Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of West Florida]On: 05 October 2014, At: 07:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Science & Technology LibrariesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wstl20
The Lasting Value of an Embedded, First-Year, Biology Library Instruction ProgramIgnacio J. Ferrer-Vinent a & Christy A. Carello ba Auraria Library , University of Colorado , Denver, Coloradob Department of Biology , The Metropolitan State College ofDenver , Denver, ColoradoPublished online: 02 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Ignacio J. Ferrer-Vinent & Christy A. Carello (2011) The Lasting Value of anEmbedded, First-Year, Biology Library Instruction Program, Science & Technology Libraries, 30:3,254-266, DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2011.592789
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2011.592789
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Science & Technology Libraries, 30:254–266, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0194-262X print/1541-1109 onlineDOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2011.592789
The Lasting Value of an Embedded, First-Year,Biology Library Instruction Program
IGNACIO J. FERRER-VINENTAuraria Library, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado
CHRISTY A. CARELLODepartment of Biology, The Metropolitan State College of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Discipline-specific library instruction has been embedded in ourfirst-year general biology laboratory course since 2006. In 2009,about 200 students in advanced biology courses completed a sur-vey that assessed their proficiency at using the library resources. Wefound that those who took the discipline-specific library instructionwere more confident in their library skills, had a more schol-arly approach toward biology library research, made better librarydatabase choices, and were better able to meet the expectations oftheir professors. The results also indicate that the first-year skillsneed to be reviewed and scaffolded in upper-level courses.
KEYWORDS assessment, biology, bibliographic instruction,collaboration, first-year experience, information literacy, libraryinstruction, surveys, upper-level students
INTRODUCTION
The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) (2008) recently issuedguidelines for evaluating undergraduate programs in biology. As part ofthose evaluation criteria requirements for biology curriculums, NABT statesthe need for students to learn how to do library research. The importance ofinformation literacy for science and engineering students is also recognizedby the Science and Technology Section (STS) Task Force on InformationLiteracy for Science and Technology, Association of College and ResearchLibraries (ACRL), and American Library Association (ALA) (2006). In addition,
Address correspondence to Ignacio J. Ferrer-Vinent, Auraria Library, University ofColorado Denver, 1100 Lawrence Street, Denver, CO 80204, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
254
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Value of Embedded Biology Library Instruction 255
the National Research Council (2003) report of proposals to improve under-graduate training of future researchers in biology underscores the valueof learning library research skills. Logically, an ideal time to initiate goodresearch skills is early in a career. First-year biology students need to beginlearning how to find and evaluate information so they can adequately utilizeit when researching topics of interest in their biology courses. They shouldexpand their initial skills throughout later courses. These lifelong libraryresearch skills help students through undergraduate and graduate programsand in their professional careers.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Subject-specific information literacy and its integration into curricula, espe-cially in the sciences, benefit students (Manuel 2004; Manuel, Beck, andMolloy 2005). Discipline-specific library instruction is part of biology edu-cation in many colleges and universities. Among the trends reported bySinn (1998) in her literature review of library instruction for biology werethat most classes were one-shot sessions, mainly covering the library onlinecatalog and Biological Abstracts, with collaboration between biologists andlibrarians, and without student testing or assessment of the instruction. Withthe onset of the new millennium, assessment for improving information liter-acy became paramount. In addition, many different approaches to deliveringlibrary instruction are in use now. Collaboration between biology faculty andlibrarians continues to be viewed as essential for information literacy to besuccessful.
Researchers reported different methods and findings for assessment oflibrary instruction in biology. Spackman (2007) used focus groups to assessbiology library instruction at her institution. She found that students havepoor library research skills; teaching assistants do not have the time or pro-ficiency to teach these skills; and collaboration is vital. Dinkelman (2010)analyzed biology syllabi at her institution and found that most did notsuggest specific databases or the library as sources of information for assign-ments. She proposed ways of improving this situation. MacMillan (2007)surveyed the twenty-five students in an upper-level biology course after itslibrary instruction session. He was able to study students’ reports of their pro-gressive learning about the selection and use of library resources throughouttheir undergraduate academic careers. Callinan (2005) investigated the wayfirst-year and last-year biology students searched for information in thelibrary at University College Dublin. Her survey revealed unfamiliarity as thecause for students not using library databases. She suggested course-specificlibrary instruction throughout the biology curriculum.
