%0 Journal Article
%T The Effectiveness of Library Instruction: Do Student Response Systems (Clickers) Enhance Learning?
%A Diane Buhay
%A Lisa A. Best
%A Katherine McGuire
%J Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
%D 2010
%I Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
%X In the present study, we were interested in determining if library instruction would be more effective if personal response systems (clickers) were used during instruction. Furthermore we were interested in examining if students in a class could benefit from clicker technology even if they did not have access to a personal clicker. To examine these issues, we conducted 3 library instruction sessions: Session 1-half of the students were randomly assigned a clicker; Session 2-all students had individual clickers; and Session 3-clickers were not used. Although half of the students in Session 1 did not have clickers, they were presented with all of the information, were aware of the clicker questions, and were presented with the graphs of responses. Students in all 3 sessions completed a pretest and posttest and difference scores were calculated such that positive numbers indicated higher scores. Overall, scores were significantly higher for students who had access to clickers. A comparison of specific clicker use showed that both the individual and group clicker sessions led to significantly higher difference scores. Results indicated that the benefits of clickers are not limited to individual access and group clicker use was as effective. Overall, these results confirm research supporting the integration of technology into classroom instruction.Dans cette ¨¦tude, nous avons cherch¨¦ ¨¤ d¨¦terminer si la formation en recherche documentaire ¨¦tait plus efficace lorsqu¡¯on utilisait des syst¨¨mes de r¨¦ponse personnelle (t¨¦l¨¦voteur). De plus, nous voulions savoir si les ¨¦tudiants en classe profiteraient de cette technologie m¨ºme s¡¯ils n¡¯avaient pas acc¨¨s ¨¤ un t¨¦l¨¦voteur individuel. Pour ce faire, nous avons organis¨¦ trois s¨¦ances de formation en recherche documentaire. Pendant la premi¨¨re, nous avons distribu¨¦ un t¨¦l¨¦voteur ¨¤ la moiti¨¦ des ¨¦tudiants choisis au hasard. Pendant la deuxi¨¨me s¨¦ance, chaque ¨¦tudiant disposait d¡¯un t¨¦l¨¦voteur. Au cours de la troisi¨¨me s¨¦ance, aucun d¡¯entre eux n¡¯a utilis¨¦ cet appareil. M¨ºme si la moiti¨¦ des ¨¦tudiants n¡¯avaient pas de t¨¦l¨¦voteur au cours de la premi¨¨re s¨¦ance, ils ont re u toute l¡¯information, ils connaissaient les questions auxquelles il fallait r¨¦pondre avec le t¨¦l¨¦voteur et les chercheurs leur ont pr¨¦sent¨¦ les graphiques des r¨¦ponses. Tous les ¨¦tudiants ont pass¨¦ un pr¨¦test et un post-test et les diff¨¦rences de r¨¦sultats ont ¨¦t¨¦ calcul¨¦es afin que les chiffres positifs indiquent des r¨¦sultats plus ¨¦lev¨¦s. Dans l¡¯ensemble, les ¨¦tudiants qui avaient acc¨¨s au t¨¦l¨¦voteur ont obtenu des r¨¦sultats significativement plus ¨¦lev¨¦
%K student response systems
%K clickers
%K learning
%K information literacy
%U http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol1/iss1/5