Download pdf - Assessing the Effectiveness of Online Library Instruction with Finance Students

This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek]On: 07 October 2014, At: 08:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Web LibrarianshipPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjwl20

Assessing the Effectiveness ofOnline Library Instruction withFinance StudentsCurt G. Friehs a & Cindy L. Craig ba Kansas Public Libraryb State UniversityPublished online: 12 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Curt G. Friehs & Cindy L. Craig (2008) Assessing the Effectivenessof Online Library Instruction with Finance Students, Journal of Web Librarianship, 2:4,493-509, DOI: 10.1080/19322900802484438

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19322900802484438

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjwl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19322900802484438

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19322900802484438

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Assessing the Effectiveness of OnlineLibrary Instruction with Finance Students

Curt G. FriehsCindy L. Craig

ABSTRACT. Many academic librarians use online information literacytutorials as an alternative or a supplement to in-class library instruction. Tu-torials created with streaming media software such as Camtasia Studio havebecome increasingly popular. Librarians at a mid-sized Midwestern uni-versity have created several such tutorials demonstrating various library re-sources. The value of streaming-media tutorials is supported by key learningtheories such as cognitive load theory, dual coding theory, and multimedialearning theory. However, studies measuring the impact of online tutorialson student learning of information-literacy skills have shown mixed results.The authors tested the effectiveness of an online information literacy tutorialon a group of undergraduate business students. About 140 students in threeundergraduate finance classes rated a Value Line online tutorial. Studentswere also invited to complete a follow-up survey online with Blackboard.This survey measured student knowledge retention of Value Line and in-terest in online tutorials. The results showed that while students viewed thetutorial positively, they preferred face-to-face instruction from a librarian.Also, while most students could locate the proper links in Value Line, only30 percent were able to successfully look up a company. Indicators point toa future for online instruction coexisting with, yet not replacing, traditionalclassroom library instruction.

Curt G. Friehs is Business Librarian, Kansas City, Kansas Public Library(E-mail: kckpl.lib.ks.us). He has a bachelor’s degree of business administrationin marketing and a master’s degree in library and information sciences from theUniversity of Pittsburgh.

Cindy L. Craig is Social Sciences Librarian, Wichita, State University(E-mail: [email protected]). She has a bachelor’s of specialized studiesin behavioral sciences from Ohio University. In addition, she holds master’s de-grees in art therapy and library science from Emporia State University.

Journal of Web Librarianship, Vol. 2(4) 2008C© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.

doi: 10.1080/19322900802484438 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

494 JOURNAL OF WEB LIBRARIANSHIP

KEYWORDS. Web instruction, online tutorials, surveys, business, in-struction evaluation, outcomes assessment

Designing effective online tutorials presents new opportunities for li-brarians and information professionals. Developing online tutorials thatare conducive to creating positive information literacy outcomes is criti-cal for several reasons. The digital interface of databases creates a needfor Web-based learning resources. Students receive continuous access todigital-library offerings. Learning resources that thrive in the tech environ-ment serve a complementary role with the digital resources themselves.

A two-part survey was distributed to about 140 undergraduate businessstudents in finance classes after viewing an online finance-related tutorial.The assessment measures were used to ascertain end-user tutorial effec-tiveness. Also, a number of learning theories were examined and appliedin the process of creating online tutorials.

ONLINE LIBRARY TUTORIALS: A VALUABLE TOOL

The versatility of online information literacy tutorials has made them avaluable teaching tool for instruction librarians. An online tutorial can beused as a supplement to in-class instruction, as a backup method when anonline database is unavailable for a live demonstration, or as a stand-alonelesson. Online tutorials also appeal to faculty, staff, and students who arereluctant or unable to attend in-person instruction sessions.1

Tutorials are designed to reach different audiences, including distanceeducation students, graduate students, and undergraduates. Many, such asthose adapted from the basic research skills tutorial Texas InformationLiteracy Tutorial (TILT), are aimed at students new to university librariesand college-level research. Some online tutorials focus on a specific re-source such as NetLibrary, ProQuest, or Cambridge Scientific Abstracts.2