Librarians and biology faculty collaborated using various approachesto biology library instruction and assessment of their efforts. Bowden and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
256 I. J. Ferrer-Vinent and C. A. Carello
DiBenedetto (2001) collaborated on library instruction for general biologyand showed benefits of their strategy through student surveys and finalreports. Winterman (2009) recognized the need for improved informationliteracy and as a result developed and implemented, in collaboration withthe biology faculty, a for-credit course on information literacy specifically forbiology students. Kearns and Hybl (2005) collaborated to integrate libraryinstruction into the first-year biology curriculum. Their approach includeda library tour, a Web-based tutorial on science literature databases, andinteractive, course-related assignments using databases. They showed thesuccess of their program through pre- and postsurveys of the students.Using a pretest with end-of-semester and end-of-academic-year posttestsfor an experimental group and a control group of first-year biology lab-oratory course students, Fuselier and Nelson (2011) demonstrated literacybenefits from their one-shot library instruction lesson that was accompa-nied by semester-long embedded course writing assignments. Ferrer-Vinentand Carello (2008) embedded their library instruction into a general biol-ogy lab course. They provided students with a library research chapter inthe lab manual, active learning exercises during the library session, andtopic-related searches for articles at each biology laboratory session. To eval-uate the program they used pre-instruction and end-of-semester student andfaculty surveys.
BACKGROUND
Located in downtown Denver, Colorado, the Auraria Library serves theUniversity of Colorado Denver, Metropolitan State College of Denver, andthe Community College of Denver. The Metropolitan State College of Denver(MSCD) is an urban, comprehensive, four-year college with nearly 24,000students. The student population is diverse with respect to age, socioe-conomic and ethnic backgrounds, and lifestyles. The college is rankedninety-five in the country for graduating Latino students and among the topone hundred for graduating students of color (Hispanic Outlook in HigherEducation 2010; Diverse Issues in Higher Education 2010).
Biology, with 1,300 majors, is the second largest major at MSCD. Thebiology core curriculum requires students to take two semesters of gen-eral biology. Both semesters of general biology have a required three-hourper week laboratory session. The first semester of general biology has anannual enrollment of roughly 1,800 students per year because many non-majors also take the course. The second semester of general biology hasan annual enrollment of roughly 550 students and is predominately madeup of biology majors plus a small number of environmental science andanthropology majors. The general biology 2 laboratory (GBL2) is inquirybased. Laboratory sessions involve using the scientific method, graphing and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Value of Embedded Biology Library Instruction 257
statistically analyzing data, and writing laboratory reports using the primaryliterature for citations. The second lab of GBL2 is devoted to biology-specificlibrary instruction. Students are required to conduct library research through-out the semester. See Ferrer-Vinent and Carello (2008) for a more completedescription of the program.
As we previously reported (Ferrer-Vinent and Carello 2008), our embed-ded first-year program helps students find reference information requiredfor course assignments, follow a proper sequence for finding proprietaryliterature, and become more competent at citing literature in papers and pre-sentations. In addition, we found that students referred back to the libraryinstruction chapter in the manual when necessary. Biology faculty alsofelt that the embedded library assignment is very beneficial for completingassignments in GBL2 and in future courses.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Previous studies have demonstrated the benefits of biology library instruc-tion for students groups within periods of one class, one semester, or oneyear. However, very few studies have looked at the lasting benefits of first-year biology library instruction throughout students’ academic careers. Ourobjective of this study was to evaluate the long-term academic career reten-tion of skills and overall benefits of participating in discipline-specific libraryinstruction that included continued reinforcement of skills in a first-yeargeneral biology course. We predicted that students who participated in theprogram would have better library research skills and would be more likelyto use appropriate library resources in advanced biology courses and nonbi-ology courses than those students who did not have the discipline-specificinstruction.
METHODS
To evaluate the long-term effects that first-year, discipline-specific libraryinstruction had on students’ abilities to conduct library research, we devel-oped a sixteen-question print survey for students taking advanced biologycourses. The survey was conducted in 2009, three years after the discipline-specific library exercise was implemented into GBL2. Faculty membersteaching the courses were asked to participate, and professors who agreedadministered the survey to their students during class time. The surveys wereanonymous and voluntary. A total of 196 students participated.
