Review Article
Library Instruction for
Graduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review
Adelia Grabowsky
Health Sciences Librarian
Ralph Brown Draughon Library
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama, United
States of America
Email: abg0011@auburn.edu
Katherine Spybey
Former Adjunct Professor
Nursing Department
Calhoun Community College
Decatur, Alabama, United
States of America
Email: katiespybey@gmail.com
Received: 7 Apr. 2022 Accepted: 17 Oct. 2022
2022 Grabowsky and Spybey. 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/eblip30145
Abstract
Objective – The number of graduate nursing programs in the U.S. has increased
significantly in recent years. This scoping review seeks to examine the range
of literature discussing librarian instruction for graduate nursing students to
identity the types of studies being published, the characteristics of
instructional sessions, knowledge gaps which may exist, and the evidence
available for a subsequent systematic review evaluating instructional
effectiveness.
Methods – Guidelines established by the PRISMA statement for
scoping reviews (PRISMA-Scr) were used to conduct this review. Concepts for
library instruction and graduate nursing students were searched in six
databases as well as Google Scholar. The two authors used titles/abstracts and
when necessary, full-text to independently screen identified studies.
Conflicting screening decisions were resolved by discussion.
Results – Data was extracted from 20
sources. Thirteen of the sources were descriptions of classes or programs, one
was a program evaluation, two were mixed methods studies that looked at library
use and program support respectively but did not assess instruction, two were
surveys of students’ feelings and attitudes about instruction, and two were
quasi-experimental studies which included pre-post instruction quizzes. The
most popular format for library instruction was online (synchronous or
asynchronous) instruction. Most sources did not include information about the
timing or duration of instruction. In addition, most sources did not reference
instructional theory although a few mentioned aspects of instructional theory
such as active learning. Only one source mentioned using a specific model to
develop instructional content. While several sources mentioned assessment of
student learning, only four studies included the results of assessment.
Conclusions – Sources reporting on
instruction for graduate nursing students consisted primarily of descriptions
of programs or instructional sessions. Many of the descriptive studies lacked
essential information such as specifics of format, timing, and duration which
would aid replication at other institutions. Only four sources were research
studies that evaluated instructional effectiveness.
Introduction
The number of graduate
nursing programs in the U.S. as well as enrollment in those programs has been
increasing steadily (Jonas Philanthropies, 2015). Although librarians and
nursing faculty might imagine that students enter graduate school with
information literacy (IL) skills already fully developed, researchers have
found that many students, including those in graduate nursing programs,
struggle with finding, evaluating, and using information effectively (Robertson
& Felicilda-Reynaldo, 2015). Therefore, graduate nursing students may
benefit from librarian-led instruction intended to improve information literacy
skills.
While librarians might
consider using the same information and instructional techniques employed in
undergraduate nursing classes, graduate students tend to differ from
undergraduates in meaningful ways. Graduate nursing students are likely to be
older, may have been out of school for many years, and may have additional
family or work responsibilities (Salani et al., 2016). In addition, graduate
nursing students are expected to develop more advanced information literacy
skills than undergraduates to facilitate translating evidence into practice,
identifying gaps in practice, and disseminating their scholarship (American
Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2021). Finally, as adult learners,
graduate nursing students may have a greater need for library instruction that
allows them to be self-directed, to have their prior experience taken into
account, and to understand why they are learning and how the new knowledge will
be helpful in real-world situations (Knowles et al., 1998; Ross-Gordon et al.,
2017).
Aims
This scoping review seeks
to identity and summarize the published literature related to library
instruction provided to graduate nursing students. The following research
questions guided the study:
- What types of studies are being published?
- What characteristics of instructional sessions
are included in published literature?
Methods
Guidelines established by
the PRISMA statement for scoping reviews (PRISMA-Scr) were used to conduct this
review (Tricco et al., 2018). No protocol was prepared for the review. One
author (AG), a health sciences librarian with prior experience creating
searches for systematic and scoping reviews, developed and executed all
searches. Six databases were searched on July 30, 2019 with concepts for
library instruction and graduate nursing students along with related synonyms
and subject headings (see Appendix A for complete searches). CINAHL; Medline;
ERIC; Library Literature & Information Science Index (H.W. Wilson); and
Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts were searched
concurrently though the EBSCO interface while Library & Information Science
Abstracts (LISA) was searched through the ProQuest interface. The searches were
rerun on December 7, 2021 to update content before publication submission. Hand
searching consisted of examining the reference lists of reviews included in the
search results and screening the first 100 results of a search run in Google
Scholar. All results were exported to an EndNote library (Version X9). After
deduping, sources were exported to Excel spreadsheets for screening.
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
Types of Participants
The
population of interest was graduate nursing students. Studies that included
only undergraduate students or professional nurses were excluded; however,
studies that involved more than one level of student (e.g., undergraduates and
graduate students) or more than one type of student (e.g., nursing and pharmacy
students) were included as long as specific information about graduate nursing
students could be extracted.
Concept
Sources
had to include some type of librarian-led instruction. That instruction could
be provided wholly by the librarian(s) or in partnership with other
institutional faculty or staff. There were no restrictions on format of
instruction; sessions could be provided in-person or virtually, and either
synchronously or asynchronously.
Context
Due
to the change from print-focused to electronic resources beginning in the late
1990s and subsequent changes to library instruction, sources had to have been
published in or after 1994.
Types of sources of evidence
No
restrictions were placed on type of source. Book reviews, article reviews,
editorials, and evidence syntheses were excluded. All other source types
including articles, book chapters, dissertations, and theses were included. Due
to language restrictions of the reviewers and lack of funding for translation
services, all sources had to be written in English.
Screening
The
number of sources screened at each stage is shown in Figure 1. Numbers in parentheses are the total of the
initial search and the bridge search. Separate figures for each search are
provided in square brackets. At each level
(title/abstract and full-text) the two authors independently screened sources,
then met to compare decisions. Conflicting screening decisions were resolved by
discussion. After the full-text screening, 20 sources were retained for
synthesis.
Data Extraction
A
data extraction form was created using Excel. Variables on the form included
population; location; extent of instruction (class or program);
standards/guidelines/theories used to develop
instruction;
format, timing, and duration of instruction; content taught; additional support
offered; methodology; assessment; and additional notes (see Appendix B). One
author (AG) extracted data from each source and the second author (KS) checked
the extracted data for accuracy and completeness.
