Evidence Summary
Collaborative and Interactive Teaching Approaches have a Positive Impact
on Information Literacy Instruction Supporting Evidence Based Practice in Work
Placements
A Review of:
Kolstad,
A. (2017). Students’ learning outcomes from cross-collaborative supervision in
information seeking processes during work placements. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 9(1),
2-20. https://doi.org/10.15845/noril.v9i1.231
Reviewed by:
Kelley Wadson
Library Information Specialist
Bow Valley College
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Email: kwadson@bowvalleycollege.ca
Received: 20 Nov. 2018 Accepted: 8 Jan.
2019
2019 Wadson.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29530
Abstract
Objective – To analyze the effect of collaborative
interdisciplinary teaching and supervision using physical and digital tools on
students’ information literacy (IL) and evidence based practice (EBP)
abilities.
Design – Qualitative
and quantitative text analysis.
Setting – Learning
Centre at Oslo University College and student work placements in Oslo, Norway.
Subjects – Approximately 400 students enrolled in the
undergraduate nursing degree programme.
Methods – The
author is a librarian and project manager of the Langerud project, an
initiative wherein nursing students were jointly trained and supervised by
nurse educators, nurse supervisors, and librarians in preparation for and
during work placements over an eight-week period. In this role, the librarian
author collected 36 student group assignments, 285 blog/wiki comments from
students, nurse educators, nurse supervisors, and librarians, and 102 individual
student logs written during six work placements between Spring 2010 and Spring
2012, which were posted in a learning management system (LMS), as well as in an
evaluation form from Spring 2010. The unstructured text is analyzed according
to how the students fulfilled the learning outcome of integrating steps zero to
four of the seven-step EBP model: (1) Cultivate a spirit of inquiry; (2) Ask
clinical questions in the PICO format; (3) Search for the best evidence; (4)
Critically appraise the evidence; and (5) Integrate the evidence with clinical
expertise and patient preferences and values. The logs are also analyzed
quantitatively to measure if and how many students combined the three aspects
of EBP - defined as being the practitioner’s individual expertise, best
research evidence, and client values and expectations. Lastly, the author seeks
to evaluate the role of the LMS as a mediating tool.
Main Results – The author found that the majority (83%) of students
successfully met the learning outcome, particularly for steps 1, 2, and 5. For
step three, the author observed that some students did not apply PICO in the
information-seeking process and were thus not sufficiently thorough in their
searching. For step four, the author found that most students failed to
demonstrate critical appraisal of the evidence and that many struggled to find
up-to-date research findings. The author noted that the results for both steps
three and four could be attributed to the students finding international
databases and English-language research articles too challenging, given the
language barrier. The author’s analysis of the logs reveals that two-thirds of
the students combined the 3 aspects of EBP and that 39% described 1 or 2
aspects, of which most described user-based knowledge and experience-based
knowledge. One department produced twice as many log entries as the other seven
departments; in this department, students were able to choose what aspect of
EBP to focus on and the librarian had a co-teaching role in that learning
group. Overall, 60% of all students described research-based knowledge, which
increased over time from 46% in Spring 2011, to 60% in Autumn 2011, and 83% in
Spring 2012. On the evaluation form from Spring 2010, most students rated the
supervision by and satisfaction with the nurse educator, nurse supervisor, and
librarian as good, very good, or excellent, and many commented that the LMS was
a useful learning platform.
Conclusion – The author concludes that the project had a positive
impact on students’ preparedness for work placements and that the early
educational intervention improved IL and EBP competencies. Furthermore, the
working relationship between the Nursing Department and Library was
strengthened. After the Langerud project ended, the curriculum was revised to
add more searching for research-based information in written assignments.
Additionally, a lecture on EBP was developed based on real-life experiences
from the project and delivered collaboratively by the project’s manager, a
nurse educator, and a librarian.
Commentary
The
study contributes to research supporting collaborative efforts to integrate IL
into nursing education and professional development (Plaice, Lloyd, & Shaw,
2017; Beck, Blake-Campbell, & McKay, 2012). Although recent literature does
discuss the information needs of healthcare students on work placements
(Plaice, Lloyd, & Shaw, 2017) and the importance of workplace IL (Lloyd,
2013), this study addresses the lack of research on the combination of these
elements in the context of library instruction for nursing students.
The
study was evaluated using Koufogiannakis, Booth, and Brettle’s (2006) ReLIANT
instrument. While the objective, context, results, and relevance are
well-explained and discernable to the reader, there are several flaws in the
study design, results, and educational context.
The
most notable flaw in the study design is the absence of appendices in relation
to the research instruments, such as the evaluation form and assignment
questions. Although described in the results, the inclusion of these would
allow explicit mapping of learning outcomes to teaching methods and
assessments. As such, it is difficult to precisely determine if and how the
latter were effective interventions for addressing the author’s research
question - examining the development of students’ IL abilities and
understanding. In addition, the author uses data from an evaluation form
distributed in one session, Spring 2010, but does not explain why this form was
not used to collect data from subsequent sessions. Lastly, as acknowledged
within the paper, there is risk of bias in the study due to the author’s role
as both researcher and practitioner.
In
terms of educational context, the author provides a clear overview of the value
of a collaborative approach for the delivery of IL instruction. However, the
study would benefit from a more explicit exploration of the modes of assessment
used to build students’ IL skills and abilities, particularly regarding the use
of reflective thinking and writing as described in the results. This aspect of
the study provides useful evidence to practitioners in the domain of affective
learning, as the author traces the development of positive attitudes and
behaviours toward IL in the data.
Although
the study focused primarily on nursing students, it is relevant for all
educators involved in IL instruction intended to be relevant to workplace
contexts and support evidence based practice. As mentioned above, it supports
collaborative teaching approaches and the use of constructivist, interactive,
and metacognitive teaching philosophies. This is consistent with a recent
review recommending interactive and clinically integrated strategies, as well
as collaboration with librarians for teaching evidence based practice (Horntvedt,
Nordsteien, Fermann, & Severinsson, 2018). In concrete terms, the study
provides evidence demonstrating that librarians should collaborate with other
stakeholders when delivering IL instruction, and that meaningful, interactive
guidance is effective for improving IL skills and abilities, particularly in
the affective domain.
References
Beck,
S., Blake-Campbell, B., & McKay, D. (2012). Partnership for the advancement
of information literacy in a nursing program. Community & Junior College Libraries, 18(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763915.2012.651957
Horntvedt,
M. T., Nordsteien, A., Fermann, T., & Severinsson, E. (2018). Strategies
for teaching evidence-based practice in nursing education: A thematic
literature review. BMC Medical Education,
18(172), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1278-z
Koufogiannakis,
D., Booth, A., & Brettle, A. (2006). ReLIANT: Reader’s guide to the
literature on interventions addressing the need for education and training. Library
& Information Research, 30(94), 44-51.
https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg271
Lloyd, A. (2013). Building information resilient workers: The critical
ground of workplace information literacy. What have we learnt? In S.
Kurbanoğlu, E. Grassian, D. Mizrachi, R. Catts, & S. Špiranec (Eds.), Worldwide commonalities and challenges in
information literacy research and practice: European Conference on Information
Literacy, ECIL 2013, Istanbul, Turkey (pp. 219-228). Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03919-0_28
Plaice, C., Lloyd, J., & Shaw, P. (2017). Supporting the library and
information needs of UWE health and social care students on placement. Health Information & Libraries Journal,
34(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12171