We limited the length of the survey to minimize use of class time. It hadprimarilymultiple choicequestions and, in addition, threeopen-endedqueries.The survey included a mix of attitudinal and objective questions. Some of the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
258 I. J. Ferrer-Vinent and C. A. Carello
questions helped to describe our population: when they took GBL2 with itslibrary instruction lab; if they had library instruction in any nonbiology courses;and what were their career goals. Other subjective questions asked abouttheir opinions: had the GBL2 library instruction helped them in other biologyor nonbiology courses; how confident they felt in using library resourcesin general and specific library services such as interlibrary loan; and whatcomments they had. The remainder of the survey was composed of objectivequestions to help us evaluate important teaching points and library skills,such as database selection, citation information, and types of literature. Thequestions from the survey are shown in the Appendix.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Almost half of the respondents (one hundred students) had not taken GBL2(question 1). The remaining ninety-six respondents had taken the course andits library lab component in various semesters. We recognized two reasonswhy such a large proportion of students surveyed in the advanced courseshad not been exposed to the biology-specific library instruction associatedwith GBL2. Many of the students in advanced biology courses were transferstudents. In addition, since GBL2 is a new course that started in the fallof 2006, many students in 2009 advanced courses began studying biologybefore the course was available. See Figure 1.
The survey asked students about their future education or career plans.See Figure 2, question 15. Almost half of the students wanted to continue tograduate school; 30 percent leaned toward continuing to advanced degreesin health fields; and 20 percent were either not continuing or undecided at
2009
(7)
2008
(32)
2007
(38)
2006
(19)
DNT
(100)
100 studentsdid not take GBL2
(DNT)
96 studentstook GBL2
(2006 –2009)
FIGURE 1 When Students Took GBL2, Expressed in Number of Respondents.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Value of Embedded Biology Library Instruction 259
Med School
15%
Grad School
49%
Not Continuing
14%
Undecided
6%
Vet School
6%
Nursing
7%
1% eachDental School Pharmacy Education
FIGURE 2 Future Plans of Students, Expressed in Percent of Respondents.
the time. Obviously, almost 80 percent of the students would need biology-related library research skills in the future.
Several other courses at MSCD offer library instruction that is genericand not discipline-specific, thus it was necessary to determine whetherbiology library research skills of the respondents were due to the subject-specific, embedded instruction or due to library instruction in other courses(question 2). Among this group of students, 61 percent of those with a GBL2background and 59 percent of those who had not taken GBL2 indicated hav-ing attended at least one library instruction session for a nonbiology course.This suggests that any differences between the two groups can be attributedto taking biology library instruction in GLB2.
We asked those who had taken the GBL2 whether or not the biologylibrary instruction had made their library research easier in other biologycourses and in nonbiology courses (questions 5 and 6). A majority ofstudents who took the biology library instruction felt that it had helpedthem with both other biology courses and with courses in other disci-plines (see Table 1). Some of the library skills we taught, such as searching
TABLE 1 GBL2 Students’ Perceptions about the Biology Specific Library InstructionFacilitating Research in Other Courses, Expressed in Percent of Respondents
Type of course Made research easier Did not make research easier
Other biology courses 63 percent 36 percentNonbiology courses 55 percent 45 percent
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
260 I. J. Ferrer-Vinent and C. A. Carello
the catalog and finding full-text, are fully transferable among disciplines.Therefore, learning or reinforcing these skills should help students in allcourses. Other research skills, such as database selection and citation style,are subject-specific and would tend to help students in their future biologycourses.
To test the students’ ability to identify parts of a citation, we asked thestudents to select the title of the journal and the number of authors on agiven bibliographic citation (questions 9 and 10). We also asked them todifferentiate between primary and secondary sources (question 12). Table 2shows the results of these inquiries. As the data indicate, there were nodifferences between those who had attended biology library instruction andthose who had not. Correct answers to the questions on both groups hoveraround 60 percent, which was also the same percent in both groups thathad taken other, nonbiology library instruction. Perhaps the reason for thisis that many of the students in both groups had taken library instruction inother courses in which citations and types of literature are discussed. Eventhough they might seem like simple concepts to librarians and experiencedresearchers, apparently they are not so simple for students. Still, we feel thatour biology students should be able to improve on these skills. We will focusmore on them in GBL2 in the future.
