Behavioral changes

As mentioned earlier, behavioral outcomes are changes in action (e.g. increased use of online library resources, use of librarians, use of the physical library itself, or a change in participant information seeking behavior). Changing an individual’s behavior is done all the time in marketing. It consists of selling one’s product or opinion and convincing others of the benefits of changing their behavior. To change behaviors one has to think like a marketer and develop a persuasive strategy. The Center for Social Marketing and Behavioral Change suggests almost the same strategy as we have here when choosing a method to change a behavior. They ask the following list of questions to decide what will be the most effective intervention to change an individual’s behavior.

They create interventions in a variety of formats to change all types of social behaviors, including obesity and overeating, tobacco and drug use, and alcohol use. They use CD-ROMs, paper materials and face-to-face (FTF) lecturing. They use a combination of formats in different situations and believe their most effective method of persuasion is the use of the FTF lectures by a convincing expert in the field (Rangan, Karim and Sandberg, 2009).

There has been limited research measuring the effectiveness of ILI in increasing usage of a library. There are two studies that directly relate to affecting behavioral change using ILI. A 2004 study published in the Journal of Academic Librarianship by two researchers from a community college in the state of Washington measured the effectiveness of library instruction in increasing usage of the library by undergraduate students (Portmann and Roush, 2004). The purpose of the study was to ascertain the influence of one hour library instruction on undergraduate library usage and skills (i.e. does one hour of library instruction have a significant influence on library usage and skills?). The analysis indicated that library instruction delivered face to face in a one hour lecture significantly increased library usage while there was no significant increase in library skills. Another study performed by the author and presented at a lecture series at the School of Information Resources and Library Science of the University of Arizona measured the effect of two types of ILI on student library usage behavior. The purpose of this study was to determine whether ILI delivered in a one-hour traditional lecture method was effective in increasing students’ usage of the physical library and the library’s online resources. A second hypothesis of the study claimed that an active learning ILI delivered in two one-hour sessions would be more effective in increasing usage of the library and its online resources. The traditional lecture session used a curriculum similar to the one presented in Figure 1.1, and the active learning sessions used a curriculum similar to the one presented in Figure 1.1. The results of the study were mixed. The one-shot traditional lecture method was effective in increasing online usage and in-house usage; however, the in-house usage increase was not statistically significant. The two-session active learning method was significantly effective in increasing in-house use and online use of the library (Walsh, 2010). Marketing the library and its resources and trying to increase usage may be the most popular objective of ILI by all libraries. These examples show that FTF traditional lecture using a one-shot session is likely to be the most effective method for changing the behavior of participants. To change behavior requires persuasion and also some type of extrinsic or intrinsic reward. To effectively change the students’ behavior, i.e. increase their usage of the library, the instruction needs to provide the information to the student on how they will be rewarded through use of the library. The content should focus on where to find resources, how to use them and how the usage of the resources will benefit the participants. If the library has the facilities and technology it would be advantageous to include an active learning element in the instruction. Involve the participants in the instruction by having them follow along and use the resources the librarian is presenting. As the following sections will show, active learning elements always significantly increase the effectiveness of the instruction, whatever measure is being used.

Cognitive changes

Many academic libraries are defining their ILI program goals and objectives to increase participants’ cognitive skills. This automatically ties the ILI program to student learning outcomes. If the program proves successful in increasing a participant’s cognitive skills the library can use the evaluation results of the ILI program as accountability evidence and justify themselves and their services. Cognitive changes are changes in the knowledge of participants and relate to how people observe, think, problem solve, and remember (Grassian and Kaplowitz, 2009). The increases can be identified by library skills, such as identifying necessary information, extracting the required information, evaluating information critically, and using information from a wide range of resources. Additionally, increases can be indentified in actual student learning, including better grades on a standardized posttest and better grades in classes. Changing the cognitive skills of an individual is not as easy as persuading them to change their behavior. Many studies have shown that influencing participants’ cognitive abilities is easier to do when the participant is required to think critically, rather than just informing the participant with information (Kohl and Wilson, 1986; Kunkel and Weaver, 1996; Madland and Hagness, 1998; Marcus and Beck, 2003; Small, Zakaria and El-Figuigui, 2004).

