LIBRARY INDUCTION MOVES FROM STAGE TO SCREEN: Adapting our performance for smarter teaching delivery Damian J. J. Farnell (School of Dentistry), Erica Swain (University Library Service), Alison L. Weightman (University Library Service), CARDIFF UNIVERSITY Presenter: Erica Swain

CARDIFF UNIVERSITY SYSTEMATIC REVIEW… Weightman, A. L., Morris, D., Strange, H., Hallam, G. and Farnell, D. J. J. (2016). A Systematic Review of Information Literacy Programs for Taught Students in Universities: Online and Face-to-face Methods lead to Equivalent Outcomes (Unpublished). ‘Findings from 26 studies confirmed that there is no apparent difference between the two formats in terms of student skills development and suggested that both methods of delivery are acceptable to students.’

CREATING THE ONLINE INDUCTION Research to inform content Consulted subject librarians Surveyed students – what do you wish you had known as a new 1 st year? Practicalities Emaze free software Time-consuming, but not too technical Delivery Via VLE (optional completion monitoring and assessment of quiz) Direct link to Emaze URL

THE EVALUATION PROCESS Randomised controlled trial Dental School Year 1 library induction in Week 1 Pre-induction test of attitudes / knowledge Then split into two randomized groups Group 1: face-to-face induction Group 2: online induction Post-induction test of attitudes / knowledge 5 days later Data collected on paper forms and input into Bristol Online Surveys for export to SPSS for analysis

THE PRE- AND POST- TESTS 1. Attitudes 2. Knowledge …Repeated in post- test

PARTICIPATION 58 Year 1 Dentistry students completed the pre-test. Of these: 32 then received a face-to-face library induction 26 received an online library induction 72 students attended the follow-up event 5 days later. All filled in the post- test. Of these, 60 claimed to have attended the induction! 33 face-to-face 27 online

Yellow = statistically significant improvement Red = strong statistically significant improvement FACE-TO- FACE GROUP

Yellow = statistically significant improvement Red = strong statistically significant improvement ONLINE GROUP

COMPARISON: FACE-TO-FACE VS ONLINE Face-to-faceOnline Yellow = statistically significant improvement Red = strong statistically significant improvement

CONCLUSIONS General improvement in both groups, pre- to post-training Knowledge questions: Online learning & face-to-face have similar outcomes Agreement with results of systematic review Attitudes questions: Face-to-face: increased preference pre- to post- to learn from a librarian Online: decreased preference pre- to post- to learn from a librarian …Learning type might reinforce student preference for that mode of learning?

RECOMMENDATIONS For a similar evaluation in future: Assign ID number to each student for duration of experiment and carry out a “paired” statistical analysis? link individuals’ pre- and post-test results weed out any invalid responses more complex; requires formal consent from participants Ask if participants have studied before at Cardiff or are completely new: returning students may measure less improvement pre- to post-test. Test again later in the year to gauge retention? (But issue of other factors affecting student performance by that stage.)

FUTURE PLANS Roll out online induction further Extend to other relatively ‘generic’ and oft-repeated training, e.g. EndNote (reference management software) Performance by students is comparable between the two formats but is not brilliant overall. Reinforcement needed? Journal article in preparation

THANK YOU Any questions? Erica Swain, Cardiff University