Both groups of students were asked about their use of library databasesin biology as well as nonbiology courses during their college career (ques-tions 3 and 4). Table 3 shows the results of these questions. There was nosignificant difference between the two groups in their use of databases fornonbiology courses. However, when it came to using library databases forbiology courses, those who had the biology library instruction surpassedthe group that did not by a 28 percent margin. This datum indicates thatstudents tend to apply their library instruction in a very subject-specific
TABLE 2 Correct Identification of Journal Title and Number of Authors in a Citation,and Correct Differentiation between Primary and Secondary Sources (Type of Literature),Expressed in Percent of Respondents
Students Journal title Number of authors Type of literature
Took GBL2 64 percent 63 percent 54 percentDid not take GBL2 63 percent 64 percent 59 percent
TABLE 3 Use of Library Databases for Biology and Nonbiology Courses, Expressed in Percentof Respondents
Use of library databases Use of library databasesStudents in biology courses in nonbiology courses
Took GBL2 88 percent 79 percentDid not take GBL2 60 percent 73 percent
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Value of Embedded Biology Library Instruction 261
manner. Perhaps they knew about English or psychology databases fromlibrary instruction in those areas, but they were not aware of good biologydatabases to use in biology courses.
The selection of appropriate databases to obtain reliable information ona topic is an important aspect of an effective research strategy. We assessedthis research skill with a closed-choice and with an open-ended question.The closed-choice question about database selection asked the students toselect appropriate databases for researching biology topics from a list ofdatabases (question 7). Could students recognize the name of a good biol-ogy database? One might expect that when faced with multiple choices thestudents would pick some obvious possibilities if they did not know the cor-rect answers. See Table 4 for the results of this inquiry, which indicate thatstudents can select appropriate biology databases from a list if the databasename is obvious, such as BIOSIS.
We also wanted to know if students were familiar enough with a goodbiology database to recall its name. Therefore, the students were asked inan open-ended question about database selection to write the name of theirfavorite database for finding information on biology topics (question 8).We considered the open-ended question to be a more reliable test of theirknowledge. See Table 5 for the compiled results of this question. The data inTables 4 and 5 indicate that those who took the biology library instructionwere more likely to name or select good databases for researching theirbiology topics.
We routinely administer a pre-instruction survey to GBL2 studentsbefore they begin the biology subject-specific library instruction. This surveyhas always asked the multiple choice database question. In 2009 we beganto include the open-ended database question in the pre-instruction GBL2survey. Table 5 includes the results to the open-ended database preference
TABLE 4 Good, Poor, and Bad Choices Made by Students in Selecting Proper Databases toResearch Biology Topics, Expressed in Percent of Respondents
Students Good choices Poor choices Bad choices
Took GBL2 71 percent 23 percent 6 percentDid not take GBL2 61 percent 27 percent 13 percent
TABLE 5 Appropriate and Inappropriate Database Preference for Researching Biology Topics,Expressed in Percent of Respondents
Students Appropriate database Inappropriate database
Took GBL2 81 percent 19 percentDid not take GBL2 62 percent 38 percentPre-instruction survey of
those who took GBL223 percent 77 percent
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
262 I. J. Ferrer-Vinent and C. A. Carello
question. Only 23 percent of students attending GBL2 could name a gooddatabase for biology research prior to instruction. This datum is significantin showing why no one should assume that today’s technologically savvystudents do not need library instruction to do research in the library. On thecontrary, even though a majority of today’s students are technically savvy,they often do not know what library research tools to use or how to usethem effectively.
Using data from questions 1 and 8 we examined any relationshipsbetween when students took the GBL2 and their ability to choose gooddatabases for biology research. See Table 6 for the results of this inquiry.Students who had most recently taken the biology library instruction didbest, with those who had taken it in previous years apparently partially for-getting what they had learned. These data indicate that there is some lossof this skill over time and that probably some refreshing and upgrading oflibrary skills in upper-level courses might be beneficial.