The Portmann and Roush study used a one-shot face-to-face ILI. They found it was not effective in increasing library skills and suggested it had no positive influence on student learning. Another study conducted by three librarian researchers at the University of California, Irvine, showed that one hour of ILI had no significant effect on students’ GPAs, though a face-to-face for-credit class did. The study tested two groups of students over the duration of their college careers. One group was enrolled in an eight-week for-credit library course that taught IL skills in a face-to-face environment. The second group was not required to take any ILI and most received a one-shot face-to-face ILI session. On average, students who completed the library course were found to have 0.15-point higher GPAs and 2.9 more quarters of attendance than the control group (Selegean, Thomas and Richman, 1983). A similar study done by a Central Michigan University librarian measured the length of the impact of an eight-week for-credit face-to-face IL course. The study tested two groups of students: one group who had taken the class and one group not required to take the class who had one-shot ILI.

The researcher believed that the most interesting finding was the significantly increased paper grades and course final grades by the students who had taken the class over the students who had not. The increased paper and course grades were also recorded from one to two years after the students had taken the class. The researchers concluded that the length of instruction time and contact with the instructor were the influencing variables. Finally, a study conducted by librarian researchers at the University of New York, Oswego, found students who received multiple class periods face-to-face ILI scored significantly higher on tests than students who took an online tutorial (Nichols, Shaffer and Shockey, 2003).

One-shot ILI and accessing an ILI online tutorial will affect how a student learns. The one-shot face-to-face method is good for marketing or introducing the library and its resources to participants. The online tutorial will also deliver a familiarity level of knowledge and help increase a participant’s research abilities. Neither of these methods will have a significant long term effect on a participant’s critical thinking skills or a significant effect on their cognitive abilities. To make this type of impact the instruction needs to be more holistic, and should be face to face and include multiple sessions to have a long-term effect in life-long learning outcomes. ILI needs to be integrated across curriculums and offer extended experiences where the participants are exposed to the content more than once. Jennifer Jarson, an information literacy/assessment librarian at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania, claims: ‘To achieve a sustained and significant impact, information literacy cannot be addressed only by librarians or only in isolated experiences’ (Jarson, 2010). Cognitive skills and critical thinking develop over time from repeated exposure to different levels of content. Angela Weiler, a public services librarian at Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, New York, writes: ‘Instructors and librarians would be well advised to keep in mind that cognitive ability is a developmental process and students must go through a series of steps over a period of time before they are able to seek information critically and reflectively’ (Weiler, 2005). One-shot ILI and online tutorials are not going to affect a participant’s cognitive ability in any significant way. ILI can be influential in changing the cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills if participants are presented with enough material and a sufficient number of experiences.

An active learning element should be considered a priority when the goal of ILI is to affect cognitive change. Chapter 2 showed that active learning is a more effective method of instruction than the traditional lecture method. A participant assessment will help determine whether a learner-centered instruction or a self-directed instruction would be more appropriate. Information processing needs considerable skill in the abstraction and significant cognitive development. To facilitate this type of learning, ILI needs to be designed in a continuum where participants are led through a series of lessons from simple search strategies to more complex ways of accessing and using information. An institution that selects cognitive changes as the objective or purpose of its program should look at designing multiple sessions, and face-to-face ILI that encourages interaction with the participant and the instruction.

Affective changes

An ILI program that has an objective to create affective changes is looking to change a participant’s emotions or attitudes toward task completion, and how much confidence participants have in their ability to complete a given task. The two most common experiences related to task performance using library skills are self-efficacy and library anxiety. Many participants have low levels of self-efficacy when faced with using the library. They do not feel they are capable or that they have the skills to find the information they need. Participants who have high levels of self-efficacy believe they can perform tasks well on their own. Participants who have a more positive attitude about using the library are confident they can do so. Library anxiety is the feeling of stress and disorientation when confronted with using the library. When faced with using library resources to fulfill information needs, most people in all types of libraries suffer from confusion and uncertainty, especially with difficult, complex information seeking assignments (Battle, 2004). ILI is used to increase participants’ self-efficacy and decrease library anxiety.

