Online Tutorials for Library Instruction: an Ongoing Project Under Constant Revision

¢¡¤£¦¥¦¡¨§ © ¤ ¥£¥ "!$#%¡¨ ¦& ('& ¦¥¡*)&+$¡, -¡/.0¥¦¡1.32* 546§&'7 98¡¨:¤§<; ¡¨ =>¡? ¨@A§7B&¥¥¡

Online Tutorials for Library Instruction: An Ongoing Project Under Constant Revision

Kornelia Tancheva

Introduction online library instruction tutorial addresses the With the proliferation of the Internet and the capa- principles of learning theories in distributed envi- bilities it offers for providing instruction in general ronments, as well as the accepted principles of ef- (cf. Manuel for statistics on distance education pro- fective library instruction. I will examine the con- grams and enrollment), and for instruction on the uses ceptual, design-related, and technological issues and services of today’s libraries, the creation of online from both a theoretical and a practical perspective library instruction tutorials has come to be regarded blending the findings from already existing tuto- as almost a panacea to the ever-growing need for user rials and the creation of Mann Library’s online instruction with limited human resources. This paper tutorial. At the end, I will suggest some features of will look at over forty existing library tutorials and the “ideal” online library instruction tutorial. online library research aides and examine the experi- Before looking at the theory and practice of online ence of creating an interactive tutorial at the Albert library instruction, let me first delineate the concep- R. Mann Library, Cornell University. I hope to be tual framework within which this paper is situated. able to built upon Nancy Dewald’s study of 20 online The definition of information literacy I implicitly tutorials, published in 1999 in the Journal of Academic employ follows Bender’s definition, according to which, Librarianship, which concluded that online tutorials to be information literate, an individual recognizes cannot completely substitute for a human connection that s/he has a need for information; possesses the in learning and should be used in connection to aca- knowledge and skills that enable her/him to discover demic classes rather than in isolation (Dewald where and how to find the information; is comfort- 1999) by enlarging the sample of tutorials exam- able using the necessary tools to find, modify, and ined and by investigating some theoretical, design present that information in another format; and can and technological issues in online library instruc- critically evaluate and synthesize the information s/ tion. My goal is to determine to what extent an he finds to understand the social, economic, and po-

Kornelia Tancheva is Instruction Coordinator at Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University; email: [email protected].

April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina CEDFG*HIKJL-M?L7G*NO¨H7PL

litical implications of the information (Bender and ciples of effective teaching and learning in an online Rosen 2000, 316). environment, which has been done extensively a num- As far as a definition of an interactive tutorial is ber of times (see, for instance Hook), is beyond the concerned, I am following the paradigm suggested by scope of this paper. It is universally accepted that the Deek et al. (2000) for the conceptualization of web- theory of teaching and learning in general should be based environments for program development. Ac- applied to the creation and design of online instruc- cording to this paradigm, interactive learning systems tional systems and by extension, online library tuto- encourage the user to actively participate during the rials. Weston, for instance argues that, “online instruc- course of the instruction, provide tests with immedi- tion design should be based on the same principles ate feedback on the user’s performance as well as an that have guided instructional designers for years” appealing interface for practice. Deek et al. suggest (Weston et al. 1999, 37). I will consequently, con- three different types of interactive learning systems: centrate on only a few principles of effective teaching drill-and-practice, tutorials, and simulations. and learning in a distributed environment that seem Drill and practice systems reinforce certain skills to me most pertinent to online library instruction tu- or knowledge and offer the opportunity for practic- torials. ing defined skills. They provide immediate feedback It is important, I believe, to note that it is not for the performance of the learner but it is important only teaching and learning theory that should be ap-

to remember that the learning in this case has taken plied to the creation and design of online library tu-

O¨H&DF5RG¨W9IH7L F%GUJKG1VAJ¦G S

place externally to the system. In other words, the torials but also the S

WXJY FZJ[¤\ H&W]HG^P&J_F DGa`bH G Y

S S system itself is used to supplement external instruc- S . Some authors argue that tion, or to refresh the reader’s knowledge and is usu- academic research on the use of the web in a peda- ally aimed at some form of corrective action. gogical context has been limited and generally com- Tutorials, on the other hand, teach new content prises either enthusiastic studies and hyperbolic ac- and have the capabilities to verify that the learner has counts, or simply descriptions of technology imple- understood the instruction and to help reinforce the mentation with little regard to wider issues (Will- learned material. They provide diverse strategies to iams 2001), or that guidelines for printed materials recall prior knowledge, as well as aids for incorporat- are established and well known, but there is no stan- ing old with new information and strategies for learn- dard for electronic documents in general (Plankis ers to remember the information taught and to relate 1998). Yet, there exists a host of conceptual frame- new information to existing or to-be-learned infor- works that examine the implications of the online mation. The types of tutorials that Deek et al. discuss learning environment on the process of teaching and include interactive workbooks, programming environ- learning. Weston et al., for instance, introduce nine ments, intelligent tutoring systems and systems teach- additional considerations for online learning environ- ing problem solving. ments to the generic guidelines for instruction: in- Finally, simulations have the capabilities to ap- structional design (i.e. pedagogical issues), subject proximate, replicate, or emulate the features of some matter, language, and presentation. These are: impact task or skill to be learned and employ software visual- on learning, student computer literacy, student com- ization techniques. Even though Deek’s paradigm envi- puter access, infrastructure, interactivity, navigation, sions programming environments, I find the distinctions evaluation, accuracy and recency, loading speed and between drill-and-practice systems, tutorials, and simu- bandwidth. Hawley and Duffy (1998) examine the lations useful when discussing online library instruction impact of learning theories on the design of online environments and will keep it as a general framework instruction in general, while Maule (1998) investi- through which to examine my sample. gates how the philosophy of the discipline can impact the design of online instruction. Below are the prin- Conceptual Considerations ciples of effective teaching and learning in an online M OHQD1FR environment that I find either most pertinent or most Precepts problematic as far as library instruction tutorials are Enumerating all, or even most, of the theoretical prin- concerned.