Results
Overview of Sources
The 20 sources included in
this review were primarily journal articles (n=19; Bernstein et al., 2020;
Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995; Guillot & Stahr, 2004;
Guillot et al., 2010; Hinegardner & Lansing, 1994; Hodson-Carlton & Dorner,
1999; Honey et al., 2006; Layton & Hahn, 1995; Leasure et al., 2009;
Lemley, 2016; Milstead & Nelson, 1998; Schilperoort, 2020; Thompson, 2009;
Welch et al., 2016; Whitehair, 2010; Whiting & Orr, 2013; Wills et al.,
2001; Wimmer et al., 2014). The one exception was a book chapter (Deberg,
2014). Publication dates ranged from 1994 to 2020 with zero to two publications
each year. Most instruction took place in the United States (n=18; Bernstein et
al., 2020; Deberg, 2014; Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995;
Guillot & Stahr, 2004; Guillot et al., 2010; Hinegardner & Lansing,
1994; Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Layton & Hahn, 1995; Leasure et
al., 2009; Lemley, 2016; Milstead & Nelson, 1998; Schilperoort, 2020; Welch
et al., 2016; Whitehair, 2010; Whiting & Orr, 2013; Wills et al., 2001;
Wimmer et al., 2014), although there was one source from Canada (Thompson, 2009) and one from New
Zealand (Honey et al., 2006).
From: Moher
D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D. G., The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Metanalyses: The PRISMA
Statement. PLoS Med 6(7):
e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
For more
information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.
Figure
1
PRISMA
flow diagram.
Four sources included
instruction for more than one level of student. One of the four included Master’s,
DNP, and PhD students (Whitehair,
2010), two included Master’s and PhD students (Francis & Fisher, 1995;
Layton & Hahn), and one included Master’s and DNP students (Lemley, 2016).
The remaining sources included only one level of students. Master’s was the most common (n=9; Dorner et al., 2001;
Guillot & Stahr, 2004; Guillot et al., 2010; Hinegardner & Lansing,
1994; Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Honey et al., 2006; Schilperoort,
2020; Thompson, 2009; Wills et al., 2001) followed by PhD (n=3; Milstead &
Nelson, 1998; Welch et al., 2016; Wimmer et al., 2014) and DNP (n=3; Bernstein
et al., 2020; Deberg, 2014; Whiting & Orr, 2013). The remaining source referred only to
graduate nursing students without indicating what level(s) were included
(Leasure et al., 2009).
Characteristics of Sources (see
Appendix B)
Format of Instruction
The 20 identified sources
included descriptions of format for 21 classes and programs. The most popular
format for library instruction was virtual (n=7); however, only one source used
online synchronous instruction (Wimmer et al., 2014). Other virtual options
included interactive tutorials (n=4; Dorner et al., 2001; Hodson-Carlton &
Dorner, 1999; Schilperoort, 2020; Welch et al., 2016), videos (n=1; Deberg, 2014), and
a static webpage (n=1; Milstead & Nelson, 1998). Five additional sources
used hybrid methods with both virtual and face-to-face (F2F) components. Two of
the five used F2F followed by online tutorials (Honey et al., 2006; Leasure et
al., 2009), one used F2F followed by a recording (Deberg, 2014), one used F2F
followed by optional individual virtual sessions (Guillot & Stahr, 2004),
and one used both F2F and synchronous instruction followed by optional
individual sessions (Whitehair, 2010). Four
sources included only F2F instruction; however, it is important to note that three
of those four were from 1994 and 1995, the earliest years included in this
review (Francis & Fisher, 1995; Hinegardner & Lansing, 1994; Layton
& Hahn, 1995). The fourth
F2F source occurred later but involved instruction on SPSS using library
computers (Thompson, 2009). Three
of the remaining five sources reported on librarians who were embedded in a
course or courses throughout the semester (Guillot et al., 2010; Lemley, 2016;
Wills et al., 2001). The final two did not indicate the format of instruction
(Bernstein et al., 2020; Whiting & Orr, 2013).
Timing of Instruction
Three sources involved
embedded librarians (Guillot et al., 2010; Lemley, 2016; Wills et al., 2001)
and one a static webpage (Milstead & Nelson,
1998) so instruction could be considered to be available throughout the
class. There were 17 classes described in the remaining 16 studies. There was
no indication of when instruction took place during the semester for eight of
those classes (Deberg, 2014; Francis & Fisher, 1995; Guillot & Stahr,
2004; Hinegardner & Lansing, 1994; Layton & Hahn, 1995; Leasure et al.,
2009; Thompson, 2009; Whiting & Orr, 2013). The remaining nine reported
instruction which took place early in the semester, i.e., before class started
or within the first month (Bernstein et al., 2020; Deberg, 2014; Dorner et al.,
2001; Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Honey et al., 2006; Schilperoort,
2020; Welch et al., 2016; Whitehair, 2010; Wimmer et al., 2014). In addition, some authors reported that
instruction was tied to course assignments or course content (Bernstein et al.,
2020; Deberg, 2014; Dorner et al., 2001; Guillot & Stahr, 2004; Hinegardner
& Lansing, 1994; Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Thompson, 2009), that
library assignments were required/graded (Francis & Fisher, 1995;
Schilperoort, 2020), and that assistance
(Guillot et al., 2010) or tutorials (Dorner
et al., 2001) were provided at point of need. Finally, seven authors reported
inclusion in the course learning management system which provided access to
syllabi, assignments, discussion boards, and class email lists (Dorner et al.,
2001; Guillot et al., 2010; Lemley, 2016; Whitehair, 2010; Whiting & Orr,
2013; Wills et al., 2001; Wimmer et al., 2014).
Duration of Instruction
Very few sources reported
how long instruction lasted. Most that did mention duration were
discussing either F2F sessions or the F2F session of hybrid instruction.
Durations reported included two mentions each of one-hour sessions (Guillot
& Stahr, 2004; Whitehair, 2010), two-hour sessions (Francis & Fisher,
1995; Layton & Hahn, 1995), and three-hour sessions (Hinegardner &
Lansing, 1994; Thompson, 2009). Only Schilperoort (2020) mentioned
the length of instructional
tutorials, reporting an average time of 15 to 30 minutes to complete the
self-paced tutorial.
Content of Instruction
Fourteen
of the 20 sources included introducing students to databases, in many cases
mentioning specific health science databases such as CINAHL and Medline (Bernstein et al., 2020;
Deberg, 2014; Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995; Guillot &
Stahr, 2004; Hinegardner & Lansing, 1994; Honey et al., 2006; Layton &
Hahn, 1995; Leasure et al., 2009; Lemley, 2016; Schilperoort, 2020; Welch et
al., 2016; Whitehair, 2010; Wills et al., 2001). Nine of those 14 sources also included
specific instructional content related to searching skills such as choosing
keywords, finding subject headings, and using Boolean operators or filters (Bernstein et al., 2020;
Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995; Hinegardner & Lansing,
1994; Layton & Hahn, 1995; Leasure et al., 2009; Lemley, 2016;
Schilperoort, 2020; Whitehair, 2010). Although all instruction might be
assumed to discuss library services, 11 sources explicitly mention introducing
library services in general or specific services such as how to access
full-text, use interlibrary loan or contact a librarian for help (Guillot & Stahr, 2004;
Guillot et al., 2010; Honey et al., 2006; Layton & Hahn, 1995; Leasure et
al., 2009; Lemley, 2016; Milstead & Nelson, 1998; Thompson, 2009;
Whitehair, 2010; Whiting & Orr, 2013; Wimmer et al., 2014). Five instructors included content about
citing sources (Dorner et al., 2001; Guillot et al., 2010; Lemley, 2016; Welch
et al., 2016; Whiting & Orr, 2013), and four included instruction on
evaluating research sources (Bernstein et al., 2020; Dorner et al., 2001;
Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Leasure et al., 2009).
Additional
content mentioned more than once included: bibliographic management software
(n=3; Hinegardner & Lansing, 1994; Leasure et al., 2009; Welch et al.,
2016), developing research questions (n=3; Deberg, 2014; Guillot et al., 2010;
Welch et al., 2016), evaluating evidence/levels of evidence (n=3; Deberg, 2014;
Lemley, 2016; Schilperoort, 2020), and resources to find research instruments
(n=2; Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995). Finally, there was content mentioned by
only one author including current awareness services (Whitehair, 2010), data concepts and
using SPSS (Thompson, 2009), off-campus access (Francis & Fisher, 1995),
and in a pre-2000 source, how to use email and the Internet (Layton & Hahn,
1995).
Additional Support
In
many cases students were offered additional support beyond the actual instructional
session(s). The most common type of support offered was online discussion
boards/rooms within learning management systems (n=5; Dorner et al., 2001;
Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Lemley, 2016; Whiting & Orr, 2013; Wills
et al., 2001). Other support
included encouraging students to contact a librarian or a library help desk
with questions (n=3; Lemley, 2016; Thompson, 2009; Whitehair, 2010), offering
individual sessions (n=3; Bernstein et al., 2020; Deberg, 2014; Wills et al.,
2001), holding chat sessions for group help (n=2; Dorner et al., 2001;
Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999), sending follow-up emails (n=2; Guillot
& Stahr, 2004; Guillot et al., 2010), providing information about
additional training opportunities (n=2; Honey et al., 2006; Leasure et al.,
2009), offering a research guide (n=1; Wimmer et al., 2014), and providing a
brochure (n=1; Honey et al., 2006).
Assessment of Instruction
Most of the sources (n=16)
did not assess the effectiveness of library instruction. Instead, authors
provided descriptions of how instruction was implemented in a specific class or
classes (n=6; Deberg, 2014; Guillot & Stahr, 2004; Guillot et al., 2010; Hinegardner
& Lansing, 1994; Wills et al., 2001; Wimmer et al., 2014), how instruction
was implemented in a new program of study (n=3; Francis & Fisher, 1995;
Honey et al., 2006; Lemley, 2016), or how instruction was implemented in both a
program and one or more specific classes (n=7; Dorner et al., 2001; Layton
& Hahn, 1995; Leasure et al., 2009; Milstead & Nelson, 1998; Welch et
al., 2016; Whitehair, 2010; Whiting & Orr, 2013). Three of those 16 sources were research
studies, but the research was intended to assess library use (Honey et al., 2006), students’
satisfaction with library services and resources (Whiting & Orr, 2013), or
the practicalities of providing instruction (Guillot & Stahr, 2004) rather
than instructional effectiveness.
Several authors did
mention assessing the effectiveness of instruction with varied means including
pre/posttests and evaluations; however, no results of assessment were provided
(Deberg, 2014; Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995; Layton &
Hahn, 1995; Welch et al., 2016). Four
authors provided anecdotal evidence of instructional success derived from
informal feedback from faculty or students (Deberg, 2014; Dorner et al., 2001),
course evaluations (Guillot et al., 2010), or colleagues at the reference desk
(Francis & Fisher, 1995).
Only four sources were
research studies assessing the effectiveness of library instruction. Two were
quasi-experimental studies utilizing pre and posttests of knowledge with
additional open-ended questions about student confidence (Hodson-Carlton &
Dorner, 1999; Schilperoort, 2020). The
other two studies surveyed students about their feelings and attitudes
concerning instruction (Bernstein et al., 2020; Thompson, 2009). Results of the research studies
assessing instructional effectiveness are shown in Table 1. There were mixed
results from surveys of student confidence, with three studies reporting
increased confidence (Bernstein et al., 2020; Hodson-Carlton & Dorner,
1999; Schilperoort, 2020) and one study reporting students almost equally
divided among more confident and less confident (Thompson, 2009). Both studies with pre and postquizzes
reported that the percentage of correct answers increased on the postquiz
(Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Schilperoort, 2020).