To overcome affective characteristics requires a persuasive strategy and extended exposure. A combination of the strategies used in affecting behavioral and cognitive changes may be most effective for improving self-efficacy and lessening participants’ anxious feelings about the library. Wen-Hua Ren, a librarian at Rutgers University, believes instruction not only needs to teach how to use the library, but should also change the way participants conceive the library. She wrote: ‘It appears that library instruction would be most effective if it not only teaches the basic skills but also cultivates in the students a positive attitude and a strong motivation to continue to learn and practice those skills on their own’ (Ren, 2000). In a research study, she measured increases in self-efficacy and decreases in library anxiety. She used a face-to-face ILI session that incorporated active learning elements and other modes of instruction to develop skills and reduce anxiety in a progression. She concluded that:

For self-efficacy to increase, students must have adequate searching practice, experience learning accomplishments and not be overwhelmed with negative emotions such as confusion and frustration. This calls for an accurate assessment of the students’ level of search skills, on the basis of which, questions in the assignment are selected and sequenced according to levels of difficulty. Availability of practice facilities, encouraging searching environment and user-friendly point-of-use print and online instructional guides are also important contributors to gradual building up of self-efficacy. (Ren, 2000)

This is a blending of learning environments and methods to achieve a higher level of information literacy. It increases the cognitive skills of the participant and changes the attitude of the participant. This strategy will most likely promote life-long learning and provide changes that will be long term. The most effective method for producing affective changes is an FTF multiple-sessions ILI with an active learning element as well as print and online instruction to supplement additional learning experiences in a chronological progression. Table 4.1 shows the most effective ILI based on an organization’s program objective.

Traditional lecture vs computer-assisted instruction (CAI)

Time constraints prevent extended access to participants, and most ILI is presented in a pre-scheduled one-hour period. Also, many facilities lack mediation in the rooms where the instruction is received. Librarians must choose how to best utilize the time and place they are restricted to, and present what they believe to be the most effective content based on their objectives of the instruction. CAI is possibly the most convenient method for users, especially participants who are distance learners or who do not have easy access to the library facilities. Not all participants have a computer or Internet access, and most CAI is delivered through web-based tutorials. Traditional lectures are most effective in all library environments when the facilities and time limit presentation. When there is no computer technology to allow active participation in the class, and class periods are limited to one hour, an informative lecture would be more beneficial than requiring the participants to introduce themselves to information literacy through a self-directed CAI method. Remote learners may be better served having access to a video of traditional instruction rather than only having access to CAI through web-based tutorials. CAI cannot provide the connectedness a participant feels in a traditional lecture instruction. It should not be considered a stand-alone instruction but can be beneficial as a supplement to other types of instruction (Tancheva, 2003). If limited to a choice between traditional lectures and CAI, by comparison, the traditional lecture method will be more effective.

Traditional lecture vs. learner-centered instruction (LCI)

