Library Instruction for Graduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review

IF 0.4 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Adelia Grabowsky, Katherine Spybey
{"title":"Library Instruction for Graduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review","authors":"Adelia Grabowsky, Katherine Spybey","doi":"10.18438/eblip30145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.\nMethods – 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.\nResults – 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.\nConclusions – 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.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
护理学研究生图书馆教学:范围界定综述
目标——近年来,美国护理研究生项目的数量显著增加。这项范围界定审查旨在审查讨论护理研究生图书馆员指导的文献范围,以确定正在发表的研究类型、教学课程的特点、可能存在的知识差距,以及可用于后续评估教学有效性的系统审查的证据。方法——使用PRISMA范围审查声明(PRISMA Scr)制定的指南进行本次审查。在六个数据库以及谷歌学者中搜索了图书馆教学和护理研究生的概念。两位作者使用标题/摘要,必要时使用全文来独立筛选已确定的研究。通过讨论解决了相互矛盾的筛选决定。结果——数据来自20个来源。其中13个来源是对课程或项目的描述,一个是项目评估,两个是混合方法研究,分别考察了图书馆的使用和项目支持,但没有评估教学,两个来源是学生对教学的感受和态度的调查,两个源是准实验研究,包括教学前和教学后的测验。最流行的库指令格式是在线(同步或异步)指令。大多数资料来源都没有包括关于教学时间或持续时间的信息。此外,大多数资料都没有提到教学理论,尽管也有少数资料提到了教学理论的各个方面,如主动学习。只有一个消息来源提到使用特定的模型来开发教学内容。虽然一些资料来源提到了对学生学习的评估,但只有四项研究包含了评估结果。结论——报告护理研究生教学的来源主要包括对课程或教学环节的描述。许多描述性研究缺乏基本信息,如格式、时间和持续时间的细节,这些信息有助于在其他机构复制。只有四个来源是评估教学有效性的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信