ACRL Eleventh National Conference

c¢d¤e¦f¦d¨g h i¤jklfmenoklpfql m l"r$s%d¨nj¦l&i(t&j¦fkd*u&v$d,c-d/w0kf¦d1w3x*l k5y6g&t7j9zd¨{¤gl<| kd¨nj=m>d?j¨}Ag7~&fnfkd cdeKf=d*gj5iUjklfm e5n n*k¤iQe{q¤g9 ¨l k(qe5g q(mn%g6{bm7d*{ brary instruction to thousands of incoming students jg7mQt3t>kd¨t>g jn5/l mj_¨gl9j_0m>d3n1fee5n% As Gibson (1995) may not be practical (Bender and Rosen 2000). Fur- has pointed out, practice has shown that “students ther, because of the enhanced multimedia capabilities and many others lack sound mental models of data- of the online environment, online learning systems bases and therefore make incorrect assumptions about are considered more capable of satisfying learners’ dif- the content and structure of databases” (33). Since ferent learning styles. the variations in interface, or even searching techniques Disadvantages are usually seen as the result of a are too numerous to capture, teaching concepts would direct translation of instruction designed for tradi- ensure the transferability of competencies across sys- tional environments to the online environment (Carr- tems and lead to the ultimate goal of instruction in Chellman and Duchastel 2001) or of practical con- general, i.e. synthesis and evaluative thinking. siderations specific to the institution itself. Smith

c¢d¤e¦fKd¨gji¤jklfme5n0n5¨k(i6e5{d*t¨kl g&{U tion might be inappropriate if the institution’s mis- In this connection, the ideal library instruction is the sion is not geared towards online instruction or has result of a librarian-faculty partnership (Bender and inadequate infrastructure. Yet another concern is the Rosen 2000). Studies, as well as practical experience, fact that too often online tutorials are seen as “using have shown that today’s students do not expect a one- technology for its own sake” (Mason 2000) rather than size-fits all approach in any learning environment, for the enhancement of learning. It is clear, however, much less in library instruction, which could often be that all of the disadvantages and concerns expressed

perceived as redundant, anyway. are practical, rather than theoretical.

c¢deKfKd*g-jijklfm e5nnmj_fn5orj_*g l g&¤if¦l g g dj0oklAko oglfKd1w eKfql m lrfKd¨nj¦l&i(t&j_fkd-mj/j_¨g( 0l g7tfng¤ kfKd?jXko/d¨g7g&{ . Contradictions This principle is related to the one above, as well as to Leaving the actual implementation of the principles the often- emphasized advantage of online instruc- and advantages of online instructions aside for the time tion in general—it can be perused at the learning being, let’s look at some possible theoretical contra-

subject’s convenience (see below). dictions. Despite the proliferation of literature on the

eg7m ldUf¦d1wAn%j reg&n

Finally, let’s look at some of the mQ{1~m>d?j=mw^g&n?m>d¨{ and their impact on teaching and learn- {Xf5nm{/~m>djmw¨g&n , that online tutorials in general and ing, as Song (2002) has argued, after hundreds of stud- library specific ones in particular are said to offer. Since ies on learning styles the applicability of these catego- it is clearly not possible to discuss all of them here, I rizations to learning is still unclear and years of re- will highlight only those who seem of greatest impor- search in human-computer interaction have not re- tance to me. According to Smith (2001), one of the sulted in an adequate understanding of what is re- most appealing attractions is that instruction on the quired to make interaction effective (74). In fact, it Web presents the same information to all students, could be that prior knowledge on the subject is the removing the unavoidable variations in human deliv- most significant indicator of achievement and that ery (2). Other advantages include the fact that online students lacking appropriate prior knowledge may not tutorials can be used at the student’s convenience, they significantly benefit from instruction at all (76). As- are accessible from remote locations, they offer an al- suming that this is the case, the insistence on taking ternative for students who prefer self-regulated learn- into consideration various learning styles (behaviorist ing and are more suitable to visual learners (Tricarico and constructivist learning experiences) when creat- et al. 2001). Online learning through the WWW in ing online tutorials can very well be overstated. Fur- general is seen as offering “the opportunity to trick ther research might be needed to determine what ex- students into learning by using the novelty and stimu- actly the best mixture of behaviorism and lation of the computer and monitor” (Pyle and constructivism is, since the insistence on more inter- Dziuban 2001, 132), as well as more advantageous action around the student and negotiated learning than some traditional instruction forms because of its (Carr-Chellman and Duchastel 2001) can very well emphasis on outcomes assessment (Parise 2000), or be undermined by the fact that the negotiation can- because a traditional program of course-integrated li- not be accomplished in real time. While in an in-

April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina

E*K-?7*¨7

Q¦1 > ª07¤

person teaching situation, it is theoretically possible Looking at the theoretical ¡ of online to change or modify teaching styles to suit the learn- instructional media in general or library tutorials in ing styles of the learning subjects, in an online envi- particular, it is also important to note that studies have ronment, until an intelligent teaching system can be not exclusively concluded that multimedia capabili-

devised, such a change or modification is not possible. ties enhance learning and retention. There are indeed ¨?¢^ Q£

In an online environment, determining ¡ studies which have found that hypermedia may not

¤a¢K ¥¨&7¦

¡ when library instruction should be be an effective means of instruction if students lack offered entails the reliance on students to be actively the ability to employ self-learning skills and that stu- seeking this instruction. I believe that we need to con- dents with poor self-learning skills perform worse in sider further whether an online tutorial is in practice, more complex learning tasks with hypermedia sys- rather than in theory, the means to provide instruc- tems than they would on linear systems (Pirolli and tion at the point of need. With in-class library ses- Recker 1994) or that, students exposed to in-class in- sions, presumably it has been determined by the pro- struction perform better in post-instruction tests than fessor that students need this sort of instruction. With those exposed to online instruction only (Churkovich open workshops that students attend, they have de- and Oughtred 2002). Although most of the studies termined this need for themselves. But, will they go devoted to comparisons between in-person and online to an online tutorial when they need help with their (library) instruction report no or little difference in research, even assuming that the tutorial has been ad- student learning between online and lecture style in- vertised sufficiently? It seems to me that what the struction (Russell 1999; Germain et al. 2000; Holman University of Minnesota Library team which created 2000; Kaplowitz and Contini 1998; Gutierrez and their online tutorial, QuickStudy, found about stu- Wang 2001), in many of the instances reported tuto- dents’ attitudes and mental modes of research is very rials were taken under the supervision of a librarian, revealing. According to Veldof and Beavers (2001), post-test questions for the different groups were not the majority of their student testers made it clear that identical, or the tutorial was taken after a lecture by a they would not likely use the tutorial unless it were librarian. Significantly, Churkovich (2002) reports that incorporated into a course curriculum, grading and not only did students with face-to-face instruction instructor expectations (15). It may be that the best gain higher posttest mean scores than students com- way to ensure the availability of instruction at the pleting the online tutorial on their own but students point-of-need is making live chat services available attending library sessions felt more confident about through course pages, similarly to the experiment de- their library skills than those in the online tutorial scribed by Viggiano and Ault (2001). only sessions. Students who rated themselves poorly Offering online tutorials at the point of need is at finding library material in the pretest did much also connected to another unresolved issue in the better in face-to-face class than those who attended

conceptualization of online library tutorials, i.e. their the mediated or tutorial groups and the overall level