Learner-centered instruction (LCI) is another interactive mode of instruction that involves the participants in the instruction. LCI is most suited for participant groups, where the members of each group support the learning experience by collaborating on knowledge construction between each other and the instructor. Grouping lends itself more to the academic library environment, though it is possible to transfer the strategy to both public and special libraries. This may support findings that LCI is rarely used (Walzyk and Ramsey, 2003). LCI requires a larger amount of effort and careful planning, but is well worth it. When it is used it is applied in all aspects of teaching and can be more effective than traditional lectures and increasing participant learning (Walzyk and Ramsey, 2003). LCI offers cognitive elements as well as affective ones, participants are excited about the content and look forward to learning, and it also communicates concern for student learning. LCI fosters intrinsic motivation, students feel good about their participation, and it is conceptually and in practice more effective for knowledge retention than traditional lecture learning (Walzyk and Ramsey, 2003; APA, 1997). LCI originates from the theory of constructivism. It acknowledges the active roles students must play in their learning if it is to occur deeply, to endure, be enjoyable, and transfer to contexts beyond the classroom (Walzyk and Ramsey, 2003). The LCI method works more effectively in the FTF environment than in the electronic environment. The connectedness and physical presence in the FTF class situation invite more interactivity between participants. Figure 1.8 presents an effective lesson plan for a single class period (90 minutes). This method is a better choice than traditional lecturing in many situations, including FTF one-shots, FTF for credit classes, and multiple class periods. It is an excellent choice for the lower levels of academic libraries (school and undergraduates), and would be highly beneficial in developing life-long lessons in information literacy.

Traditional vs. self-directed independent learning (SDIL)

Self-directed learning takes a major commitment from the participant. A majority of participants are not used to being self directed learners. The growing popularity of distance learning and web-based instruction will require participants to become more familiar with a self-directed learning style. This method lends itself more to the electronic environment and web-based instruction. The participants are mainly on their own and have minimal contact with a librarian; they need to learn to expand the learning experience and complete tasks and research by themselves. There is evidence that SDIL can promote a higher level of student learning. A 1980s educational researcher named Mullen conducted a study that measured the effectiveness of independent learning. Mullen (1980) states that: ‘There is convincing evidence that people who take the initiative in learning (proactive learners) learn more things, and learn better, than do people who sit at the feet of teachers passively waiting to be taught (reactive learners).’ Though the SDIL method does develop higher learning skills in participants, it does not seem to be any more effective in increasing participant achievement of cognitive skills than traditional lectures. Alex Rodriguez, an educational researcher from the late 1990s, conducted a study that compared self-directed learning with traditional lecturing and found there was no significant difference between the two in increasing participant achievement. Rodriguez claimed, ‘The independent study method when properly used, that is, when the professor using it knows how to use it, can develop in the students higher learning skills. It can give the students increased capability for generalization and transfer, a sense of the relevance of learning, and the ability to analyze, synthesize, and apply what is learned. In terms of student achievement, the independent study method does not seem to be more effective than other methods, as for example, the lecture method’ (Rodriguez, 1998). This method is clearly more effective for distance learners in the electronic environment and is a good selection for online tutorials or other electronic instruction.

Choosing based on learning-environment comparison

Finally, a decision based on learning environment. Since instruction has been offered through the Internet, studies have been comparing the FTF environment with the online environment in an attempt to see if there is a difference. The measurements have been cognitive, behavioral, and affective with very mixed results. There is little evidence that online instruction is more effective (Burkhardt, Kinnie and Cournoyer, 2008). Most of the studies devoted to comparisons between FTF and online IL instruction report no or little difference in student learning between the two methods (Russell, 1999; Germain et al., 2000; Holman, 2000; Kaplowitz and Contini, 1998; Gutierrez and Wang, 2001).

In many of the studies, librarians were available to help and supervise the participants as they took the tutorial, the posttest questionnaires were not the same for the control and experimental groups, and in some cases the tutorial was taken after a lecture by a librarian. All these confounding variables make the results of these studies questionable.

Two Australian librarian researchers, Marion Churkovich and Christine Oughtred, evaluated the instructional methods of Deakins University in an attempt to see which was more effective at increasing student learning outcomes. The study compared an online tutorial with the library’s FTF instruction and strictly controlled the environments, methods, and confounding variables to validate their results. The researchers reported that students with FTF instruction gained higher posttest mean scores than students completing the online tutorial on their own. Additionally, students attending library sessions felt more confident about their library skills than those in the online tutorial-only sessions. Students who rated themselves poorly at finding library material in the pretest did much better in face-to-face classes than those who attended the mediated or tutorial groups, and the overall level of student confidence was significantly less for the tutorial-only delivery (Churkovich and Oughtred, 2002; Tancheva, 2003). Churkovich concluded, ‘The results of our research indicate that contact with and instruction by a librarian is desirable for the best learning outcomes and confidence in development of information literacy skills. We attribute the success of the class group to flexible instruction, variety in presentation styles and reinforcement of concepts by a librarian’ (Churkovich and Oughtred, 2002).