Learning Theories/Standards/Guidelines
Fourteen
of the 20 sources did not mention using any standards, guidelines, or theories
to inform development of instructional content (Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher,
1995; Guillot & Stahr, 2004; Hinegardner & Lansing, 1994;
Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Layton & Hahn, 1995; Leasure et al.,
2009; Lemley, 2016; Milstead & Nelson, 1998; Thompson, 2009; Welch et al.,
2016; Whiting & Orr, 2013; Wills et al., 2001; Wimmer et al., 2014). In the remaining six sources, two
authors mentioned library standards with Honey et al. (2006) referencing the Australian and
New Zealand Information Literacy Framework (Bundy, 2004) and Guillot et al. (2010) referencing both the
Association of Colleges and Research Libraries (ACRL, 2000) Information
Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education and the ACRL (2008)
Standards for Distance Learning Library Services. Three authors referenced
nursing standards with Bernstein et al. (2020) and Deberg (2014) citing the Essentials
of Doctoral Education for Advanced Nursing Practice (American Association of Colleges of
Nursing, 2006) and Whitehair (2010) citing the Practice Doctorate Nurse
Practitioner Entry-Level Competencies (National Panel for NP Practice
Doctorate Competencies, 2006).
Only
two authors mentioned using a specific learning model or theory to develop
instructional content. Whitehair (2010)
used both the student-centered model of Kraft and Androwich and Kuhlthau’s Model
of the Information Search Process. Schilperoort (2020) mentioned using both constructivist learning theory
and andragogy (adult learning theory) to develop an interactive tutorial. Six
additional authors (Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995;
Hinegardner & Lansing, 1994; Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Layton
& Hahn, 1995; Leasure et al., 2009; Welch et al., 2016) did mention
elements such as active learning, hands-on learning, point-of-need instruction,
or accommodating different skill levels which would be consistent with adult
learning theory or constructivist approaches (Knowles
et al., 1998; Ross-Gordon et al., 2017).
Table 1
Results of Research Studies
Assessing Instructional Effectiveness
|
Population, Location |
Methodology |
Specifics |
Results of Assessment |
|
Surveys |
|||
|
Bernstein et al., 2020, DNP Students, United States |
Survey of student feelings and attitudes |
No indication of how many students completed the
survey. Results were given as broad statements rather than
as numbers or percentages. |
Most students felt they understood the components of
nursing literature. Most students felt confident in using databases to
find relevant literature. Students valued the integration of the library and
the writing center into the class and felt both should be included in future
classes. |
|
Thompson, 2009, Master’s students, Canada |
Survey of students’ feelings and attitudes |
No indication of how many students completed the
survey. Results were given as broad statements rather than
as numbers or percentages |
Most students agreed content was relevant. Students were divided about whether the class
increased their comfort with undertaking future quantitative projects. Students were divided about whether they felt more
comfortable reading and interpreting quantitative research. Most students felt the assignment was too difficult. |
|
Quasi-Experimental Studies |
|||
|
Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999, Master’s students, Indiana |
Quasi-experimental (pre & postquiz plus open-ended questions) |
30 students took the prequiz and 24 took the
postquiz. (6 students did not complete the course so did not take the
post-quiz). |
88% (21/24) answered the 6 post-module questions
correctly compared to 63% (19/30) pre-module. |
|
Schilperoort, 2020, Master’s students, California |
Quasi-experimental (pre-post quiz plus survey of confidence with some open-ended
questions) |
59 students completed the pre and postquiz. 57 were
required to do so as part of a class, the other 2 chose to complete the
module voluntarily. 13 students provided additional comments. |
The percentage of correct answers increased on the
post-test for each of 5 questions. The biggest change (+46%) occurred in a
question asking students to rank by level of evidence. All students felt much more (49%) or somewhat more
(51%) confident in their ability to identify high-level research. All students felt much more (59%) or somewhat more
(41%) confident in their ability to use library resources to find various
types of evidence. Additional comments were positive. |
Challenges and Benefits
Some
challenges seemed to be almost universal while others were related to specific
types of instruction. The need for collaboration between nursing faculty and
librarians was mentioned by almost all authors (Bernstein et al., 2020; Deberg, 2014; Dorner
et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995; Guillot & Stahr, 2004; Guillot et
al., 2010; Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Honey et al., 2006; Layton &
Hahn, 1995; Leasure et al., 2009; Lemley, 2016; Schilperoort, 2020; Welch et
al., 2016; Whitehair, 2010; Wimmer et al., 2014). In contrast, the
time-consuming aspects of instruction were mentioned primarily when discussing
embedded librarianship (Guillot et al., 2010; Lemley, 2016) or when offering
individual consultations (Bernstein et al., 2020; Deberg, 2014; Guillot &
Stahr, 2004). Dorner et al. (2001) also mentioned time as a
challenge when discussing the need to update videos frequently because of
database interface changes, a problem echoed in Schilperoort’s (2020) recommendation to review and
update tutorials at the beginning of each semester or use. One benefit
mentioned for tutorials is that even when created for a specific class, they
can also be offered as standalone sources of instruction (Hodson-Carlton &
Dorner, 1999; Schilperoort, 2020). Other
challenges reported for embedded librarianship include unrealistic expectations
of students (Guillot et al.,
2010) and role confusion, i.e., students asking questions of the librarian
which should be directed to nursing faculty (Guillot et al., 2010; Lemley,
2016). Benefits of embedded
librarianship included extended rapport with students (Guillot et al., 2010), the ability to be proactive (Lemley, 2016), and the ability to
broadcast messages to an entire class (Guillot et al., 2010; Lemley, 2016).
Other
instructional challenges mentioned include difficulties in providing equal
access to off-campus students (Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995;
Milstead & Nelson, 1998), technological costs associated with virtual
instruction (Guillot &
Stahr, 2004), and nursing faculty turnover (Dorner et al., 2001; Lemley, 2016).
Discussion
This scoping review sought to identify and summarize literature on
librarian-led instruction for graduate nursing students. Like previous research
(Salani et al., 2016), many of the reviewed sources suggest that the
needs of graduate nursing students differ from those of undergraduates in
multiple ways. Graduate nursing students tend to be older (Guillot & Stahr,
2004; Honey et al., 2006; Whiting & Orr, 2013) and to be working while
attending school (Dorner et al., 2001; Francis & Fisher, 1995; Guillot
& Stahr, 2004; Honey et al., 2006; Thompson, 2009; Whitehair, 2010; Whiting
& Orr, 2013). In addition, many graduate students have been out
of school for several years (Guillot & Stahr, 2004; Guillot et al., 2010;
Lemley, 2016; Whitehair, 2010; Whiting & Orr, 2013) and may have increased
family responsibilities (Guillot & Stahr, 2004; Whitehair, 2010).