¢§Q> K>¨ X% _0K*¤ >©/ 0¢0 7ª>« ¡ ¡ . Most re- of student confidence was significantly less for the searchers argue that online tutorials should be used as tutorial-only delivery (31).

supplements (Tricarico et al. 2001) or at least in some Further, there is not enough research to prove that

>*>"¢ ¤

sort of conjunction with in-class instruction. That is, ¡ can be taught effectively in an electronic online tutorials are seen as more of a complement or a environment (Gresham 1997). This may be even ex-

tool of supplementary instruction rather than as an acerbated by the fact that teaching concepts could

>QKQ¬¤ = 1 &%a=/ª ¡ effective stand-alone teaching tool. This, however, very well be connected to a ¡ brings up the initial distinction between drill-and- >¨¦¢5> UK1ª environment, which may very well be practice systems and tutorials. If online library in- possible in an online course on information literacy, struction is a supplement to a presentation, lecture, or or in an in-person library session but is not a priority an in-person session, surely it would be more practi- in the creation of online tutorials, which emphasize cal to create drill-and-practice systems that test the the individual’s convenience of access and learning. In user’s knowledge of material presented outside the fact, one of the biggest unresolved issues, to my mind, online system. is the reconciliation of what is considered the speci-

ACRL Eleventh National Conference ¢®¤¯¦°¦®¨± ² ³¤´µ¶°·¯¸¹µ¶º°»¶ · ¶"¼$½%®¨¸´¦¶&³(¾&´¦°µ®*¿&À$®,-®/Á0µ°¦®1Á3Â*¶ µ5Ã6±&¾7´9Ä®¨Å¤±¶<Æ µ®¨¸´=·>®?´¨ÇA±7È&°¸°µ®

ficity of online instruction and one of its greatest ad- was found in the LIBeRation tutorial from the Uni- vantages, i.e. the creation of online learning commu- versity College Northampton, which was discipline- nities (Harasim 2000), and the nature of library in- based from the very start and asked the user to select struction, which is normally not a semester-long ex- a subject area before taking the tutorial. Only one tu- perience. It could very well be that in a one-time online torial, Library Explorer from the University of Iowa, library tutorial shot, even the already limited possi- was entirely research-problem based (“You want to bilities for collaborative learning that a face-to-face know...”). However, the vast majority of online learn- 50 to 90 minute library session offers, are effectively ing systems examined focused either entirely on con- lost. In fact, if Veldof and Beavers (2001) are right cepts rather than skills or incorporated conceptual when they argue that students view the research pro- learning on at least some level. cess as something to hurry through in order to get to In other words, the practical findings seem to sup- an end and students are focused on a final product port the possibility for teaching information concepts rather than a process, the question arises as to how an effectively. Whether anchored, i.e. student-centered, online tutorial could meet this goal? If we accept that problem-based, online library instruction is feasible this is the model that librarians should adopt (i.e. the remains unclear at this point. so called “racing model of research”), an online tutorial cannot be an effective substitute for a library ses- Â¶·¾7´_°¾>±6¿UÊ Ë7Ì ±¶°± ®¨¾>± sion, or even better, a one-on-one consultation at the Mann Library’s online library instruction tutorial reference desk, where the precise goal of the student project began in the fall of 2001. It was conceived as can be met most effectively (i.e. locating an X num- a potential model for developing course-integrated li- ber of articles on topic Y). If we disagree with the brary instructional tools and consisted of three mod- idea that library instruction should follow the racing ules—Library Catalog, Library Gateway to Electronic research mental model, and should instead teach con- Resources, and Electronic Journals—with three asso- cepts and how-to skills that could be applied in vari- ciated lessons each: selecting, searching, and evaluat- ous other situations, the question becomes can online ing. The goal was to create content structure and in- library instruction teach concepts effectively in a lim- terface design that allow for extending the model by ited amount of time? faculty and other library professionals to create customizable tutorials for their disciplines and sub- Â?¶ ·Q¾7´°¾ ±6¿¤É*°¦®¨ÅX°¦®/Á^¸ ject areas. Out of the 47 online systems reviewed, two could not The tutorial is accessible via the World Wide Web be accessed beyond the home page because of pass- and optimized for Netscape 4.0, Internet Explorer word protection (Seneca College’s Library Research 4.0 or newer versions of both. It uses dynamically a Success and Deakin University’s Smart Searcher). creative blend of Macromedia Flash animation, However, since there is a description of Seneca College’s JavaScript, and animated gif images. A text-only ver- tutorial in the literature (Donaldson 2000), it was in- sion of the site was planned and Flash was to be used cluded in the analysis. One tutorial was not accessible only where it did not prevent users from accessing the beyond the home page for what appeared to be tech- content. nology problems (Falcon), which left 45 online sys- The biggest theoretical issue that we faced was tems in the sample analyzed. precisely resolving the tension between teaching con- Despite the numerous studies demonstrating a cepts and teaching skills and making the learning sys- positive correlation between discipline specific library tem problem-based rather than system-based. While tutorials and learning, the vast majority of tutorials our in-person sessions are invariably problem- and (36) reviewed were stand-alones, and even some, which discipline-based (e.g. the students need to locate and appeared to be discipline-based contained a disclaimer evaluate information sources on various well-defined that they could be used in other areas. Notable excep- topics relevant to their specific class), the breadth of tions include the online tutorial at Seneca College in subject areas in the two colleges that we serve (from Toronto and the legislative history tutorial at the animal science to business, from microbiology to com- University of Illinois Law Library. The best example munication, from textile and apparel to policy analy-

April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina ÍEÎÏÐ*ÑÒKÓÔ-Õ?Ô7Ð*Ö×¨Ñ7ØÔ

sis and management) is such that no common prob- Design Considerations lem could be determined to satisfy the requirement Õ ×ÑQÎ1ÏÙ for anchored instruction. Thus, a system-based modu- Precepts lar approach was chosen for the pilot project, with The design considerations that this paper is concerned three modules on the Library Catalog, the Library with are more closely related to the theory of online Gateway, and e-journals, each consisting of three les- teaching and learning rather than simply the visual sons: Selecting, Searching and Evaluating. The layout and graphic capabilities of the product. It is

customization possibilities were seen in selecting dif- universally accepted that online library tutorials need