Arguably there is a difference, and for ILI, FTF is the more effective method for most situations. The instructional coordinator at Cornell University library, Kornelia Tancheva, performed a study that investigated the effectiveness of online tutorials, and through a literature review concluded that FTF is more effective than online instructions. She showed there is a significant difference, and in a 2003 article presents numerous studies that show FTF ILI lectures are more effective than online tutorials in many ways (Tancheva, 2003). At Cochise College in a formal poll of community college students, more than 70 percent would choose a FTF class over an online class if given the opportunity (Walsh, 2010). The students who participated had received both types of instruction and made their decisions based on a comparison of the two methods. The most often voiced reasons for choosing FTF were the structured format: they believed it was easier to keep focused and the physical environment kept them on track. Additionally, the students felt the access to the instructor was a significant advantage to student learning.

Online instruction cannot completely substitute for the connectedness of FTF instruction and should be used in connection with other academic methods, not in isolation (Dewald, 1999). Online tutorials are a good supplemental instruction, informative, and a good marketing tool. To affect the way a participant thinks and acts, to develop life-long learners who are truly information literate, will require the structure and connectedness offered by FTF instruction. Information literacy skills and critical thinking skills cannot be taught and absorbed in a single one-shot session of ILI. If the goal is to create an information literate society through instruction by librarians, the most effective method in any library environment is multiple session FTF active learning instruction that employs all types of supplemental instruction.

American Psychological Association. Learner-centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Reform and Redesign. Available at http://www.apa.org/index.aspx, 1997.

Association of College and Research Libraries, The Guidelines for Instructional Programs in Academic Libraries. 2003. Available at. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/guidelinesinstruction.cfm

Battle, J., The Effect of Information Literacy Instruction on Library Anxiety among International Students. Doctoral dissertation, U of North Texas, May, 2004.. Proquest Information and Learning Company, 2004. [3126554.].

Birks, J., Hunt, F. Hands-on Information Literacy Activities. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman; 2003.

Bren, B., Hilleman, B., Topp, V. Effectiveness of hands-on instruction of electronic resources. Research Strategies. 1998; 16(1):41–51.

Burkhardt, J., Kinnie, J., Cournoyer, C.M. Information Literacy Successes Compared: Online vs. Face to Face. Journal of Library Administration. 2008; 48(3/4):379–389.

Center for Social Marketing and Behavioral Change. Ideas for Changing Lives. Available at http://csmbc.aed.org/index.htm, 2010.

Churkovich, M., Oughtred, C. Can an Online Tutorial Pass the Test for Library Instruction? An Evaluation and Comparison of Library Skills Instruction Methods for First Year Students at Deakin University. Academic and Research Libraries. 2002; 33(1):25–38.

Dewald, N., Scholtz-Crane, A., Booth, H.A. Information Literacy at a Distance: Instructional Design Issues. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 1999; 26(1):33–44.

Germain, C.A., Jacobson, T., Kaczor, S.A. A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Presentation Formats for Instruction: Teaching First-Year Students. College and Research Libraries. 2000; 6(1):65–72.

Gradowski G., Snavely L., Dempsey P., eds. Designs for Active Learning: A Sourcebook of Classroom Strategies for Information Education. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries, 1998.

Grassian, E., Kaplowitz, J. Information Literacy Instruction: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman; 2009.

Griffiths, Y., Ursick, K., Using Active Learning to Shift the Habits of Learning in the Health Care Education. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. 2004; 2(2):1–5 Available at. http://ijahsp.nova.edu/articles/Vol2num2/pdf/griffiths.pdf

Gutierrez, C., Wang, J.A. A Comparison of an Electronic vs. Print Workbook for Information Literacy Instruction at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2001; 27(3):208–220.