Many tutorials are interactive, employing quizzes, games, and surveys. Inone example—the tutorial “Doing Research” at the Daley Library at theUniversity of Illinois at Chicago—consists entirely of games using Macro-media Flash. In one module, users match synonyms, written on pieces ofpopcorn, with their corresponding keywords, written on popcorn buckets.3

Streaming Media Tutorials and Relevant Learning Theories

Though some authors have suggested best practices for designing on-line information literacy tutorials, no established set of standards exists.4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Curt G. Friehs and Cindy L. Craig 495

Because of this, online tutorials come in a wide variety of formats andstyles depending on the audience for the tutorials, the technical expertiseof tutorial creators, and the financial resources of the institution. Increas-ingly, tutorials that use streaming media are becoming popular. Softwareprograms such as Camtasia Studio and Qarbon Viewlet allow users toview captured footage of a database demonstration accompanied by voicenarration.5 The usefulness of streaming media tutorials, such as those de-signed at Wichita State University, is supported by some key learningtheories.

Cognitive Load Theory: This theory, developed by John Sweller, positsthat minimizing the load on working memory, where new information isprocessed and stored, maximizes learning potential.6 One strategy to de-crease cognitive load is to engage the visual and verbal learning channelssimultaneously. This avoids the split-attention effect, which happens whenlearners have to switch back and forth between the two channels. Chunk-ing information into more easily-digestible bits also decreases cognitiveload.7

Dual Coding Theory: Originally developed by Allan Paivio, dual codingrefers to two methods of encoding new information into memory, audio andvisual.8 Because the two codes do not compete with each other, learning isenhanced when audio and visual information are presented at the same time.Using both codes increases the chance of the learner recalling the material.Dual coding is especially effective if the audio and visual informationinteract in a relevant way, such as with a mnemonic device.9 By pairingaudio narration with animated screen capture footage, streaming mediatutorials help learners to organize and integrate new information, leadingto a deeper understanding of the material.10

Multimedia Theory: Richard Mayer borrowed elements of learning the-ories, including cognitive load theory and dual coding theory, to develophis own theory of multimedia learning.11 From this theory, Mayer de-veloped several principles of multimedia design. According to his spatialand temporal contiguity principles, students learn better when words andpictures are shown close together and at the same time. Mayer’s coher-ence principle states students learn better without extra words, pictures,or sounds. According to the modality principle, which is similar to dualcoding theory, students learn better from pairing animation and narra-tion (visual and audio) than from animation and on-screen text (visualonly). Finally, students learn better from animation and narration thanfrom animation, narration, and on-screen text, according to the redundancyprinciple.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Composition and Effectiveness of Tutorials

In her much-cited article, Nancy Dewald suggested pedagogical guide-lines for online tutorials.12 For instance, online tutorials should have inter-active features such as games, a hyperlinked structure, or quizzes that giveimmediate feedback. The interactivity of tutorials stimulates active learn-ing by supporting students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. The interactivityof tutorials has been stressed by many in library science literature as beingintegral to success.13 Dewald called interactivity the “online hallmark ofactive learning.”14

However, there is little data to support this widely held belief aboutlibrary tutorials, though there may be some evidence to the contrary.One extensive review of studies revealed that constructivist teaching ap-proaches (also called “discovery” or “experiential”), while widespread, arenot effective.15 In fact, minimally guided learning activities, such as gamesor simulations, may minimize learning by increasing cognitive load. Theresearchers found that inexperienced learners benefit more from structuredapproaches, such as process worksheets. Process worksheets describe thephases a learner should go through when solving a problem and hints forsuccessful completion of each phase. When it comes to library instructiontutorials, having a student conduct a guided search through a database maybe more effective than, for example, a Flash game that has students matchpictures with appropriate terminology. Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller,and Richard E. Clark’s article casts some doubt on the effectiveness ofinteractivity and points to an issue that needs further study in relation tolibrary tutorials.

