This document summarizes research investigating the impact of library instruction sessions on student assignment grades in a public health course. The research found that attendance at both optional library instruction sessions was significantly associated with higher grades on the library research assignment and another individual assignment. Several characteristics of better assignments, such as identifying a literature review and having clear search criteria, were also significantly associated with instruction session attendance. However, the research had limitations and did not prove the instruction caused improved grades. Future work could explore assignments without search strategies and fully online instruction.

1. Scaffolding Student
Research:
Collaborating with Public Health
Faculty on Embedded
Instruction
John Pell
Hunter College
Libraries

2. CONTENTS
• Introduction
• Research Questions
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion

3. INTRODUCTION
What is our instructional Context?

4. INTRODUCTION
• Library Research Assignment
– 10% of the course grade
– Two optional instruction sessions
– Provides introduction to systematic
searching following Cochrane methods1,2

5. INTRODUCTION
• Library Assignment Evaluation Criteria:
1. Identification of a Review Article
2. Research Question
3. Search Strategy Description
4. Query
5. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
6. Thesis
7. Written Summary

6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What did we want to know about our instruction?

7. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• Are library research assignment grades
correlated with other individual
assignment grades?

8. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• Is attendance at library instruction
sessions associated with better
individual assignment grades?

9. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• What assignment characteristics are
associated with attendance at
instruction sessions?

10. METHODS
How did we investigate our questions?

11. METHODS
• Collected grades and Attendance for all
students (n = 68) from all Instructors.
• SPSS for Pearson Correlation and
Cross-tabs
* Defined “higher grade” as above the
median.

12. RESULTS
What did we find out?

13. RESULTS
• Library research assignment grades are
substantially3 (r = .534) and significantly
(p<.01) correlated to Public Health Brief
individual assignment grades.

14. RESULTS
• Attending both library instruction
sessions is significantly associated with
a higher library assignment grade
(p<.01).

15. RESULTS
• Attending both library instruction
sessions is significantly associated with
a higher Public Health Brief individual
assignment grade (p<.01).

16. RESULTS
• Attending both library instruction
sessions is significantly associated with
having both a higher Library
Assignment grade and a higher Public
Health Brief individual assignment grade
(p<.01).

17. RESULTS
• Assignment characteristics significantly
associated with instruction session
attendance:
+ Correct identification of a literature review
[67.4% (n = 29/14) of students attending
both sessions (p = 0.005)]

18. RESULTS
• Assignment characteristics significantly
associated with instruction session
attendance:
+ Clear statements of inclusion and exclusion
criteria that don’t confuse manual and
automated search processes [62.8%
(n=27/16) of students attending both
sessions (p = 0.01)]

19. RESULTS
• Assignment characteristics significantly
associated with instruction session
attendance:
+ Accurate summary of primary sources and
correct use of AMA citation style [58.1%
(n=25/18) of students attending both
sessions (p = 0.03)]

20. RESULTS
• Assignment characteristics associated
with instruction session attendance:
+ Better, PICOT structured research
questions [74.4% (n=32/11) of students
attending both sessions (p = 0.06)]

21. RESULTS
• Assignment characteristics associated
with instruction session attendance:
+ Use of controlled vocabulary and Boolean
logic [58.1% (n = 25/18) of students
attending both sessions, compare to 36% (n
= 9/16) of students who missed a session (p
= 0.07)]

22. RESULTS
• Assignment characteristics associated
with instruction session attendance:
+ Coherent description of search strategy
[41.9% (n = 18/25) of students attending
both sessions, compare to 20% (n = 5/20 of
students who missed a session (p = 0.06)]

23. RESULTS
• Assignment characteristics not
associated with instruction session
attendance:
+ Statement of a thesis

24. DISCUSSION
What are the limitations and future directions of this?

25. DISCUSSION
• Limitations?
– No certainty that the instruction sessions
caused anything

26. DISCUSSION
• Future directions?
– No search strategy descriptions
– Less systematic search strategies
– Fully online instruction
– Student focus group

27. REFERENCES
1. Pell J. PH 755: Urban Health and Society Library
Research Assignment. Hunter College Libraries. May
2015. http://libguides.library.hunter.cuny.edu/ph755.
Accessed May 8, 2015.
2. Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol Version 5.1.0.
The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. www.cochrane-
handbook.org.
3. CPH SPKS, MPH EKP. Munro’s Statistical Methods for
Health Care Research. Vol Sixth, Revised Reprint
edition. Philadelphia: LWW; 2012.

28. CROSSTABS, SCATTER
PLOTS, & TABLES
Appendix: