The following article was recently published by the Journal of Information Literacy.
Journal of Information Literacy
v. 14, n. 1, June 2020
This review will aim to establish if there is strong evidence to suggest a student preference for delivery format within information literacy teaching. This research supports and builds on research previously undertaken by Cardiff University (Weightman et al., 2017). Weightman et al (2017) addressed the effect of face-to-face or online learning specifically on learning outcomes. This review specifically focuses on the effects of these methods, and blended formats, on student preference. This research informs teaching practice specifically within Cardiff University’s library service but also teaching practice generally. A comprehensive systematic literature search was undertaken in four databases: Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), British Education Index, ERIC and Scopus. Seven new papers were identified to update the previous discussions on student preference of information literacy teaching format (Weightman et al., 2017). Critical appraisal was undertaken of these newly identified papers. Weightman et al.’s (2017) systematic review suggested that there was no student preference in relation to delivery format. Of the seven new papers identified in this review, two (DaCosta, 2007; Gorman & Staley, 2018) show a slight preference for format; one for online and one for face-to-face although there are limitations to the studies. Of the five remaining studies (Craig & Friehs, 2013; Kelly, 2017; Lag, 2016; Lapidus et al., 2012; Matlin & Lantzy, 2017) all showed a comparable experience between formats, although limitations of these studies are also acknowledged. The update search and appraisal of the literature concurs with previous conclusions (Weightman et al., 2017) that experiences are comparable and student preference is generally neutral in relation to delivery format. Student learning outcomes and student preference are comparable regardless of format (Weightman et al., 2017).
Direct to Full Text Article
23 pages; PDF.