FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W78497934> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W78497934 endingPage "76" @default.
• W78497934 startingPage "73" @default.
• W78497934 abstract "Abstract Since the initial offering of an online library/information literacy course, the question has been whether this form of instruction has any advantages over the traditional classroom method in terms of improved learning outcomes. The present study looks at the final exam grades of over 1,000 students to determine whether any such difference is indicated. Introduction Louisiana State University (LSU) is Louisiana's largest university, with a student population that hovers at about 31,000. The Instruction Group within LSU Libraries bears the primary responsibility for library/information literacy instruction at LSU. With only nine librarian-instructors, the task of enlightening so many students not only to the effective use of library resources but also to the much larger process of information literacy is a decidedly formidable task. Though library/information literacy instruction at LSU takes many forms, such as online tutorials and special one-time-only classes, the only platform that offers students extended time with a librarian for instruction in a range of information resources is the LIS 1001 Research Methods and Materials course. LIS 1001 sessions are offered twice each fall and spring semester and once each summer. Currently, the course's maximum capacity is 362 students each session. Thus, in a full year, the greatest number of students that can be accommodated is 1,490. The course is never at maximum capacity due to dropouts. In the summer of 2001, with an eye toward increasing the reach of the library's instructional efforts, an online version of the LIS 1001 course was tested. Students who enrolled did not know at first that they would be taking the course online. These students actually met in a classroom each day at the advertised time. The web-based course was designed as a pilot for a section that would be taught totally online in the following fall semester. The instructor assigned to the summer section explained this to the class and asked them to read the instructional materials online and complete any assigned tutorials before the class session. The students were told that, in return, they would receive help in doing the assignments during class time. Students were free to ask questions for clarification as they worked through each lesson. In this hybrid way and with access to immediate feedback from the students, the instructor and course designer were able to gauge the limitations of the proposed course plan and material, to discover whether the lessons and assessments were clear, and, ultimately, to improve the course so that it could be offered successfully without the necessary presence of an instructor in a classroom. Since then, the online version of LIS 1001 has been refined each nine weeks it has been offered and seems to be popular with the students, as evidenced by its normally high enrollment rate. Online sections that began 100% full retained an average 90.8% of their students during the study period (summer 2001 to fall 2002), as compared to 89.2% retention for the classroom course during the same interval. In this respect, our experience with virtual instruction contradicts that reported by Hiltz in her 1997 study (n. pag.) and by Jorgensen in her 2002 survey of asynchronous (i.e., virtual) learning (5). These authors each pointed to higher drop-out rates in virtual, as opposed to classroom, classes as a concern of which online course planners should be aware. Even so, and regardless of the apparent popularity of our online course, a question has lingered since that first virtual class was offered. The question is this: Is the online delivery method more effective than the classroom method? Casual observation of the students in that first online class made it clear that those students were totally focused and engaged, albeit perforce. They had no choice but to concentrate, or they would never complete the lessons and the work on which they were being graded. …" @default.
• W78497934 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W78497934 creator A5083129811 @default.
• W78497934 date "2004-12-22" @default.
• W78497934 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W78497934 title "All Things Being Equal: Classroom vs. Web" @default.
• W78497934 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W78497934 type Work @default.
• W78497934 sameAs 78497934 @default.
• W78497934 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W78497934 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W78497934 hasAuthorship W78497934A5083129811 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C119883117 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C201995342 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C2776204006 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C2779182362 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C2780451532 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W78497934 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C119883117 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C127413603 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C136764020 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C144024400 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C145420912 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C149923435 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C15744967 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C161191863 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C201995342 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C2776204006 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C2779182362 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C2780451532 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C2908647359 @default.
• W78497934 hasConceptScore W78497934C41008148 @default.
• W78497934 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W78497934 hasLocation W784979341 @default.
• W78497934 hasOpenAccess W78497934 @default.
• W78497934 hasPrimaryLocation W784979341 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W115726817 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W1518692127 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W1539541080 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W1989011263 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W1995248006 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W2039312570 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W2103528817 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W2122257862 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W220448697 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W2263896101 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W2277299656 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W2410050931 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W2554318713 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W2992118918 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W2994303078 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W301986847 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W3121390160 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W76565139 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W1119893990 @default.
• W78497934 hasRelatedWork W277929291 @default.
• W78497934 hasVolume "8" @default.
• W78497934 isParatext "false" @default.
• W78497934 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W78497934 magId "78497934" @default.
• W78497934 workType "article" @default.