Sources reporting on library instruction for graduate nursing students
consisted primarily of case reports, i.e., descriptions of instructional
sessions, tutorials, or programs rather than research studies evaluating
instructional effectiveness. Descriptions, particularly of new programs or
classes, can be helpful for librarians looking for different ways to approach
instruction, however, these descriptions often lacked details which would aid
in replicating library sessions or tutorials at other institutions. Although
all sources provided some information about instructional content and most
sources indicated the format of instruction, in many cases, other information
such as timing and duration which would assist in replicating the session was
missing.
Although several authors mentioned assessing instructional
effectiveness, few reported assessment results which could also aid in
replication decisions. In addition, the studies that did assess results varied
in significant ways. Two looked only at student’s feelings and attitudes
(Berstein et al., 2020; Thompson, 2009) which provides an incomplete measure of
effectiveness. The remaining two studies assessed both changes in knowledge and
attitude (Hodson-Carlton & Dorner, 1999; Schilperoort, 2020) which offers a
more complete assessment of learning. Although published 21 years apart, both
of the studies reported on the creation of a Web-based, point-of-need tutorial.
The older tutorial was intended to teach students to evaluate the quality of
websites, while the newer taught students to find evidence based information
and evaluate levels of evidence. Both studies reported an increase in student
knowledge after instruction.
Finally, although authors may have developed instruction and assessment
based on learning theories, standards, or guidelines, with a few exceptions,
there was little indication of which standards and/or theories were used and
how those standards/theories influenced instructional development.
Implications
Findings illustrate the need for librarians to provide more detail in
published class descriptions so that sessions can be replicated by others. Also
helpful would be more explicit information about instructional theories,
standards, or guidelines used to develop class content. More importantly,
librarians should consider adopting or creating assessment strategies to
determine the effectiveness of instruction for graduate nursing students, and
then publish the results of those assessments for the benefit of others. Only a
robust assortment of published assessment studies will enable a clearer
understanding of the effectiveness of library instruction for graduate nursing
students.
Limitations
Searching always involves compromise between comprehensiveness (finding
all relevant sources) and precision (finding a minimum of irrelevant sources).
This study sought to err on the side of comprehensiveness in two ways: (a) by
searching both subject headings and keywords in the title, abstract, and
subject heading fields and (b) by using compound searching (X AND Y) rather
than quoted phrase searching (“X Y”).
However, there are still limitations to the search. For example, there
may be other words or phrases used in the literature to refer to graduate
nursing students or library instruction that were not included in this search
strategy. In addition, search results were limited to results in English, which
would have limited the inclusion of studies completed outside the United
States.
Conclusion
This scoping review
examining published literature of librarian-led instruction for graduate nursing
students found that most of the sources were descriptions of classes or
programs which did not report any results from measures of instructional
effectiveness. An additional three sources evaluated programs or library use
but did not assess instruction. All sources reported some characteristics of
instructional sessions, but few provided enough information to allow others to
accurately replicate instruction at other institutions. Only four sources
provided measures of instructional effectiveness. Two included surveys of
students’ feelings and attitudes about instruction, and two were
quasi-experimental studies which included pre-post knowledge quizzes. The lack
of evidence related to the effectiveness of librarian-led instruction for the
population of graduate nursing students reveals a gap in library research and
suggests there is insufficient evidence to warrant a systematic review
evaluating this topic.
Author Contributions
Adelia Grabowsky: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing Katherine Spybey: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing
References
*References included in
scoping review
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2006). The essentials
of doctoral education for advanced practice nursing. https://www.pncb.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/Essentials_of_DNP_Education.pdf
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials:
Core competencies for professional nursing education. https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/AcademicNursing/pdf/Essentials-2021.pdf
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information
literacy competency standards for higher education. https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/7668
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2008). Standards for
distance learning library services. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/guidelinesdistancelearning
*Bernstein, M., Roney, L., Kazer, M. & Boquet, E. H. (2020).
Librarians collaborate successfully with nursing faculty and a writing centre
to support nursing students doing professional doctorates. Health
Information and Libraries Journal, 37, 240-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12327
Bundy, A. (2004). Australian and New Zealand information literacy
framework, https://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/79068/anz-info-lit-policy.pdf
*Deberg, J. (2014). Reflections on involvement in a graduate nursing
curriculum. In A. E. Blevins (Ed.), Curriculum-based library instruction (pp.
165-170). Rowman & Littlefield.
*Dorner, J. L., Taylor, S. E. & Hodson-Carlton, K. (2001).
Faculty-librarian collaboration for nursing information literacy: A tiered
approach. Reference Services Review, 29(2), 132-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320110394173
*Francis, B. W. & Fisher, C. C. (1995). Multilevel library
instruction for emerging nursing roles. Bulletin of the Medical Library
Association, 83(4), 492-8.
*Guillot, L. & Stahr, B. (2004). A tale of two campuses: Providing
virtual reference to distance nursing students. Journal of Library
Administration, 41(1-2), 139-52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J111v41n01_11
*Guillot, L., Stahr, B. & Meeker, B. J. (2010). Nursing faculty
collaborate with embedded librarians to serve online graduate students in a
consortium setting. Journal of Library & Information Services in
Distance Learning, 4(1/2), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332901003666951
*Hinegardner, P. G. & Lansing, P. S. (1994). Nursing informatics
programs at the University of Maryland at Baltimore. Bulletin of the Medical
Library Association, 82(4), 441-3.
*Hodson-Carlton, K. & Dorner, J. L. (1999). An electronic approach
to evaluating healthcare web resources. Nurse Educator, 24(5),
21-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006223-199909000-00013
*Honey, M., North, N., & Gunn, C. (2006). Improving library services
for graduate nurse students in New Zealand. Health Information and Libraries
Journal, 23(2), 102-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00639.x
Jonas Philanthropies. (2015). New AACN data confirms enrollment surge
in schools of nursing. https://tinyurl.com/y3u262gd
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult
learner (5th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
*Layton, B. & Hahn, K. (1995). The librarian as a partner in nursing
education. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 83(4),
499-502.
*Leasure, A. R., Delise, D., Clifton, S. C., & Pascucci, M. A.