Although online tutorials have intuitive appeal as a teaching tool, do stu-dents really learn from them? Rachel G. Viggiano surveyed several studiesof online tutorials and concluded they are as effective as in-person libraryinstruction, although more study needs to be done.16 At the University ofIllinois at Chicago, thirty undergraduates completed a test before and aftera Flash-based tutorial. The students averaged nine correct answers (outof ten) on the post-test. They also rated the tutorial highly in usefulness,enjoyability, uniqueness, and appropriateness to education level.17

“Library Research Success” was an online tutorial designed especiallyfor undergraduate business students at Seneca College in Toronto. Evalua-tive testing was determined by the results of two graded assignments relatedto the tutorial and feedback forms. All 600 students got passing grades onthe assignments. More than 80 percent of the students rated aspects of thetutorial, including research skills, content, instructional delivery methods,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


and presentation as “excellent” or “good.” However, 64 percent of thestudents rated the overall value of the tutorial as only “fair.”18

Librarians at Washington State University measured the use and effec-tiveness of four online tutorials, two text-based and two using streamingmedia. After viewing one of the four tutorials, 98 students were quizzedabout tutorial content and surveyed for attitudes and usage patterns. Al-though the students reported a high level of confidence in using libraryresources in the post-tests, they scored poorly on the quizzes. However,distance-education students scored better than those on campus. The re-searchers were unclear as to whether student learning was successful.19

WSU Libraries’ Online Tutorials: “Wutorials”

Starting in summer 2006, reference and instruction librarians begana project to create online tutorials using Camtasia Studio software. Thelibrarians decided to call these tutorials “Wutorials,” reflecting the nameof the WSU mascot, the Wu Shock. Each subject librarian was requiredto create at least one Wutorial. The Wutorials created so far demonstratehow to access databases from off campus, how to use the online catalog,how to construct a search string, and how to use the Business & CompanyResource Center and Value Line databases. The Wutorials are kept brief(between three and five minutes) in order to hold the interest of viewers.

To create a Wutorial, the librarian must choose a database or resourceto highlight in a tutorial. Because there is no formal process for this,choosing a resource is left to the discretion of the librarian. For instance,the business librarian noted students frequently asked him questions duringbibliographic instruction sessions about how to locate and choose the beststocks. Therefore, he decided a Wutorial about the Value Line databasewould benefit many business students.

Once a database is chosen, the librarian writes a script for the tutorial.Since databases have a variety of features and functions, the librarian mustcarefully choose which ones to highlight in the script. This requires aworking knowledge of end-user needs. For instance, the business librarianchose to highlight the most essential features of Value Line, includinglooking up stock information on a particular company and finding the topinvestment picks.

Using the script as a guideline, the librarian uses the Camtasia Studiosoftware to record the computer screen while demonstrating parts of thedatabase. Camtasia also allows the librarian to circle items on the screenfor emphasis during the demonstration. After recording the raw footage,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


the librarian edits the material by deleting and rearranging footage, addingtransitions between clips, and adding “call-outs” (such as arrows or dia-logue bubbles) to highlight database functions. Finally, the librarian addsvoice narration to support the visual demonstration. The finished product,which is published on the Web as a Flash movie, resembles a condensedbibliographic instruction session.

The Value Line Wutorial is the focus of this study. Since this tutorial wascreated for a specific audience—undergraduate business students—there isan assumption users will already have some research skills and knowledgeabout finance issues, such as buying stocks. Users of this Wutorial mayalready be familiar with the paper version of Value Line.20

METHODOLOGY

Undergraduate students from three financial management classes taughtby the same instructor at the Barton School of Business at Wichita StateUniversity were invited to participate in an initial survey. Two classes hadabout 55 students, while the third had only about 35 students. The surveywas voluntary, and not every student chose to participate. Students wereasked to view the Value Line Wutorial in class and were given a survey torate their responses to the tutorial. The Value Line Wutorial was chosen forthis survey since many of the participating students were working toward afinance degree and would likely find this Wutorial pertinent to their educa-tion and research interests. The survey offered quantitative measurementas well as open-ended qualitative questions (see Appendix 1). Statisticaldifferences in survey responses across the three classes were unremark-able. A second follow-up survey was conducted virtually via Blackboard(see Appendix 2). Students were asked to fill out a shorter survey measur-ing tutorial knowledge retention and offer additional feedback on onlineinstruction.

RESULTS

Results were tabulated using Microsoft Excel as well as SPSS statisticalsoftware, which can calculate standard deviations, means, frequencies, anda number of other relevant statistical indicators.

