CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 96Library Science and Information LiteracyEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effective Methods for Teaching Information Literacy Skills to Undergraduate Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Koufogiannakis, Denise, Wiebe, Natasha·2006·Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
DOI 10.18438/b8ms3d
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective - The objective of this review was to assess which library instruction methods are most effective for improving the information skills of students at an introductory, undergraduate level, using cognitive outcomes (measuring changes in knowledge). The study sought to address the following questions: 1) What is the overall state of research on this topic? 2) Which teaching methods are more effective? Methods - Systematic review methodology was used. Fifteen databases were searched for relevant articles retrieving 4356 potentially relevant citations. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance. Of those, 257 full articles were considered in-depth using a predetermined inclusion/exclusion form. 122 unique studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent an extensive data extraction and critical appraisal process. 55 of these studies met author defined quality criteria to provide information on the effectiveness of different teaching methods. Of these, 16 studies provided sufficient information to enable meta-analyses using standardized mean difference to be undertaken. Results - The overwhelming majority of studies were conducted in the United States (88%). 79 studies (65%) used experimental or quasi-experimental research methods. Teaching methods used in the studies varied, with the majority focused on traditional methods of teaching, followed by computer assisted instruction, and self-directed independent learning. Studies measured outcomes that correlated with Bloom’s lower levels of learning (Remember, Understand, Apply). 16 studies compared traditional instruction with no instruction, and 12 found a positive outcome. Meta-analysis of the data from 4 of these studies agreed with the positive conclusions favouring traditional instruction. 14 studies compared computer assisted instruction with traditional instruction. 9 of these showed a neutral result, and meta-analysis of 8 of these studies agreed with this neutral result. 6 studies compared self-directed independent learning with no instruction, and meta-analysis of 5 of these agreed that the result was positive in favour of self-directed independent learning. Conclusions - Based on the results of this meta-analysis, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that computer assisted instruction is as effective as traditional instruction. Evidence also suggests that both traditional instruction and self-directed independent instruction are more effective than no instruction. Additional comparative research needs to be done across different teaching methods. Studies comparing active learning, computer assisted instruction, and self-directed independent learning would greatly enrich the research literature. Further studies utilizing appropriate methodologies and validated research tools would enrich our evidence base, and contribute to the growth of knowledge about effectiveness of particular teaching methods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18438/b8ms3d

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Koufogiannakis and Wiebe (2006) found in a systematic review of 122 studies that library instruction provided electronically was just as effective as more traditional instruction.

    “In a systematic review that analyzed 122 studies, Koufogiannakis and Wiebe (2006) found that library instruction provided electronically was just as effective as more traditional instruction.”

    From Evaluating the Impact of Information Literacy Workshops on Student Success (2025) · cites this paper as Koufogiannakis and Wiebe (2006)

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Koufogiannakis, D., & Wiebe, N.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Publisher
University of Alberta Libraries
Published
2006-09-14
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
3-43
ISSN
1715-720X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.18438/b8ms3d
OpenAlex
W2155996729
Cited by
96
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • E-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
information literacy, library instruction, undergraduate students, teaching methods, computer-assisted instruction, self-directed learning, traditional teaching methods, Bloom's taxonomy, cognitive outcomes, information skills

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review