(2009). Health information literacy: Hardwiring behavior through multilevels of
instruction and application. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 28(6),
276-82. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0b013e3181b4003c
*Lemley, L. (2016). Virtual embedded librarianship program: A personal
view. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(3), 232-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.010
*Milstead, J. A., & Nelson, R. (1998).
Preparation for an online asynchronous university doctoral course: Lessons
learned. Computers in Nursing, 16(5), 247-58.
National Panel for NP Practice Doctorate Competencies. (2006). Practice
doctorate nurse practitioner entry-level competencies. https://www.pncb.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/NONPF_DNP_Competencies.pdf
Robertson, D. S. & Felicilda-Reynaldo, R. F. (2015). Evaluation of graduate nursing students' information literacy
self-efficacy and applied skills. The Journal of Nursing Education, 54(3,
Suppl), S26-S30. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20150218-03
Ross-Gordon, J. M., Rose, A. D., & Kasworm, C. E. (2017). The adult
learner. In Foundations of adult and continuing education (pp. 215-253).
Jossey-Bass.
Salani, D., Albuja, L. D., & Azaiza, K. (2016). The keys to success
in doctoral studies: A preimmersion course. Journal of Professional Nursing,
32(5), 358-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.01.005
*Schilperoort, H. M. (2020). Self-paced tutorials to support
evidence-based practice and information literacy in online health sciences
education. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance
Learning, 14(3-4), 278-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2021.1873890
*Thompson, K. (2009). Torturing nurses with data: Building a successful
quantitative research module. IASSIST Quarterly, 33(3), 6-9. https://doi.org/10.29173/iq112
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H.,
Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl,
E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson,
M. G., Garritty, C., . . . Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping
reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 169(7), 467-73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
*Welch, S., Cook, J. & West, D. (2016). Collaborative design of a
doctoral nursing program online orientation. Nursing Education Perspectives,
37(6), 343-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nep.0000000000000053
*Whitehair, K. J. (2010). Reaching part-time distance students in
diverse environments. Journal of Library & Information Services in
Distance Learning, 4(3), 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2010.503166
*Whiting, P. & Orr, P. (2013). Evaluating library support for a new
graduate program: Finding harmony with a mixed methods approach. The Serials
Librarian, 64(1-4), 88-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2013.760329
*Wills, C. E., Stommel, M. & Simmons, M. (2001). Implementing a
completely web-based nursing research course: Instructional design, process,
and evaluation considerations. Journal of Nursing Education, 40(8),
359-362. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20011101-07
*Wimmer, E., Morrow, A., & Weber, A. (2014). Collaboration in
eTextbook publishing: A case study. Collabrative Librarianship, 6(2),
82-86.
.
Appendix A
Search Strategies
Initial searches were
completed on July 30, 2019. Bridge searches were run on December 7, 2021.
CINAHL; Medline; ERIC;
Library Literature & Information Science Index (H.W. Wilson); and Library,
Information Science & Technology Abstracts
(Graduate nursing students
OR students, nursing, graduate OR students, nursing doctoral OR students,
nursing, Masters OR education, nursing, graduate OR MSN OR DNP OR ((masters OR
PhD OR doctoral OR graduate student*) AND nurs*)) AND (Library orientation OR
library user education OR library instruction OR ((Librar* OR information
literacy) AND (instruction OR workshop OR orientation OR session OR class)))
Search notes:
Subject headings and
keywords associated with the two concepts of graduate nursing students and library
instruction were included in the search (see Table A1 for list of included
subject headings). Medline, CINAHL,
ERIC, and PsycINFO were searched concurrently through the EBSCO Interface.
While it is possible to use field codes to restrict search terms to specific
fields, a more comprehensive search is possible with the “Select a Field”
option. When using “Select a Field” all search terms are searched in the
author, subject, keyword, title, and abstract fields which reduces the chance
of missing relevant results. More information about using the “Select a Field”
option can be found here: https://help.ebsco.com/interfaces/EBSCO_Guides/General_Product_FAQs/fields_searched_using_Select_a_Field_drop_down_list).
All searches were limited to
English. The initial search was limited to 1994 through July 2019. The bridge
search was limited to July 2019 through December 2021.
Table A1
Subject Headings for Each
Database
|
|
Concept – Graduate nursing students |
Concept – Library instruction |
|
Database |
Subject headings |
Subject headings |
|
CINAHL |
Students, nursing,
graduate Students, nursing, masters Students, nursing,
doctoral |
Library user education |
|
Medline |
Education, nursing,
graduate |
Libraries |
|
ERIC |
Graduate students Nursing students Doctoral students |
Library instruction |
|
Library Literature &
Information Science Index |
Students |
Library orientation |
|
Library, Information
Science, & Technology Abstracts |
Students |
Library orientation |
Library & Information
Science Abstracts (LISA) (searched
through ProQuest interface):
(Graduate nursing students
OR students, nursing, graduate OR students, nursing doctoral OR students,
nursing, Masters OR education, nursing, graduate OR MSN OR DNP OR ((masters OR
PhD OR doctoral OR graduate student*) AND nurs*)) AND (Library orientation OR
library user education OR library instruction OR ((Librar* OR information
literacy) AND (instruction OR workshop OR orientation OR session OR class)))
Search notes:
All searches were limited to
English. The initial search was limited to 1994 through July 2019. The bridge
search was limited to July 2019 through December 2021.
Google Scholar (first 100 results examined)
(Graduate nursing students |
MSN | DNP | ((masters | PhD | doctoral | graduate student) AND nurse))
((Library OR information literacy) AND (instruction | workshop | orientation |
session| class))
Search notes:
The initial search was
limited to 1994 through 2019. The bridge search was limited to 2019 through
2021.
Appendix B
Sources Included in Scoping
Review
Table B1
Characteristics of Sources
*S/G/T are Standards,
Guidelines, or Theories used to develop instruction.
|
Author(s), Date, Population, Location |
Class
OR Program S/G/T* |
Format (F2F
= face-to-face) |
Timing, Duration |
Content
taught |
Additional
support |
Methodology, Assessment, Other
notes |
|
Bernstein
et al., 2020, DNP
Students, United
States |
Class
- DNP Intro Level Class Essentials
of Doctoral Education for Advanced Practice Nursing |
No
indication of format. |
First
week of class. No
indication of class duration. |
Reading
and evaluating nursing research; database searching focused on advanced
features such as filters. |
Follow-up
research appointments with librarian. |
Survey. Survey
of feelings and attitudes. Instruction
tied to course assignments. |
|
Deberg, 2014, DNP
Students, Iowa |
Two
classes - 1.