Results gathered from these surveys indicated an interest for onlineinformation literacy instruction. Interestingly, the follow-up survey re-sults showed that for every student who preferred online instruction, therewere roughly two who preferred face-to-face instruction (see Figure 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 1. Instruction Preferences Among Students

Additionally, the majority of survey respondents indicated the online tuto-rial did indeed help (see Figure 2). These results indicate that while studentsview online tutorials positively, face-to-face instruction is still highly val-ued. Other survey results showed that the vast majority (90 percent) ofthe students had never used Value Line Online before. On two measures,between 60 and 70 percent of the students were able to successfully locatethe proper links. However, only 30 percent were able to successfully lookup a company using Value Line.

The initial survey revealed that overall student ratings of the tuto-rial were determined to an extent by student interest in the stock mar-ket. Students who were most interested in the stock market on averageranked the tutorial at 4.4. Students who expressed average interest ordisinterest in the stock market rated the Value Line tutorial at 3.95 and4 respectfully. Average and disinterested students did not show a sig-nificant difference in overall Value Line ratings. While none of the rat-ings were significantly low, this suggests finance students with the great-est interest in the stock market gave the highest overall rating for thetutorial.

Qualitative results indicated the greatest value derived from the tutorial’s“simplicity,” ease of use, brevity, step-by-step instruction, and content (see

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 2. Did the Value Line Online Wutorial Help?

Table 1). These results were in line with expectations of those creatingthe tutorials. A significant number of students wanted more information.About 30 percent (26 out of 86) who answered this question indicated astrong interest in more tutorials explaining additional resources. Another58 percent (50 out of 86) indicated the tutorial itself was sufficient andwere satisfied with what they received. These results illustrate the linebetween too much information and too little. It also shows a potentialpitfall in making tutorials. The length of this tutorial was about threeminutes. Longer tutorials could conceivably engage some students whiledisengaging others.

Tutorial length was not a significant indicator, according to survey re-sults. However, a desire for more tutorials for resources other than ValueLine was indicated. One viable option is to create a series of tutorials fordatabases. Creating short database tutorials is one way to engage students.Most of the students who were interested in the stock market reported in anopen-ended question that the material presented in the Value Line Wutorialwas sufficient. This suggests some level of customer satisfaction with theend product.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics for Value Line Wutorial Survey, Part I

# of Std.responses Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation

Better Understand Value LineOnline (1-low – 5-high)

132 2.00 5.00 3.9470 .79420

Online Instruction is (1-poor – 5conducive to learning)

132 2.00 5.00 4.0985 .80892

Interested in investing money inthe stock market (1-no – 5-yes)

132 1.00 5.00 3.7348 1.17128

Speed material is presented(1-too fast/slow –5-appropriate)

132 1.00 5.00 3.8864 1.04588

Amount of material presented(1-too much/too little –5-appropriate)

132 1.00 5.00 3.8788 .98097

Usefulness of Value Line Wutorial(1-not useful – 5-very useful)

132 2.00 5.00 4.1364 .83595

Overall rating of Value LineWutorial (1-poor – 5-exellent)

131 2.00 5.00 4.0229 .75921

Valid N (listwise) 131

Additional Survey Results

Of the 132 students who indicated a better understanding of Value Line,roughly 72 percent indicated above average ratings (see Table 2). Another25 percent gave average ratings, while only three percent gave a slightlybelow average rating. No respondents answered with the lowest ratingavailable on the Likert scale.

TABLE 2. Student Understanding of Value Line Online After Wutorial(1 = low; 5 = high)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 2.00 4 3.0 3.0 3.03.00 33 24.8 25.0 28.04.00 61 45.9 46.2 74.25.00 34 25.6 25.8 100.0Total 132 99.2 100.0

No Response 1 .8Total 133 100.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


When asked specifically about the value of online instruction with nosuggested alternatives, students had mostly favorable responses in termsof the medium being conducive to learning (see Table 3).

Fifty-nine percent of respondents expressed positive interest with invest-ing money in the stock market (see Table 4). Since Value Line is closelylinked with stock market investments and the survey respondents werefinance students, perhaps it’s not surprising 87 percent indicated at leastaverage interest in the subject material.