Holman, L. A Comparison of Computer-assisted Instruction and Classroom Bibliographic Instruction. Reference and User Services Quarterly. 2000; 40(1):53–65.

Jarson, J., Information Literacy and Higher Education; A Toolkit for Curricular Integration. College and Research Libraries News 2010; Available at. http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/10/534.full

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Smith, K. Active Learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Books; 1991.

Kaplowitz, J.R., Contini, J. Computer-assisted Instruction: Is It an Option for Bibliographic Instruction in Large Undergraduate Survey Classes? College & Research Libraries. 1998; 59:19–28.

Kohl, D., Wilson, L. Effectiveness of Course-integrated Bibliographic Instruction in Improving Course Work. Reference Quarterly. 1986; 26:206–211.

Kunkel, L., Weaver, S. What do They Know?: An Assessment of Undergraduate Library Skills. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 1996; 22:430–435.

Lorenzen, M. Active learning and library instruction. Retrieved from http://www.libraryinstruction.com/active.html, 2001.

Madland, D., Hagness, C. The Case of Kelly. In: Gradowski G., Snavely L., Dempsey P., eds. Designs for Active Learning: A Sourcebook of Classroom Strategies for Information Education, Association of College & Research Libraries. Chicago: A Division of the American Library Association; 1998:146–148.

Marcus, S., Beck, S. A Library Adventure: Comparing a Treasure Hunt with a Traditional Freshman Orientation Tour. College & Research Libraries. 2003; 64:23–44.

Mullen, R. Working Papers on Contract Education. ERIC ED. 1980; 202:811.

Nichols, J., Shaffer, B., Shockey, K. Changing the Face of Instruction: Is Online or In-class More Effective? College and Research Libraries. 2003; 64(5):378–388.

Phillips, G. Culture Shift. Dallas, TX: Pritchett and Associates; 1984.

Portmann, C., Roush, A. Assessing the effects of library instruction. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2004; 30(6):461–465.

Rangan, V., Karim, S., Sandberg, S. Do Better at Doing Good. Harvard Business Review. 2009; 14(3):1–12.

Ren, W. Library Instruction and College Student Self-efficacy in Electronic Information Searching. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2000; 26(5):323–328.

Rodriguez, A.L., Comparison of Effectiveness of the Independent Learning Modality and Directed Classroom Modality at the Interamerican University. 1998 Available at. http://ponce.inter.edu/cai/surisla/vol2/humani/comparis.htm

Russell, T.L. The No Significant Difference Phenomenon as Reported in 355 Research Reports. Summary and Papers: A Comparative Research Annotated. Bibliography on Technology for Distance Education. North Carolina State University; 1999.

Selegean, J.C., Thomas, M.L., Richman, M.L. Long-range Effectiveness of Library Use Instruction. College & Research Libraries. 1983; 44(6):476–480.

Small, R., Zakaria, N., El-Figuigui, H. Motivational Aspects of Information Literacy Skills Instruction in Community College Libraries. College and Research Libraries. 2004; 96–120.

Tancheva, K. Online Tutorials for Library Instruction: An Ongoing Project under Constant Revision. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/events/pdf/tancheva.PDF, 2003.

Walczyk, J., Ramsey, L. Use of Learner-centered Instruction in College Science and Mathematics Classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2003; 40(6):566–584.

Walsh, J. The Effects of Information Literacy Instruction on Student Library Usage. University of Arizona School of Information Resources and Library Science Lunch Lecture Series.. 2010. [January 20, 2010.].

Wang, R. The Lasting Impact of a Library Credit Course. Libraries and the Academy. 2006; 6(1):79–92.

Weiler, A. Information-Seeking Behavior in Generation Y Students: Motivation, Critical Thinking, and Learning Theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2004; 31(1):46–53.