Students were also asked if they expected to use library resources intheir current upper-level biology courses (question 13). Among those whotook GBL2 library instruction, 82 percent mentioned that they would, ascontrasted with only 58 percent of those who had not taken that biologylibrary instruction. This 24 percent difference suggests the importance andvalue of first-year biology library instruction. For the authors, these resultsindicate that students who have instruction at the beginning of their careers,when they are required to constantly use resources from the library, aremore accustomed to the process and encouraged to use a more scholarlyapproach later in other biology courses.
Finally, we wanted to know how confident the students felt with usinglibrary resources and interlibrary loan (questions 11 and 14). As shown inTable 7, those who took GBL2 library instruction expressed slightly moreconfidence than their counterparts who did not.
TABLE 6 Good Selection of Databases for Biology by Year the Students Took GBL2,Expressed in Percent of Respondents
Year student took GBL2 2006 2007 2008 2009
Good database choices for biology 66 percent 70 percent 70 percent 94 percent
TABLE 7 Level of Confidence in Accessing Library Resources and Using Interlibrary Loan,Expressed in Percent of Respondents
Library resources Interlibrary loan
Very Somewhat Not Very Somewhat NotStudents confident confident confident confident confident confident
Took GBL2 54 percent 43 percent 3 percent 26 percent 47 percent 26 percentDid not take GBL2 38 percent 50 percent 12 percent 25 percent 38 percent 37 percent
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Value of Embedded Biology Library Instruction 263
CONCLUSIONS
Developing strong library research skills is a necessary component tobecoming a good scientist. However, most academic programs do not havefirst-year, discipline-specific training in these research skills with the require-ment of using those skills over the course of a semester. We have shownthat an embedded library instruction program with weekly reinforcementof skills resulted in students who take a more scholarly approach to theirstudies in both advanced biology courses and nonbiology courses. Upper-level students who had participated in the GBL2 library instruction madebetter library database choices, a very important aspect of library research.In addition, students who had taken GBL2 expressed more confidence intheir library research skills and were more likely to use the library databasesin their current courses than their counterparts who had not taken thediscipline-specific instruction. Faculty members were not officially surveyedin this study; however, in our follow-up conversations with the faculty mem-bers who had administered the surveys in their advanced biology courses,we learned that the majority of them expected students to conduct libraryresearch to complete written assignments. Clearly, students who had GBL2were more likely to meet the faculty’s expectations. Overall, biology-specificlibrary research instruction had lasting value, but we also believe that theskills should be revisited and scaffolded in upper-level courses so that ourgraduates have the tools to develop into biology scholars and can succeedin graduate school and their professional careers.
REFERENCES
Bowden, T. S., and A. DiBenedetto. 2001. Information literacy in a biology laboratorysession: An example of librarian-faculty collaboration. Research Strategies 18(2): 143–149.
Callinan, J. E. 2005. Information-seeking behaviour of undergraduate biology stu-dents: A comparative analysis of first-year and final year students in UniversityCollege Dublin. Library Review 54 (2): 86–99.
Dinkelman, A. L. 2010. Using course syllabi to assess research expectations of biol-ogy majors: Implications for further development of information literacy skillsin the curriculum. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 60 (Winter).http://www.istl.org/10-winter/refereed3.html (accessed May 25, 2010).
Diverse Issues in Higher Education. 2010. Top100 degree producers. http://diverseeducation.com/ (accessed June 30, 2010).
Ferrer-Vinent, I. J., and C. A. Carello. 2008. Embedded library instruction in a first-year biology laboratory course. Science & Technology Libraries 28 (4): 325–351.
Fuselier, L., and B. Nelson. 2011. A test of the efficacy of an information literacy les-son in an introductory biology laboratory course with a strong science-writingcomponent. Science and Technology Libraries 30 (1): 58–75.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
264 I. J. Ferrer-Vinent and C. A. Carello
Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education. 2010. Top 100 colleges awarding degreesto Hispanics, 2009. http://www.hispanicoutlook.com/top100_focus.htm?section=b (accessed June 30, 2010).
Kearns, K., and T. T Hybl. 2005. A collaboration between faculty and librarians todevelop and assess a science literacy laboratory module. Science & TechnologyLibraries 25 (4): 39–56.