ÓKÐ?ÚÑÏÔQÖ&Ú_ÓKØXÑ Ö ÔÒÔQÜQÒÑ

ferent examples to illustrate the concepts taught for to be and Û and their feel and tone ÔZÝ¤ÝÑ7ÔÒ¦ÓKÐ1Þ¨ÚÎàßÐ¨áÑÏÞÏÔQáUß/ÔÚÑ the different subject areas or class content. Thus in should be Û , i.e. employ the example below, which illustrates journal title visual learning, animation, and graphics (See also Hook searching, instead of Nature, the example would be (2002) on information visualization). As all instruc- appropriate to the respective class or subject area. tional hypermedia, they should rely on ÜÏÔ>Ð0Ö×ÓKÐ1Þ , i.e. a way of structuring learning units without a fixed sequence of instruction for all students, so that learners can choose linear or non-linear paths (Song 2002). Amplifying on Gagne’s principles of effective instructional design, Deek et al. (2000) also stress the im-

portance of engaging the user in relevant tasks, pro-

Ö>ÔZÝ ÔÜÓ_ÒKÓ"Ú ÙÚÎbÚÑ Ú

viding the Û whether the user possesses the requisite knowledge prior to instruction, the means to compensate for the absence of similar knowledge, as well as remedial opportunities for learners with difficulties. As far as assessment is concerned, in order for it

to be worthwhile, Deek argues, there should be facili-

Ï Ñ7Ö>ÎÏ áâÚ_×¨Ñß ÑÏã ÔQÖ7ÚKÓKØ6ÓÚ_ÓÑ Ú×UÏ Î¤ß>Þ×¨Î¤ß¤ÚUÚ_×¨Ñ Ñ

Û Û Û Ûä

ties to Û ÓÎÐ

Û ; take note of where and how much time is spent, record performance on lesson exams and tasks; ulti- Or, instead of genetically modified foods as subject mately examine the data and construct a user profile. heading search example, a more appropriate subject heading will be used. Contradictions As is seen, a key element in the design of online learning systems is Ó¦Ð?ÚÑ%Ï ÔQÖ&Ú¦Ó=Ø&ÓÚÙ . Interactivity can be accomplished in several different ways—through feedback on assessment and through live connections with the catalog and different databases. Probably the biggest contradiction as far as design is concerned is embedded in the concept of interactivity. For the time being, human-computer interaction, at least for mass-produced computers, can in no way approximate the interaction between hu- mans. Since human (teaching) agency is removed once the online tutorial is completed, the interactivity needs to be controlled. This could be achieved most easily by relying on multiple-choice knowledge assessment tools, in which the number of possible incorrect or incomplete answers if finite and predetermined. Work-

ACRL Eleventh National Conference

å¢æ¤ç¦è¦æ¨é ê ë¤ìíîèïçðñíîòèóî ï î"ô$õ%æ¨ðì¦î&ë(ö&ì¦èíæ*÷&ø$æ,å-æ/ù0íè¦æ1ù3ú*î í5û6é&ö7ì9üæ¨ý¤éî<þ íæ¨ðì=ï>æ?ì¨ÿAé¡ &èðèíæ

ing with real-time live connections to other systems, although appealing and ultimately guaranteeing the hands-on experience of a simulation system, presents the impossibility for providing complete and meaningful feedback unless the system itself can do that.

Another design-related tension resides in the

ö íæ£¢

achievement of an acceptable balance between ¥¤ ì5é>æ ìï&æýàñ%íî . There are no definitive studies at present, which look at the same information content presented in different forms to determine whether there is a statistically significant correlation between information form and successful learning that is not

the result of differences in learning styles.

ú?î ïQö7ìèö é6÷§¦*è¦æ¨ýXè¦æ/ù^ð

The interactivity requirement for effective online in- Frank (hint: use keyword search for “college drinking” struction was determined not to be satisfied by the then use “next page” if necessary. When you find the bulk of the tutorials examined. First of all, an enor- full record, note the location and call number, then mous number of tutorials, even those, which bill them- use the BACK button on your browser to return here,” selves as “interactive” rely heavily on long textual ex- it is not possible to account completely for changes in planations. To all practical purposes, they are merely a the system (e.g. a second copy of the book was added traditional textual medium transferred to the web. Out since the completion of the tutorial), or individual of the 45 tutorials examined, 17 were completely or variations in searching. Instead, the searches the users extensively employing purely textual presentation. In are invited to perform, are in a controlled “live” envi- effect they were nothing more than a print guide trans- ronment, i.e. the database searched appears to be live ferred online. By far the most common means of uti- but the searches are canned. lizing the visual capabilities of the WWW were screen The visual layout of textual instructions and “live” shots or scanned images with accompanying explana- links was found to be inconsistent. If instructions pre- tions, used in varying degrees by 28 tutorials. Only cede the hand-on portion, their length and complex- rarely is animation employed and even more rarely ity present an almost insurmountable challenge. To does it contribute to the learning objectives of the solve the problem, some tutorials use two or even three tutorial. The exceptions are the Data Game from frames for simultaneous presentation of instructions Colorado State and TILT, where the animation does and “live” systems. However, often the frames are not not distract from the content because it is sparingly synchronized (Information Literacy Tutorial, Univer- used and yet contributes to the visual pleasure of the sity of Wisconsin Parkside) or the instructions frame system (top right). requires constant scrolling because of the length of An interesting example is Cornell University’s the instructions. Olin Library’s audio and video version of parts of their Achieving interactivity in online instruction de- research tutorial, which uses RealMedia player to pends heavily on providing immediate and meaning- present a “real-time” search in a system accompanied ful feedback on exercises and other tasks to be per- by audio instructions. formed by the user. Of the 45 tutorials, 16 had no Real-time live links to databases or library cata- quizzes or exercises, in 2 the assignment link did not logs, as in the University of Oregon’s Get Ready tuto- work, or was password protected, 5 of the ones that rial are rare and understandably so. Even with very had exercises did not provide immediate feedback but precise instructions, “Try it! Use the following link to suggested that exercises are printed and submitted to go to the UO Library Catalog. Find the record for instructors or librarians for feedback. Only a few tu- the item titled “Patterns of social drinking behaviors torials provided continuous update on score percent among female university students” by Joanne Allyson (e.g. University of Oregon’s Get Ready Tutorial) or

April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina ¨ © £¡ ¡

had a final feedback that included a comparison table However, the initial version of the quizzes did of right and wrong answers (e.g. the Information Com- not include content feedback on the correct or incor- petence Tutorials from California State Universities rect responses, e.g. “Incorrect. The correct answer is... Information Competence Initiative). because...” The reason was the free test-generating Multiple-choice evaluation was found to be the software that we were using, which allowed for mark- preferred mode of assessment in the tutorials and ing the correct or incorrect response without explana- guides examined. Only a handful of tutorials employ tion or the opportunity to try again. The usability different types of knowledge assessment tools, fore- test confirmed what we already knew—quizzes should most among them TILT, which requires the user to be used as additional teaching opportunities that not produce a list of acceptable search terms for a topic, only test the user’s knowledge but also amplify on the for instance, and then compares it to a master list, information presented in the module. pointing out the common terms.

Technological Considerations

Our design goals for the tutorial at Mann were two- Precepts fold: maintain a balance between the visual and ani- Ideally, online instruction in general and library in- mation possibilities and the learning objectives, and struction in particular needs to account for the pos- create as close a simulation of an interactive situation sible 0" 1/23 5476&*48 ¡$-9:©0;< =$+> £© ?©@4§/A'¡)B+ - 3C9D and as possible. The first iteration of the system was heavily experience (Bender and Rosen 2000), as well present visual, relying on animation that subsequent usability a minimum technological barrier to users. They should tests with library staff determined to be distracting not be browser-dependent or require paid plug-ins from rather than adding to the accomplishment of and should take into consideration the remote mode the learning objectives. In our enthusiasm to produce of access, which may include slow dial-up modems. a visually pleasing system, we had fallen into the trap Much more importantly, with the constant evolv- of “using technology for its own sake” and had ini- ing of technology, it becomes imperative to have a stra- tially produced a system that was visually and graphi- tegic plan for +?4E$¥ FE")6§ 3@9" 6< +¥@9© 9 (Hansen cally overloaded. 2001), as well as day-to-day maintenance. Providing interactivity was accomplished by mul-

tiple-choice quizzes after each lesson on searching, Contradictions

G GIH HDK selecting and evaluating: The G requirement appears to be in direct contradiction to a design that avails itself of the full graphic and even streaming capabilities of the medium. Graphically and visually intensive content cannot necessarily be delivered in a technological-minimum environment. The necessity for downloading plug-ins and their updated versions, as well as connection speed and browser compatibil- ity is a major roadblock to delivering effective library instruction online, albeit not specific to library instruction tutorials.

Another issue to consider is the tension between /

also enables tracking of performance and H @ 9+9 . If the system is to keep track of the user’s performance for grading purposes, some sort of au- thentication is needed, as well as a database at the back-end, which keeps track of users. The exact way of providing access (secure vs. open or a combina-

ACRL Eleventh National Conference NPO§QSRSOT,U(V§WJX YRJZQ[\*X Y^]_R` Y¥Z+Y?acbDO[WSY@V5d@WSRJX Oe@fcOgNOihjX RSO.hMkY+X=l$T@d¡WBm_On§TYpo,X O[WqZ"O£Wr

tion thereof) will be determined by the uses to tial to the ideal online library instruction tutorial. which the system is put. They are all interrelated and complement each other.

1. Preliminary Assessment. A pre-test to deter- k£Y+Z-d¡WtRd¥T$e§uRSOnvRSOihw[ mine the level at which a user is will ensure the rel- Very few of the tutorials in the sample required plug- evance of the system to the particular needs of the ins (the audio component of Cornell’s Olin Library’s user, and consequently its effectiveness. Further, it will Research Tutorial, The Data Game from Colorado provide an objective underpinning of the State University) or were browser specific (e.g. Infor- 2. Branching Capabilities, which can be satisfied mation Skills Mini Course at the University of Florida by a modular approach with modules of increasing recommended the use of IE). What was a lot more difficulty. Alternatively, branching can be achieved by evident though is that online tutorials relying heavily a structure that is on screen shots from other systems to illustrate the 3. Problem-Based, and addresses the specific concepts they are teaching, need to have a systematic needs of the user at the present moment. The ideal way of regular updates. Databases change interfaces library instruction tutorial should be discipline and/ and when this happens, screen shots in the tutorials or assignment-based from the very beginning, as is need to be updated as well, or else, patrons could be the case with LIBeRation: facing potential confusion, as in the NMSU Library Shortcuts module on Proquest which was last updated

in 1998 and uses Proquest’s old interface. kYZ d¡W!Rd"T$e&x(y¡z(TY*RT+Od"T

The biggest technological challenge for us was the constant interface change of the systems used to illustrate information literacy concepts and sources. By the time the initial version was completed, the screen shots we had used to illustrate searches on the catalog needed updating, since the design of the Cata- log home page had changed. Since an OPAC up- grade was expected during the summer of 2002, we determined that updating the catalog screen shots in the spring of 2002 was not cost effective, and thus the graphic update was left for the fall of 2002. In the meantime, the whole concept of a Li- This feature in turn relates hierarchically to the brary Gateway providing access to electronic re- need to relate the particular problem to a sources that point to information, i.e. databases and 4. Concept-Based goal of enabling the user to print indexes, was undergoing a reconceptualization function as an information consumer in the future. with the implementation of the Voyager Endeavor’s To ensure the transferability of concepts, online learn- capabilities for simultaneous searching across da- ing systems should be heavily tabases, which is scheduled for spring 2003. This 5. Interactive. To enhance active learning, simu- will require not only graphical update but also a lations of a live links to databases and catalogs, that total overhauling of the content of Module Two, are clearly signified should constitute the main as- since the nature of the Information portal it pre- sessment tool, as in Western Michigan’s Labyrinth, sents will change drastically. where clicking on Search the Catalog at Western Michigan link from within a First Search database Ideal Library Instruction Tutorial performs a simulated search for the journal on the Having looked at over 40 existing tutorials and worked library catalog (top left, next page). on a prototype of one, in this section, I would like to Such a controlled simulation allows for the elimi- enumerate some of the features that I consider essen- nation of uncertainty and impossibility to provide

April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina { | }~£¡~ ¡

meaningful feedback and at the same time immerses Last, but not least are the features associated with the learning subject in a “real” searching environment. 6. Assessment and Feedback. First and foremost Simulations of “live” searches can also be presented in among them is the ability of the system to keep track several frames, as in the University of British of where the user is so that they can return to where Columbia’s Library navigator module created in Black- they left off, a feature that is part of the Internet De- board: tective:

