fewer requests for
further help post-training
But, due to improvements made to tutorials?
Or Jan 09 students more confident library users?

18. Overall Conclusions
 No significant difference between online & traditional
 Positive outcomes:
 Ability to learn at own pace
 Ability to revisit tutorials
 Practical
 Student requirements
 Practice
 Frequent use
 Sessions delivered at time of
assignment
 Embedded in curricula and assessed

19. Our experience of using Xerte
 3 Intakes
 Balance
 Learning by doing
 Quizzes
 Fewer enquiries
 Promotion
 post training sessions
 On the web
 FUN!

20. References and links
 Craig, A., Corrall, S. (2007) Making a difference?
Measuring the impact of an information literacy
programme for pre-registration nursing students in the
UK. Health Information and Libraries Journal 24(2),
118-127
 Franks, H., McAlonan, C. (2006) Establishing library ‘key
skill’ confidence levels amongst a cohort of nursing
students at an English university. Nurse Education in
Practice. 7(4), 258-265.
 http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/xerte
 http://xpert.nottingham.ac.uk/