MacMillan, D. 2007. Ask an interesting question: Insights from a reflective survey ofsenior biology students. In Uncharted waters: Tapping the depths of our com-munity to enhance learning: Proceedings of the 35th National LOEX LibraryInstruction Conference, ed. B. Seitz, 149–153. San Diego, CA: LOEX Press.
Manuel, K. 2004. Generic and discipline-specific information literacy competencies:The case of the sciences. Science & Technology Libraries 24 (3–4): 279–308.
Manuel, K., S. E. Beck, and M. Molloy. 2005. An ethnographic study of attitudesinfluencing faculty collaboration in library instruction. The Reference Librarian43 (89–90): 139–161.
National Association of Biology Teachers. 2008. Guidelines for the evaluationof four-year undergraduate biology programs. http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=118 (accessed July 1, 2010).
National Research Council. 2003. BIO 2010: Transforming undergraduate educationfor future research biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Science and Technology Section Task Force on Information Literacy for Scienceand Technology, Association of College and Research Libraries, AmericanLibrary Association. 2006. Information literacy standards for science andengineering/technology. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/infolitscitech.cfm (accessed April 15, 2011).
Sinn, R. N. 1998. Library instruction for biology courses: A literature review andsurvey. Research Strategies 16 (2): 103–115.
Spackman, E. 2007. Utilizing focus groups to evaluate an information literacy programin a general biology course. Science & Technology Libraries 27 (3): 3–28.
Winterman, B. 2009. Building better biology undergraduates through information lit-eracy integration. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 58 (Summer).http://www.istl.org/09-summer/refereed1.html (accessed May 25, 2010).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Value of Embedded Biology Library Instruction 265
APPENDIX: SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. When did you take MSCD BIO 1091 (General Biology Lab II)? (Chooseone.)___ 2006 ___ Spg ___Sum ___ Fall___ 2007 ___ Spg ___Sum ___ Fall___ 2008 ___ Spg ___Sum ___ Fall___ Did not take this course
2. Have you had library instruction in another course?___ Yes___ NoHow many other library instruction classes have you had at Auraria
Library?___ 0___ 1___ 2___ 3 or more
3. How often have you used Auraria Library databases for biology coursesduring your college career? (Choose one.)___ Never___ A few times___ Many times
4. How often have you used Auraria Library databases for nonbiologycourses during your college career? (Choose one.)___ Never___ A few times___ Many times
5. If you took MSCD BIO 1091, do you think that the library instructionlab/class made library research easier in other biology courses?___ Yes___ No___ Did not take this course
6. If you took MSCD BIO 1091, do you think that the library instruc-tion lab/class made library research easier in courses not related tobiology?____ Yes____ No____ Did not take this course
7. Which of the following databases are useful for biology topics? (Chooseall that apply.)___ Cambridge Collections Online___ BIOSIS___ SPIN web___ Library Catalog
(Continued)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
266 I. J. Ferrer-Vinent and C. A. Carello
___ Google___ Science Direct___ Web of Science___ ICPSR
8. Which was your favorite database for finding information about biologytopics?_______________________________
9. Identify the journal in this citation:Jeanson R, Deneubourg JL. 2006. Path selection in cockroaches. J Exp
Biol. 209(23):4768–4775.___ Deneubourg JL___ Path selection in cockroaches___ Journal of Experimental Biology___ None of the above
10. How many authors are there in the following citation?Jeanson R, Deneubourg JL. 2006. Path selection in cockroaches. J Exp
Biol. 209(23):4768–4775.______________________
11. How confident are you about using Interlibrary Loan for obtaining thefull text of articles you cannot find otherwise?___ Very confident___ Somewhat confident___ Not at all
12. To differentiate between an article on original research (a primarysource) and a review article (a secondary source) it is good to knowthat review articles . . .
___ Are generally lengthy___ Have many references___ Do not have an Experimental (Methods and Materials) section___ All of the above
13. Do you expect to use the library resources in your current biologycourses?___ Yes___ No
14. How confident do you feel accessing the library resources?___ Very confident___ Somewhat confident___ Not at all
15. After achieving your B.S., are you planning to go on to . . . ?___ Graduate School___ Medical School___ Veterinary School___ Other (please, specify) ______________________ Not continuing on to other degrees
16. Comments and Recommendations: ___________________
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
est F
lori
da]
at 0
7:23
05
Oct
ober
201
4