Interactivity should be accomplished with more Further, the ideal online tutorial should provide than multiple-choice questions, as in TILT, where both continuous updating on score percent, as in the interactivity is also achieved through a comparison Get Ready Tutorial of the University of Oregon, and between the responses submitted by the subjects and a final assessment of the total quiz with each ques- a list of the suggested responses (top right). tions assessed individually, as in the Information Com- An excellent attempt at both interactivity and petency Tutorials from the California State Universi- teaching concepts rather than just skills was found ties Initiative. in the HPS 101 Online Tutorial from central Every time an incorrect response is given, the op- Michigan University, where the presentation was portunity to “try again” should be present, instead of systematically accompanied by questions that re- simply providing feedback on the incorrect response. quired the student to think (“Do you think this is A very good example in this respect is Western a good choice?”) Michigan’s University Labyrinth 101, in which a 15-

ACRL Eleventh National Conference P§SS,(§J J* ^_ ¥+?cDS@5@SJ @cgij S.M+=$@¡B_§p , q"£¡<¡¢@J

question quiz is randomly generated to test the of course immediately brings us back to the require- student’s knowledge and if the student does not an- ment for anchored, i.e. problem-based, learner-cen- swer 11 questions correctly, s/he is invited to reenter tered instruction, then and only then will those re- the Labyrinth again and retake the quiz with a new sources be well spent. set of randomly generated 15 questions. Finally, creating online library instruction tutorials that can provide the same degree of concept-teach- Conclusions ing, interactivity, and active collaborative learning cen- To go back to the initial definition of online learning tered on the user, i.e. ultimately achieving the goal of systems and the differentiation between drill-and- information-literate users, requires further research practice, online tutorials, and simulations systems that into the implication of the online medium on the pro- Deek proposes, I would suggest it is pertinent to the cess of teaching and learning; automated tools that creation and design of online library learning systems, allow for easier and more systematic update process, as well. The purpose and setting in which an online as well as a technological stability that may never be library learning module is used should ultimately de- achieved. In other words, online library instruction fine its content, its design, and the technology it uses. tutorials are still a work in progress, under extensive If, what are now called tutorials, but are in practice revisions. drill-and-practice learning systems, are to follow a presentation, a lecture, or an in-person session, the Bibliography scope of the system should be different from an online Allen, Eileen E. 1995. “Active Learning and Teaching: Im- tutorial in which new information is presented and proving Postsecondary Library Instruction.” Reference Li- concepts are taught and connections established. I brarian 51/52: 89–103. would seriously question the feasibility of creating full- Bates, Tony. 1995 Technology, Open Learning and Distance blown simulation systems, as defined by Deek et al. Education. London: Routledge. (2000) for the programming environment, as a neces- Bender, Laura J., and Jeffrey M. Rosen. 2000. “Working To- sity in online library instruction, but the inclusion of wards Scalable Instruction: Creating the RIO Tutorial at limited or predefined simulated “live” searches un- the University of Arizona Library.” Research Strategies doubtedly enhances the interactivity of the project. 16 (4):315–25. Ultimately, the question is whether the resources Carr-Chellman, Alison, and Philip Duchastel. 2001. “The and time spent on creating an online library instruc- Ideal Online Course.” Library Trends 50 (1) summer: tion tutorial that is truly interactive are justified in 145–58. their specific context. The pilot project that we were Cherry, Joan M., Weijing Yuan, and Marshall Clinton. 1994. engaged in took three semesters to complete a proto- “Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Concept-Based Com- type, with one full-time library fellow spending at puter Tutorial for OPAC Users.” College and Research least 60 percent of her time on the project for two Libraries 55: 355–64. semesters, one full-time librarian spending 20 per- Churkovich, Marion, and Christine Oughtred. 2002. “Can cent of her time on the project for three semesters, and Online Tutorial Pass the Test for Library Instruc- one programmer in a consulting function, and three tion? An Evaluation and Comparison of Library Skills student assistants working 20 hours a week on the Instruction Methods for First Year Students at Deakin average between the three of them for two semesters University.” Academic and Research Libraries 33 (1) and one student assistant working about five hours March: 25–38 per week for one semester. The project was time- and Dabbour, Katherine Strober. 1997. “Applying Active Learn- resource-consuming and ultimately we determined ing Methods to the Design of Library Instruction for a that it was not ready for prime time because of con- Freshmen Seminar.” College and Research Libraries 58 ceptual, as well as design and technology issues. What (4): 299–308. will justify its completion? It would seem that the Deek, Fadi P., Ki-Wang Ho, and Haider Ramadhan. 2000. answer is an institutionalized use for the purposes of “A Critical Analysis and Evaluation of Web-based En- class instruction. If completing an online library tu- vironments for Program Development.” Internet and torial is required as part of students’ coursework, which Higher Education 3 (4):223–69.

