This is the fourth and final column in the teaching and learning series [2–4]. Its purpose is to consider some relevant questions associated with evidence-based teaching (EBT) and how best to use the evidence to improve our teaching programs. As Crumley and Koufogiannakis suggest, evidence-based librarianship is a means to improve our information practices by asking the right questions and by finding answers in the library literature [5]. This paper contends, however, that the evidence in teaching cannot (and should not) be viewed in isolation but viewed in a broader context of learning theory and knowledge of our users. Teaching in librarianship goes back to the 19th century at least, though it has been known as bibliographic instruction for several decades [6]. Since the 1990s, growing interest in the effectiveness of library instruction has led to a variety of studies [7–9], but some of these have been duly criticized for variable quality. In addition, what seems missing is some investigation into what skills health librarians can bring to evidence-based practice (EBP) beyond information retrieval. Often, our involvement in EBP seems to begin and end with searching even though many of us have sought ways to break out of the searching constraint. With that said, the evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) movement has looked from various angles at how we teach information skills. In 2006, Koufogiannakis and Wiebe looked specifically at undergraduates, but their meta-analysis found that computerassisted instruction was just as effective as traditional classroom teaching [9]. In 2008, Brettle, a health librarian, performed a systematic review of instructional training; she evaluated 24 studies measuring the effectiveness of workshops and teaching and whether this work had a positive impact on patient care [10]. Even though there was insufficient evidence to show this teaching improved patient outcomes, it revealed that the quality of the literature was poor. If we are to practice EBT, health librarians must work to improve the evidence-base in our field and conduct research regularly. Partridge suggests that ‘‘librarians can engage in their own evidence-based teaching by continually questioning, reviewing and examining their approaches’’ [11]. To begin, we should share more of our strategies and ‘‘what works’’ as case studies. In the long term, case studies can only take us so far in measuring our effectiveness in the classroom. Finding the energy to do controlled experiments is one of the challenges we face at the frontlines of library services. The fact that conducting research takes time, expertise, and money that we don’t always have doesn’t make it easier—nor does the fact that many of us do not work within evidence-based cultures or get the requisite supports that are needed. The emphasis throughout this series has been on how to use learning theories to structure teaching—but with an evaluation component to improve our ability to meet user needs. To examine and assess our teaching properly (an EBT activity in itself), health librarians should ask themselves some fundamental questions.
Read full abstract
Mar 4, 2016
Su Cleyle + 1
Open Access