One aspect associated with creating effective tutorials is presenting thematerial at a proper speed. Two thirds of respondents indicated with a“4” or “5” that material speed was presented at an appropriate speed (seeTable 5).

Of 132 survey respondents, only 12 indicated the material content waseither too much or too little (see Table 6). Creating balance with informationdelivery necessitates brevity without sacrificing much in the way of content.

Seventy-seven percent of students found the Value Line Online Tutorialto have at least average usefulness (see Table 7). The usefulness rating wasone of the highest rated measures in the initial survey.

Overall tutorial satisfaction indicated 77 percent of students had aboveaverage satisfaction with the tutorial (see Table 8). Responses indicate ahigh level of overall satisfaction with tutorials. In fact, only 2.3 percentindicated a below average tutorial experience.

Qualitative results revealed more student perceptions. Several studentswere receptive to the audio component of the tutorial, a finding that supportsthe dual coding and cognitive load theories. Some students appreciatedvisual learning, while others got the maximum benefit from audio material.Offering both audio and visual components, which uses the strength of

TABLE 3. Value of Online Instruction (1 = poor; 5 = conducive tolearning)


Valid 2.00 3 2.3 2.3 2.33.00 28 21.1 21.2 23.54.00 54 40.6 40.9 64.45.00 47 35.3 35.6 100.0Total 132 99.2 100.0


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 4. Student Interest in Investing Money in the Stock Market(1 = no; 5 = yes)


Valid 1.00 8 6.0 6.1 6.12.00 9 6.8 6.8 12.93.00 37 27.8 28.0 40.94.00 34 25.6 25.8 66.75.00 44 33.1 33.3 100.0Total 132 99.2 100.0


two learning channels, appeals to a larger number of students. This helpsexplain why a number of students cited the audio component as having apositive effect on the learning process.

The subject matter was also of interest. Students asked for more infor-mation on how to invest money in the stock market. As academic librarians,it’s not a viable option to tell students literally how they ought to investtheir money, yet the responses suggest a clear interest and desire to learnmore about the subject matter. In addition, several students wanted tutorialsfor other popular business databases. These responses are in line with thequantitative results.

The tutorial’s lack of interactivity was not cited by any students as adeficiency. In terms of enrollment, the business program is very popularat Wichita State University. Key classes are often taught in a large lecture

TABLE 5. Speed of Presentation in Value Line Wutorial (1 = toofast/slow; 5 = appropriate)


Valid 1.00 3 2.3 2.3 2.32.00 11 8.3 8.3 10.63.00 29 21.8 22.0 32.64.00 44 33.1 33.3 65.95.00 45 33.8 34.1 100.0Total 132 99.2 100.0


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 6. Amount of Material Presented (1 = too much/too little; 5 =appropriate)


Valid 1.00 1 .8 .8 .82.00 11 8.3 8.3 9.13.00 33 24.8 25.0 34.14.00 45 33.8 34.1 68.25.00 42 31.6 31.8 100.0Total 132 99.2 100.0


Out of 132 survey respondents, 12 indicated that the material content was either too little or too much.

hall style format. The click-here-to-get-to-the-next-step approach is notalways a viable or even desirable option to business students. As surveyresults indicate, a personalized, interactive learning style is not somethingstudents demand.

While a success rate of 30 percent for students looking up a company onValue Line may appear low, one possible factor contributing to this resultcould be that 90 percent of students indicated they had never used ValueLine Online before. Students viewed the tutorial only once in a classroomsetting. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness with othertutorial formats such as interactivity at Wichita State University.

Perhaps the most striking part about the qualitative results is that theyeither indicate a desire to learn more or that the information was sufficient.

TABLE 7. Usefulness of Value Line Wutorial (1 = not useful; 5 = veryuseful)


Valid 2.00 4 3.0 3.0 3.03.00 26 19.5 19.7 22.74.00 50 37.6 37.9 60.65.00 52 39.1 39.4 100.0Total 132 99.2 100.0


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 8. Overall Rating of Value Line Wutorial (1 = poor; 5 = excellent)


Valid 2.00 3 2.3 2.3 2.33.00 27 20.3 20.6 22.94.00 65 48.9 49.6 72.55.00 36 27.1 27.5 100.0Total 131 98.5 100.0

No Response 2 1.5Total 133 100.0

An overall interest in the subject material was noticeable, and no onereplied that boredom was an issue.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey results indicate business students found the Value LineWutorial to be useful, especially those most interested in the stock market.In spite of rating the online tutorial favorably, many students still preferredin-class bibliographic instruction. This indicates that while online tutorialsare a valuable form of instruction, they are not a substitute for personalcontact.

The responses also support the value of streaming media tutorials, suchas those created with Camtasia Studio. For instance, students noted theaudio portion of the tutorial was useful. Students also appreciated thetutorial’s ease of use and brevity. No students asked for more interactiv-ity. Nonetheless, more studies need to be done to test the value of non-interactive, streaming media tutorials, perhaps comparing them to othertypes of tutorials (such as those based on the Texas Information LiteracyTutorial).

Recommendations for further study include: conducting pilot testingwith a small group of students during the process of tutorial development;conducting a pre-test as well as a post-test on completed tutorials; bas-ing evaluative testing on graded assignments to supplement surveys; andgathering demographic data (age, residential status, GPA, etc.) to compareresponses.

Survey results suggest online tutorials create value for undergraduatestudents. There are myriad options presented to tutorial creators. The au-thors recommend using audio. This adds additional value for students.Tutorial length is another consideration. Much can be included, yet this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


could conceivably sacrifice audience attention. With business students, atutorial that transfers information quickly and efficiently was appreciated.From the perspective of business students, arriving at a workable solutionwas valued more than knowing every minute detail unless it really is nec-essary. The challenge for librarians is to create effective, engaging newways to reach our patrons.

NOTES

1. Anne Prestamo, “Development of Web-Based Tutorials,” Issues in Science andTechnology Librarianship 7 (Winter 1998): 1–8, http://www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/98-winter/article3.html.

2. Elizabeth Blakesley Lindsay and others, “If You Build It, Will They Learn? As-sessing Online Information Literacy,” College & Research Libraries 67, no. 5 (2006):429–445.

3. For examples of online tutorials viewed during the writing of this article, visitthe following: Elizabeth Dupuis, Brent Simpson, and Clara Fowler, “Texas Infor-mation Literacy Tutorial (TILT),” The University of Texas System Digital Library,http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu/; New York University Libraries, “How to Find an Ar-ticle: A Step-by-Step Tutorial,” New York University, http://library.nyu.edu:8000/research/tutorials/movie/article/; and Daley Library, “Doing Research: An Intro-duction to the Concepts of Online Searching,” University of Illinois at Chicago,http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/reference/services/tutorials/tutorials.shtml#. Also, thePRIMO Committee of ACRL highlights one outstanding online tutorial permonth at http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/is/iscommittees/Webpages/emergingtech/site/index.cfm.

4. Cecile Bianco, “Online Tutorials: Tips from the Literature,” Library Philosophyand Practice 8, no. 1 (2005): 1–6; Nancy H. Dewald, “Web-Based Library Instruction:What Is Good Pedagogy?” Information Technology and Libraries 18, no. 1 (1999):26–31; and Ruth Colvin Clark and Richard E. Mayer, E-Learning and the Science ofInstruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2003).

5. For a thorough explanation of using Camtasia Studio for creating library tutori-als, see Christopher Cox, “From Cameras to Camtasia: Streaming Media without theStress,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 9, no. 3/4 (2004): 193–200.

6. John Sweller, “Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and InstructionalDesign,” Learning and Instruction 4 (1994): 295–312.

7. Stephen K. Reed, “Cognitive Architectures for Multimedia Learning,” Educa-tional Psychologist 41, no. 2 (2006): 87–98.

8. Allan Paivio, “Coding Distinctions and Repetition Effects in Memory,” in Psy-chology of Learning and Motivation, ed. Gordon H. Bower (Orlando: Academic Press,1975).

9. Reed, “Cognitive Architectures.”10. Nadaleen Tempelman-Kluit, “Multimedia Learning Theories and Online In-

struction,” College & Research Libraries 67, no. 4 (2006): 364–9.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


11. Richard E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning (Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2001).