Dewald, Nancy H. 1999. “Transporting Good Library In- New Jersey.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 27 (3): struction Practices into the Web Environment: An Analy- 208–20. sis of Online Tutorials.” The Journal of Academic Hansen, Carol. 2001. “The Internet Navigator: An Online Librarianship 25 (1): 26–31. Internet Course for Distance Learners.” Library Trends ———. 1999. “Web-Based Library Instruction: What is 50 (1): 58–72. Good Pedagogy?” Information Technology and Libraries Harasim, Linda. 2000. “Shift Happens: Online Education as 18 (1): 26–31. a New Paradigm in Learning.” Internet and Higher Edu- Dewald, Nancy., Anne Scholtz-Crane, and H. Austin Booth. cation 3 (1/2): 41–61. “Information Literacy at a Distance: Instructional De- Hawley, Chandra L., and Thomas M. Duffy. 1998. “Design sign Issues.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (1): Model for Learner Centered, Computer-Based Situa- 33–44. tion.” In Proceedings of Selected Research and Develop- Donaldson, Kelly A. 2000. “Library Research Success: De- ment Presentations at the National Convention of the As- signing an Online Tutorial to Teach Information Literacy sociation for Educational Communications and Technology Skills to First-year Students at Seneca College in Toronto.” (AECT). Sponsored by the Research and Theory Divi- The Internet and Higher Education 2 (4): 237–51. sion (20th, St. Louis, MO, February 18–22, 1998. Avail- Drueke, Jeanetta. 1992. “Active Learning in the University able online at http://www.edrs.com/members/ Library Instruction Classroom.” Research Strategies 10: sp.cfm?AN=ED423838. Accessed 12/10/02. 77–83. Holman, Lucy. 2000. “A Comparison of Computer-Assisted Ells, Rick. 2002. “Effective Use of the Web for Education: Instruction and Classroom Bibliographic Instruction.” Design Principles and Pedagogy.” Available at http:// Reference and User Services Quarterly 40 (1): 53–65. staff.washington.edu/rells/effective/. Accessed 12/23/ Hook, Peter A. 2002. “Creating an Online Tutorial and Path- 02. finder.” Law Library Journal 94 (2): 243–65. Falk, Dennis, and Helen Carlson. 1995. Multimedia in Higher Jonassen, David H., ed. 1996. Handbook of Research for Edu- education: A Practical Guide to New Tools for Interactive cational Communication and Technology: A Project of the Teaching and Learning. Medford, N.J.: Learned Infor- Association for Educational Communications and Technol- mation. ogy. New York: Simon and Schuster, Macmillan. Fister, Barbara. 1990. “Teaching Research as a Social Art: Johnson, Anna Marie, and Phil Sager. 1998. “Too Many Stu- Collaborative Learning and the Library.” RQ 29: 505–9. dents, Too Little Time: Creating and Implementing a Gagne, Robert Mills. 1985. The Conditions of Learning, 4th self-Paced, Interactive Computer Tutorial for the Librar- ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. ies’ Online Catalog.” Research Strategies 16 (4): 271–84. Gagne, Robert Mills, and Marcy Perkins Driscoll. 1988. Es- Kaplowitz, Joan R., and Janice Contini. 1998. “Computer- sentials of Learning for Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Assisted Instruction: Is It an Option for Bibliographic Prentice Hall. Instruction in Large Undergraduate Survey Classes?” Gagne, Robert Mills, Leslie J. Briggs, and Walter W. Wager. College & Research Libraries 59: 19–28. 1992. Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt, Lloyd, Les, ed. 1999. Teaching With Technology: Rethinking Rinehart, and Winston. Tradition. Medford, N.J.: Information Today. Germain, Carol Anne, Trudi Jacobson, and Sue A. Kaczor. Manuel, Kate. 2001. “Teaching an Online Literacy Course.” 2000. “A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Presenta- Reference Services Review 29 (3): 219–28. tion Formats for Instruction: Teaching First-Year Stu- Mason, Robin. 2000. “From Distance Education to Online dents.” College and Research Libraries 61 (1):65–72. Education.” Internet and Higher Education 3 (1/2): 63– Gibson, Craig. 1995. “Critical Thinking: Implications for In- 74. struction.” RQ 35, fall: 27–35. Maule, William R. 1998. “Content Design Frameworks for Gresham, Keith. 1997. “Electronic Classrooms: Linking In- Internet Studies Curricula and Research.” Internet Re- formation Concepts to Online Exploration.” RQ 36: 514– search 8 (2): 174–84. 20. Meyen, Edward L., Ronald J. Aust, Yvonne N. Bui, Eugene Gutierrez, Carolyn, and Jianrong A. Wang. 2001. “A Com- Ramp, and Sean J. Smith. 2002. “The Online Academy parison of an Electronic vs. Print Workbook for Informa- Formative Evaluation Approach to Evaluating Online In- tion Literacy Instruction at Richard Stockton College of struction.” Internet and Higher Education 5 (2): 89–108.

ACRL Eleventh National Conference ¯P°§±S²S°³,´(µ§¶J· ¸²J¹±º»*· ¸^¼_²½ ¸¥¹+¸?¾c¿D°º¶S¸@µ5À@¶S²J· °Á@Âc°g¯°iÃj· ²S°.ÃMÄ¸+·=Å$³@À¡¶BÆ_°Ç§³¸pÈ,· °º¶q¹"°£¶É<³¡Ê@²Jº²· °

Moore, Michael G., and Greg Kearsley. 1996. Distance Edu- tion on the Web.” College and Research Libraries News cation: A Systems View. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. 57 (6): 346–49. Parise, Pierina. 2000. “Herding Cats: Or, How are Online Sheridan, Jean. 1990. “The Reflective Librarian: Some Ob- Courses Changing the Education Paradigm?” Library servation on Bibliographic Instruction in the Academic Computing 19 (1/2): 93–97. Library.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 16: 22–26. Pirolli, Peter., and Magaret Recker. 1994. “Learning Strate- Smith, Susan Sharpless. 2001. Web-Based Instruction: A Guide gies and Transfer in the Domain of Programming.” Cog- for Libraries. Chicago: ALA. nition and Instruction 12 (3): 235–75. Song, Chiann-Ru. 2002. “The Branching Structure for Indi- Plankis, B.J. 1998. “Implementing Good Web Style.” vidual Learning Skills Differences in Instructional TechTrends 43 (3): 37–40. Hypermedia.” Online Information Review 26 (2): 73–78. Prestamo, Anne M. 1998. “Development of Web-Based Tu- Tricarico, Mary Ann, Susan Von Daum Tholl, and Elena torials for Online Databases.” Issues in Science and Tech- O’Malley. 2001“Interactive Online Instruction for Library nology Librarianship 17. Available online at http:// Research: The Small Academic Library Experience.” Jour- newfirstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/FSPage? nal of Academic Librarianship 27 (3): 220–23. pagetype=return_frameset:sessionid=sp02sw03- Veldof, Jerilyn, and Karen Beavers. 2001. “Going Mental: 55732-dapk2fo8-vyxxu:entitypagenum= Tackling Mental Models for the Online Library Tuto- 11:0:entityframedurl=http%3A%2F rial.” Research Strategies 18 (1): 3–20. %2Fwww.library.ucsb.edu%2Fistl%2F98- Viggiano, Rachel G., and Meredith Ault. 2001. “Online Li- winter%2Farticle3.html:entityframed brary Instruction for Online Students.” Information Tech- title=Library+Literature:entityframedtimeout nology and Libraries 20 (3): 135–38. =30. Accessed 12/21/02. Weston, Cynthia, Terry Gandell, Lynn McAlpine, and Adam Pyle, Ransford C., and Charles D. Dziuban. 2001. “Technol- Finkelstein. 1999. “Designing Instruction for the Con- ogy: Servant or Master of the Online Teacher?” Library text of Online Learning.” Internet and Higher Education Trends 50 (1): 130–44. 2 (1): 35–44. Russell, Thomas L. 1999. “The No Significant Difference White, Herbert. S. 1992. “Bibliographic Instruction, Informa- Phenomenon as Reported in 355 Research Reports, Sum- tion Literacy, and Information Empowerment.” Library mary and Papers: A Comparative Research Annotated.” Journal 117: 76–78. Bibliography on Technology for Distance Education. North Williams, Peter. 2001. “Learning Area Network: Information Carolina State University. Dissemination and Online Discussion in an Education Scholtz, Ann Margaret, Richard Cary Kerr, and Samuel Environment: The Capabil-IT-y Project.” ASLIB Pro- Keith Brown. 1996. “PLUTO: Interactive Instruc- ceedings 53 (3): 99–107.