Primary Care and Older Adult II 2. Finding Evidence
for Practice. Essentials
of Doctoral Education for Advanced Practice Nurses. |
1.
Hybrid -F2F lecture, recorded for distance students. 2.
Virtual- Online videos of database demos and lectures. |
1.
& 2. No mention of timing or duration. |
Class
1 -structuring clinical questions, evaluating evidence strength, utilizing
clinical and literature databases. Class
2 - Databases demoed, no specifics. |
1.
& 2. Individual meetings via phone, email, or Web. |
Case
report. 1.
& 2. Assessment mentioned but no results provided. 1.
Anecdotal evidence of success from nursing faculty and conversations with
students. Not
clear if F2F lecture in class 1 was delivered by librarian or nursing
faculty. Instruction
was tied to course assignments. |
|
Dorner
et al., 2001, Master’s
students, Indiana |
Both
- Program
was tiered approach in BSN and MSN. Specific
MSN class – NURS
605. No
S/G/T mentioned. |
Virtual
– online tutorials, each with a pre and postquiz, developed for specific
courses and inserted at point of need. |
Module
for NURS 605 was assigned during first two weeks of semester and contained multiple
tutorials. No
mention of duration or number of tutorials. |
NURS
605 - |
Online
discussion boards, online chat sessions for small groups. |
Case
report. Each
tutorial of the module had a pre and postquiz, however no results were provided. Instruction
was tied to course assignments. |
|
Francis
& Fisher, 1995, Master’s
and PhD students, Florida |
Program No
S/G/T mentioned. |
F2F |
No
indication of timing. Two
sessions, each two hours long. |
CINAHL/Medline
(search strategies including limits, controlled vocab |
Additional
content for off-campus users: Using
databases from off-campus. |
Case
report. Mentions
assessment but no results provided. Anecdotal
evidence - librarians reported that nursing students asked fewer basic
questions. Instruction
was tied to course work. Students
were required to participate, assignments were graded, or credit was received
for participation. |
|
Guillot
& Stahr, 2004, Master’s
students, Louisiana |
Class
- NURS
600 Theoretical
Foundations of Advanced Nursing No
S/G/T mentioned. |
Hybrid
- Traditional
bibliographic instruction followed by optional individual virtual sessions. |
No
indication of timing. Session
was 1 hour with 20 minutes spent scheduling individual sessions. Duration of
individual sessions varied. |
Health
science databases, library services, virtual reference. Individual
virtual sessions were tailored to each student with students expected to have
chosen relevant search terms before the meeting. |
Follow-up
email with a transcript of the virtual session. |
Program
evaluation. Focus
was assessment of practicalities of providing the program, no assessment of
instructional effectiveness mentioned. |
|
Guillot
et al., 2010, Master’s
students, Louisiana |
Class
- NURS
500/600 Theoretical
Foundations of Advanced Nursing Information
Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education; Standards
for Distance Learning Library Services. |
Embedded |
Available
throughout semester. Assistance
provided at point of need. |
Content
driven by student questions on discussion board. Questions for the specific
semester included assessing library resources remotely, using interlibrary
loan, APA, and help with research questions. |
Broadcast
email about how to access assigned articles. |
Case
report. Anecdotal
evidence that students were enthusiastic about the service (derived from
course evaluations). Librarian
embedded into course management system. |
|
Hinegardner
& Lansing, 1994, Master’s Students, Maryland |
Class
- Computer
Applications in Nursing and Health Care No
S/G/T mentioned. |
F2F |
No
indication of timing. 3-hour
session. |
Computerized
literature searching, databases, search strategy development, file management
software. |
None
mentioned. |
Case
report. No
assessment mentioned. Focus
of article is development of Nursing Informatics program. Instruction
tied to class assignment. |
|
Hodson-Carlton
& Dorner, 1999 Master’s
students, Indiana |
Class
- NUR
605 No
S/G/T mentioned. |
Virtual
- Interactive
Web instructional module. |
Module
took place in the 3rd or 4th week of the semester. No
indication of duration of module. |
Evaluation
of Web resources using seven evaluation criteria (scope, audience, authority,
currency, accuracy, purpose, and organization). |
One
synchronous chat session; asynchronous online bulletin board which included
both a nursing faculty member and a librarian. |
Quasi-experimental.
Pre-post
quiz with six true/false questions about Web information. Open-ended
questions about perceptions also included in postquiz. Instruction
tied to class assignments. |
|
Honey
et al., 2006, Master’s
students, New
Zealand |
Program Australian
& New Zealand Information Literacy Framework |
Hybrid
- F2F
plus online tutorials and Web-based resource pages. |
F2F
orientation beginning of semester. No
indication of duration. Course
related sessions provided within classes. |
F2F
orientation - nursing specific resources, library tutorials, workshops,
librarian contact info. Voluntary
F2F sessions - catalogue, nursing-specific databases including CINAHL,
e-journals. |
Informational
brochure about library resources for nursing students. Small
F2F voluntary sessions. |
Mixed
methods (student surveys plus library staff interviews). Assessment
of library use but no mention of assessment of instructional effectiveness. Focus
of the study is a survey of use of technology by nursing students and changes
made as a result. |
|
Layton
& Hahn, 1995, Master’s
and PhD students, Maryland |
Both
- Program and two classes; MSN
class - Computer Technologies in Nursing. PhD
class - Technology Applications in Nursing Research. No
S/G/T mentioned. |
Both
classes F2F |
MSN
Class 2)
two-hour sessions. No
indication of timing. PhD
class two
sessions. No
indication of timing or duration. |
MSN
Class - Internet, email, databases, search strategies, controlled vocab,
Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, library services. |
None
mentioned. |
Case
report. Assessment
mentioned but no results provided. All
instructional sessions include lecture, demo, and hands-on training with
students performing exercises on the computer. |
|
Leasure
et al., 2009, Graduate
students (level not specified), Oklahoma |
Both
- Program and
two graduate nursing classes. No
S/G/T mentioned. |
Hybrid
- Both
F2F and online tutorials. |
Early
Graduate Nursing Class No
indication of timing or duration of F2F instruction. Graduate
Research Course No
indication of timing or duration. |
Early
Course - Online
tutorial – webpage evaluation. Research
Course – |
Additional
free training sessions were available to individuals wishing to improve their
skills. |
Case
report. No
assessment mentioned. Instructional
sessions consisted of lecture plus live demo searches followed by discussion
among students, librarian, and nursing faculty member. |
|
Lemley,
2016, Master’s
and DNP Students, Alabama |
Program No
S/G/T mentioned (did reference best practices for embedded librarians). |
Embedded |
Available
throughout semester. Assistance
provided at point of need. |
Driven
by questions. Individual questions answered include APA, definitions of
research types, where to search, CINAHL. |
Encouraged
to contact the librarian by phone, email, or discussion board. Online
videos and tutorials for specific databases and ILL. |
Case
report. No
assessment mentioned. Librarian
listed as instructor in course management system. |
|
Milstead
& Nelson, 1998, PhD
students, Pennsylvania |
Both
- Program
and Nursing PhD course -Politics and Health Policy Development. No
S/G/T mentioned. |
Virtual (webpage) |
Webpage
available throughout the course. |
Frequently
used library functions/resources. |
Vendor
rep provided instruction for class on Westlaw database. |
Case
report. Mentioned
assessment of library use and access, but no results provided. No assessment
of instructional effectiveness mentioned. Primary
focus is development of program, limited discussion of library involvement,
no librarian author on article. |
|
Schilperoort, 2020, Master’s
students, California |
Two
clinical classes (no specifics on class name). Andragogy,
Constructivist learning theory |
Virtual
asynchronous interactive video tutorial. |
Embedded
in LMS. Self-paced,
estimated 15 to 30 minutes to complete tutorial. |
Identifying
level of evidence and locating library resources to find evidence. |
None
mentioned. |
Quasi-experimental. Pre-post
tests, Survey of confidence with some open-ended questions. Unique
focus on clinical courses. Tutorial
was required; assignment was graded credit or no-credit. |
|
Thompson, 2009, Master’s
students, Canada |
Class
– Research
Methods Course No
S/G/T mentioned. |
F2F |
No
indication of timing of class. Compared
two iterations with differing durations. First
iteration was 1) 3-hour class, second iteration was 3) 3-hour classes. |
1st
iteration (3 hr. class) – lecture on basic concepts of data &
quantitative research, demo of basic analysis in SPSS, hands-on practice with
provided dataset. |
Assistance
at the academic data center on a walk-in basis. |
Survey
(students’ feelings/ attitudes). 1st
iteration – anecdotal evidence (Instructor reported high grades on
assignment). 2nd
iteration – student survey. Instruction
tied to class assignment.
|
|
Welch
et al., 2016, PhD
students, Georgia |
Program
-Orientation No
S/G/T mentioned. |
Virtual (online
interactive modules). |
Access
before classes began, but not clear if modules had to be completed before
classes began. No
indication of duration of modules. |
4
modules - topics included scholarly writing, APA, library databases, lit
reviews, research questions/ hypotheses, popular vs. scholarly, theoretical
frameworks, Endnote, planning a research study, research ethics. |
None
mentioned |
Case
report. Reports
meeting as a group to discuss orientation assessments and evaluations but no results
provided. Describes
shift to online modules for student support. |
|
Whitehair,
2010, Master’s,
DNP, and PhD students, Kansas |
Both
- Program
and two classes - DNP
capstone course PhD
on-site sessions. Practice
Doctorate Nurse Practitioner Entry-Level Competencies; Kuhlthau’s Model of
the Information Search Process; Kraft
and Androwich’s student-centered model. |
Hybrid
- F2F,
synchronous online instruction, videos. |
Orientation
preclass. DNP
course - beginning of semester, recorded; No indication of duration. Q&A
session several weeks later. PhD
students – 1st & 3rd
week included 1-hr library sessions; 2nd week individual meetings. |
Orientations
- critical resources, off-site access. DNP
Capstone Course - lit searching, video tutorials, resources. PhD
sessions -1. library services, website, databases, 2. - voluntary
meetings. 3. complex searching, refining searches, current awareness
services. |
One-on-one
interaction with library liaisons was encouraged and available in person, via
phone, online conferencing, and instant messaging. |
Case
report. No
assessment mentioned. SON
faculty encouraged to add library contact info to the syllabus and to set up
"Ask a Librarian" discussion boards in all courses. |
|
Whiting
& Orr, 2013, DNP
students, Indiana |
Both
- Program, Orientation No
S/G/T mentioned. |
No
indication of format of orientation. |
No
indication of timing or duration of orientation. |
Content
that changed as a result of the research – improved explanation of ILL and
document delivery, more time spent on citing and citation resources, greater
emphasis on nine nursing journals added to the collection in support of the
new DNP program. |
Librarians
maintained a "library support" section within the general
Blackboard site. |
Mixed
methods. Analysis
of research paper reference lists and survey
of library resources/services satisfaction but no assessment of instructional
effectiveness mentioned. Focus
is support of DNP program over three years rather than instruction. |
|
Wills
et al., 2001, Master’s
students, Michigan |
Class
- Nursing
811 Concepts
of Research and Evaluation for Advanced Practice Nurses No
S/G/T mentioned. |
Embedded |
Available
throughout semester. |
CINAHL,
Medline, ProQuest Direct, and other health-science databases. |
Individual
consultations via email or F2F. Discussion room in WebTalk for questions and
where the librarian posted content. |
Case
report. There
was an end-of-class evaluation, but no assessment of library support was
reported. Focus
is the development of an online nursing class in the Master’s program,
including info about library support. |
|
Wimmer
et al., 2014, PhD
students, Utah |
Class
- Research
with Diverse Populations No
S/G/T mentioned. |
Virtual
-synchronous |
Second
week of class was an orientation to library resources with question-and-answer
session. No
indication of duration. |
No
information beyond that it was an orientation to library resources. Librarian
assisted with full-text, remote access, and ILL. |
Research
guide for Evidence-Based Nursing shared via course management system. |
Case
report. No
assessment mentioned. Focus
is describing librarians' involvement in the creation of an e-textbook by
students in the class. |