12. Dewald, “Web-Based Library Instruction.”13. Nancy H. Dewald and others, “Information Literacy at a Distance: Instructional

Design Issues,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 26, no. 1 (2000): 33–44;Katherine E. Holmes, “A Kaleidoscope of Learning Styles: Instructional Supports thatMeet the Diverse Needs of Distance Learners,” Journal of Library Administration 37,no. 3/4 (2003): 367–78; and Rachel G. Viggiano, “Online Tutorials as Instruction forDistance Students,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 9, no. 1/2 (2004): 37–54.

14. Dewald, “Web-Based Library Instruction,” 30.15. Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller, and Richard E. Clark, “Why Minimal Guid-

ance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching,” EducationalPsychologist 41, no. 2 (2006): 75–86. John Sweller developed cognitive-load theory.

16. Rachel G. Viggiano, “Online Tutorials as Instruction for Distance Students,”Internet Reference Services Quarterly 9, no. 1/2 (2004): 37–54.

17. Annie Armstrong and Helen Georgas, “Using Interactive Technology to TeachLiteracy Concepts to Undergraduate Students,” Reference Services Review 34, no. 4(2006): 491–7.

18. Kelly A. Donaldson, “Library Research Success: Designing an Online Tutorialto Teach Information Literacy Skills to First-Year Students,” The Internet & HigherEducation 2, no. 4 (2000): 237–51.

19. Lindsay, “If You Build It.”20. You can view the completed Value Line “Wutorial” here: http://library.

wichita.edu/reference/Tutorials/ValueLine/ValueLine.html.

Appendix 1: Survey, Part 1

Part I

What did you find to be the most useful in the Value Line Wutorial?Is there something else you would like to see in a Wutorial?Additional Comments/Questions/Suggestions for overall LibraryInstruction:

Part II .

I better understand Value Line Online 1 2 3 4 5Low High

Online instruction is: 1 2 3 4 5Poor Conducive to

learningI’m interested in the stock market and

investing money:1 2 3 4 5

No Yes

(Continued on next page)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

508 JOURNAL OF WEB LIBRARIANSHIP.

Continued

The material the Value Line Wutorialcovered was:

1 2 3 4 5

Too fast/slow AppropriateThe amount of material presented in the

Value Line Wutorial was:1 2 3 4 5

Too much/too little AppropriateThis Value Line Wutorial will help me find

information on the stock market:1 2 3 4 5

Not useful Very usefulMy overall rating of this Value Line

Wutorial is:1 2 3 4 5

Poor Excellent

(If you would like a personal response, please include your name and contact information)

Appendix 2:. Survey, Part 2 (Distributed on Blackboard)

Before you start the survey, please select this link:http://library.wichita.edu/colldev/databases/busdb.htm and paste it into another browser.Select Value Line under primary databases. This will take you to the main Value Line page.

1. Have you used Value Line Online before?A. Yes B. No

2. If you were looking for a listing of companies in a specific area such as “AirTransport,” which link would you select?

A. Lookup IndustryB. Model PortfoliosC. Mutual FundsD. None of the Abve

3. If you wanted to locate the top rated stocks, what would you select?

A. The Top 100 – Value Line’s #1 Ranked StocksB. Supplementary ReportsC. Both A and B.D. None of the Above.4. Lookup the company Int’l Business Machines (hint: think ticker - IBM). What is Value

Line’s Company Commentary in bold on the company?A. Both cash flow and shares appear strong . . . Operations in general are going well.

(Continued on next page)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


.

Continued

B. On Balance, 2006 probably was a good year. . . We expect the good times to continueto role . . . These top quality shares are worth a look.C. Still the company has indicated that there is further cost cutting is on the way

. . . These efforts should lead to good gains in share net.D. None of the above.

5. Do you prefer face to face instruction or online tutorials:

A. Prefer face to face instruction.B. Prefer online tutorials.C. No preference between face to face instruction and online tutorials.D. Prefer to learn resources on my own.E. Other ways of learning library resources such as e-mail, chat, at Ablah Library, etc.

6. The Value Line Wutorial I watched in class helped me locate information from ValueLine Online:

A. Yes, it definitely helped.B. It helped a little bit.C. I don’t remember viewing the Value Line Wutorial.D. No, the Value Line didn’t help.E. Not sure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 08:

42 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014