April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina Ë Ì ÍÎÏÐÑÒÓ£Ò¡ÎÔÕÏ¡Ö Ò

Appendix Examined Tutorials, Virtual Tours, Online Information Services (The lists includes several sites that could not be accessed with notes to that effect.)

1. American Civilizations Research Tutorial. Grand Val- 16. Information Skills Mini-Course. University of Florida; ley State University. http://www.gvsu.edu/library/History/ Smathers Library. http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/instruct2/mini/ toc.htm. begin.html. 2. Biology 14: Library Research. Tufts University. http:// 17. InfoTrekk. Curtin University Library and Information ase.tufts.edu/biology/bio14v2/. Service, Australia. http://lisweb.curtin.edu.au/finding/ 3. BlaisQuizz. The Libraries of The Claremont Colleges index.html. (password protected). http://voxlibris.claremont.edu/research/ 18. Internet Detective. http://sosig.ac.uk/desire/internet- tutorials.html. detective.html. 4. Business 100: Solving the Mystery of Company Re- 19. Jumpstart. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. http:// search. Wake Forest University, Z. Smith Reynolds Library. www.uark.edu/libinfo/refdept/instruction/index.html. http://www.wfu.edu/Library/referenc/business/. 20. Labyrinth University 101 Tutorial. Western Michigan 5. The Data Game. Colorado State University. http:// University. http://www.wmich.edu/library/labyrinth/ manta.library.colostate.edu/datagame/. labyrinth.html. 6. Duke Libraries Guide to Library Research. http:// 21. LIBerATION. University College Northampton. http:/ www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/home.htm. /193.61.82.57/liberation/web/. 7. Electronic Resources for the Bachelor of Science in 22. Library Explorer. University of British Columbia. http:/ Nursing Programs. Emmanuel College, Cardinal Cushing /www.library.ubc.ca/home/instruct/. Library. http://www1.emmanuel.edu/library/nursing/ 23. Library Explorer on the World Wide Web. University index.html. of Iowa. http://explorer.lib.uiowa.edu/. 8. Falcon: An Interactive Web Tutorial. Bowling Green 24. Library Resources and Research Interactive Tutorial, State University. http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/library/ University of Missouri, St. Louis. http://www.umsl.edu/ser- infosrv/tutorial/tutor1.html. (actual site not found). vices/libteach/. 9. Galileo Tutorial. Georgia State Virtual Library. http:// 25. Library Research at Cornell: A Hypertext Guide. Olin pluto.gsu.edu:80/cgibin/homepage.cgi?style=&_id= Library, Cornell University. http://www.library.cornell.edu/ 80fd4e7c-1076368830-3336. okuref/research/tutorial.html. 10. Get Ready Tutorial. University of Oregon. http:// 26. Library Research Success for Nursing Program. Sen- libweb.uoregon.edu/getready/. eca College, Toronto. Not publicly accessible. 11. Go for the Gold. James Madison U., Harrisonburg, 27. Library Research Tutorial. Griffith University, Virginia, Carrier Library. http://www.lib.jmu.edu/library/gold/ Queensland, Australia. http://www4.gu.edu.au/shr/lrt/. modules.htm. 28. New York University Federal Regulations Virtual Tour 12. The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly. New Mexico State (visual elements). http://www.law.nyu.edu/lawyeringprogram/ University. http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html. virtualtour/regulat/index.html. 13. HPS 101 Online Tutorial. Central Michigan Univer- 29. NMSU Library Shortcuts. http://library.nmsu.edu/ sity. http://www.lib.cmich.edu/departments/reference/in- projects/tutorial/index.html. struct/hps101/. 30. Origins of Western Civilization. Monash University, 14. Information Competence Tutorials. California State Australia. http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/vl/ary11/ary1con. Universities’ Information Competence Initiative. http:// htm. multiweb.lib.calpoly.edu/infocomp/modules/. 31. PLUTO (Purdue Libraries Universal Tutorial Online). 15. Information Literacy Tutorial. University of Wiscon- http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/instruction/tutorials/pluto/. sin, Parkside. https://uwp.courses.wisc.edu/public/Infolit3/ 32. QuickStudy: Library Research Guide. University of index.html. Minnesota. http://tutorial.stcloudstate.edu/.

ACRL Eleventh National Conference ×PØ§ÙSÚSØÛ,Ü(Ý§ÞJß àÚJáÙâã*ß à^ä_Úå à¥á+à?æcçDØâÞSà@Ý5è@ÞSÚJß Øé@êcØg×Øiëjß ÚSØ.ëMìà+ß=í$Û@è¡ÞBî_Øï§Ûàpð,ß ØâÞqá"Ø£Þñ<Û¡ò@ÚJâÚß Ø

33. RIO. http://www.library.arizona.edu/rio/. 41. University of Cincinnati Libraries (general research). 34. Smart Searcher Tutorial. Deakin University, Aus- http://www.libraries.uc.edu/help/how/tutorial/about- tralia. http://www.deakin.edu.au/library/findout/learn/ tutorial.html. index.php. 42. Tutorial for Online Catalogue Minerva. University of 35. SUNY at Albany Libraries Instruction and Tutorials. Louisville, Kentucky. http://library.louisville.edu/research/ http://library.albany.edu/usered/. Tutorials. http://library. help/bgtm.html. albany.edu/usered/tut.html. 43. U. of Tennessee, Knoxville catalog tutorial. http:// 36. Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for WWW Re- www.lib.utk.edu/refs/tutorials/catalog.html. sources. Widener University. http://www2.widener.edu/ 44. University of Texas at Austin McKinney Engineering Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/pyramid.htm. Library Patent Searching Tutorial. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/ 37. Thurmond Clarke Memorial Library at Chapman engin/patent-tutorial/index.htm. University. http://www.chapman.edu/library/instruction/. 45. University of Utah Internet Navigator. Spencer S. 38. TILT. U. of Texas, Austin. http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu. Eccles Health Sciences Library. http://medlib.med.utah.edu/ 39. University of Buffalo Libraries Research Assistant. navigator/. http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/ugl/tutorials/ 46. University of Washington Research 101 tutorial. http:/ research.html. /www.lib.washington.edu/uwill/research101/. 40. University of California Berkley Teaching Library Re- 47. Washington State University Training Modules, Self- search Guides. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/ Tests, and Interactive Readings. http://www.wsulibs. Guides/. wsu.edu/electric/trainingmods/index_of_quizzes.htm.

April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina