online tutorials for libr ary instruction: an ongoing project

April 10–13, 2003, Charlotte, North Carolina

�� "!$#%�� &�('& ��*)&+$�,�-�/.0��1.32*� �546�&'7 98��:��<;�� =�>�? �@A�7B&��

Online Tutorials for LibraryInstruction: An Ongoing ProjectUnder Constant Revision

Kornelia Tancheva

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

IntroductionWith the proliferation of the Internet and the capa-bilities it offers for providing instruction in general(cf. Manuel for statistics on distance education pro-grams and enrollment), and for instruction on the usesand services of today’s libraries, the creation of onlinelibrary instruction tutorials has come to be regardedas almost a panacea to the ever-growing need for userinstruction with limited human resources. This paperwill look at over forty existing library tutorials andonline library research aides and examine the experi-ence of creating an interactive tutorial at the AlbertR. Mann Library, Cornell University. I hope to beable to built upon Nancy Dewald’s study of 20 onlinetutorials, published in 1999 in the Journal of AcademicLibrarianship, which concluded that online tutorialscannot completely substitute for a human connectionin learning and should be used in connection to aca-demic classes rather than in isolation (Dewald1999) by enlarging the sample of tutorials exam-ined and by investigating some theoretical, designand technological issues in online library instruc-tion. My goal is to determine to what extent an

online library instruction tutorial addresses theprinciples of learning theories in distributed envi-ronments, as well as the accepted principles of ef-fective library instruction. I will examine the con-ceptual, design-related, and technological issuesfrom both a theoretical and a practical perspectiveblending the findings from already existing tuto-rials and the creation of Mann Library’s onlinetutorial. At the end, I will suggest some features ofthe “ideal” online library instruction tutorial.

Before looking at the theory and practice of onlinelibrary instruction, let me first delineate the concep-tual framework within which this paper is situated.The definition of information literacy I implicitlyemploy follows Bender’s definition, according to which,to be information literate, an individual recognizesthat s/he has a need for information; possesses theknowledge and skills that enable her/him to discoverwhere and how to find the information; is comfort-able using the necessary tools to find, modify, andpresent that information in another format; and cancritically evaluate and synthesize the information s/he finds to understand the social, economic, and po-

ACRL Eleventh National Conference

CED�F�G*H�IKJ�L-M?L7G*N�O�H7P�L

litical implications of the information (Bender andRosen 2000, 316).

As far as a definition of an interactive tutorial isconcerned, I am following the paradigm suggested byDeek et al. (2000) for the conceptualization of web-based environments for program development. Ac-cording to this paradigm, interactive learning systemsencourage the user to actively participate during thecourse of the instruction, provide tests with immedi-ate feedback on the user’s performance as well as anappealing interface for practice. Deek et al. suggestthree different types of interactive learning systems:drill-and-practice, tutorials, and simulations.

Drill and practice systems reinforce certain skillsor knowledge and offer the opportunity for practic-ing defined skills. They provide immediate feedbackfor the performance of the learner but it is importantto remember that the learning in this case has takenplace externally to the system. In other words, thesystem itself is used to supplement external instruc-tion, or to refresh the reader’s knowledge and is usu-ally aimed at some form of corrective action.

Tutorials, on the other hand, teach new contentand have the capabilities to verify that the learner hasunderstood the instruction and to help reinforce thelearned material. They provide diverse strategies torecall prior knowledge, as well as aids for incorporat-ing old with new information and strategies for learn-ers to remember the information taught and to relatenew information to existing or to-be-learned infor-mation. The types of tutorials that Deek et al. discussinclude interactive workbooks, programming environ-ments, intelligent tutoring systems and systems teach-ing problem solving.

Finally, simulations have the capabilities to ap-proximate, replicate, or emulate the features of sometask or skill to be learned and employ software visual-ization techniques. Even though Deek’s paradigm envi-sions programming environments, I find the distinctionsbetween drill-and-practice systems, tutorials, and simu-lations useful when discussing online library instructionenvironments and will keep it as a general frameworkthrough which to examine my sample.

Conceptual ConsiderationsMO�HQD1F�RPreceptsEnumerating all, or even most, of the theoretical prin-

ciples of effective teaching and learning in an onlineenvironment, which has been done extensively a num-ber of times (see, for instance Hook), is beyond thescope of this paper. It is universally accepted that thetheory of teaching and learning in general should beapplied to the creation and design of online instruc-tional systems and by extension, online library tuto-rials. Weston, for instance argues that, “online instruc-tion design should be based on the same principlesthat have guided instructional designers for years”(Weston et al. 1999, 37). I will consequently, con-centrate on only a few principles of effective teachingand learning in a distributed environment that seemto me most pertinent to online library instruction tu-torials.

It is important, I believe, to note that it is notonly teaching and learning theory that should be ap-plied to the creation and design of online library tu-torials but also the S O�H&D�F5R<D�T S H7LQN�OUJ�G1V-L>G�W9I�H7L�F%GUJKG1VAJ�GWXJ�Y S FZJ�[�\ S H&W]H�G^P&J_F�D�Ga`bH G S Y . Some authors argue thatacademic research on the use of the web in a peda-gogical context has been limited and generally com-prises either enthusiastic studies and hyperbolic ac-counts, or simply descriptions of technology imple-mentation with little regard to wider issues (Will-iams 2001), or that guidelines for printed materialsare established and well known, but there is no stan-dard for electronic documents in general (Plankis1998). Yet, there exists a host of conceptual frame-works that examine the implications of the onlinelearning environment on the process of teaching andlearning. Weston et al., for instance, introduce nineadditional considerations for online learning environ-ments to the generic guidelines for instruction: in-structional design (i.e. pedagogical issues), subjectmatter, language, and presentation. These are: impacton learning, student computer literacy, student com-puter access, infrastructure, interactivity, navigation,evaluation, accuracy and recency, loading speed andbandwidth. Hawley and Duffy (1998) examine theimpact of learning theories on the design of onlineinstruction in general, while Maule (1998) investi-gates how the philosophy of the discipline can impactthe design of online instruction. Below are the prin-ciples of effective teaching and learning in an onlineenvironment that I find either most pertinent or mostproblematic as far as library instruction tutorials areconcerned.


c�d�e�f�d�gh�i�j�k�l�f�m�e�n�o�k�l�p�f�q�l�m l"r$s%d�n�j�l&i(t&j�f�k�d*u&v$d,c-d/w0k�f�d1w3x*l k5y6g&t7j9z�d�{�g�l<|k�d�n�j=m>d?j�}Ag7~&f�n�f�k�d

c�d�eKf=d*g�j5iUj�k�l�f�m e5nn��*k�iQe�{�q�g9��l�k(q�e5g��q(m�n%g6{bm7d*{j�g7mQt��3t>k�d�t>g��j�n5�/l m�j_��g�l9j_�0m>d3n��1f�e�e5n%�

As Gibson (1995)has pointed out, practice has shown that “studentsand many others lack sound mental models of data-bases and therefore make incorrect assumptions aboutthe content and structure of databases” (33). Sincethe variations in interface, or even searching techniquesare too numerous to capture, teaching concepts wouldensure the transferability of competencies across sys-tems and lead to the ultimate goal of instruction ingeneral, i.e. synthesis and evaluative thinking.c�d�e�fKd�g�j�i�j�k�l�f�m�e5n0n5��k(i6e5{<q�g�mQn�n5f�wUda��g�d�j(k�l?m�j�e�g7mQn�j{Xf�n�t�f��aeKf�d�g��q(mQn�g&{X�Qf5��g6� fKd�n%j_l�i(t7j_f�k�d�n5��k(i6e5{�q(g?m>d*t��k�l g&{U�In this connection, the ideal library instruction is theresult of a librarian-faculty partnership (Bender andRosen 2000). Studies, as well as practical experience,have shown that today’s students do not expect a one-size-fits all approach in any learning environment,much less in library instruction, which could often beperceived as redundant, anyway.c�d�eKfKd*g-j�i�j�k�l�f�m e5n�n�m�j_f�n5o�r�j_�*gl�g&��i�f�l�g ��g d�j0o�k�lAk�o��o�g�l�fKd1weKf�q�l�m l�r�fKd�n�j�l&i(t&j_f�k�d-m�j/j_��g(�0l�g7t�f�n�g��k�fKd?jXk�o/d�g7g&{

.This principle is related to the one above, as well as tothe often- emphasized advantage of online instruc-tion in general—it can be perused at the learningsubject’s convenience (see below).

Finally, let’s look at some of the mQ{1~�m>d?j=m�w g&n?m>d�{

{Xf5n�m�{/~�m>d�j�m�w�g&n, that online tutorials in general and

library specific ones in particular are said to offer. Sinceit is clearly not possible to discuss all of them here, Iwill highlight only those who seem of greatest impor-tance to me. According to Smith (2001), one of themost appealing attractions is that instruction on theWeb presents the same information to all students,removing the unavoidable variations in human deliv-ery (2). Other advantages include the fact that onlinetutorials can be used at the student’s convenience, theyare accessible from remote locations, they offer an al-ternative for students who prefer self-regulated learn-ing and are more suitable to visual learners (Tricaricoet al. 2001). Online learning through the WWW ingeneral is seen as offering “the opportunity to trickstudents into learning by using the novelty and stimu-lation of the computer and monitor” (Pyle andDziuban 2001, 132), as well as more advantageousthan some traditional instruction forms because of itsemphasis on outcomes assessment (Parise 2000), orbecause a traditional program of course-integrated li-

brary instruction to thousands of incoming studentsmay not be practical (Bender and Rosen 2000). Fur-ther, because of the enhanced multimedia capabilitiesof the online environment, online learning systemsare considered more capable of satisfying learners’ dif-ferent learning styles.

Disadvantages are usually seen as the result of adirect translation of instruction designed for tradi-tional environments to the online environment (Carr-Chellman and Duchastel 2001) or of practical con-siderations specific to the institution itself. Smith(2001), for instance, cautions that Web-based instruc-tion might be inappropriate if the institution’s mis-sion is not geared towards online instruction or hasinadequate infrastructure. Yet another concern is thefact that too often online tutorials are seen as “usingtechnology for its own sake” (Mason 2000) rather thanfor the enhancement of learning. It is clear, however,that all of the disadvantages and concerns expressedare practical, rather than theoretical.

ContradictionsLeaving the actual implementation of the principlesand advantages of online instructions aside for the timebeing, let’s look at some possible theoretical contra-dictions. Despite the proliferation of literature on thee�g7m l�dUf�d1wAn%j r�e�g&n

and their impact on teaching and learn-ing, as Song (2002) has argued, after hundreds of stud-ies on learning styles the applicability of these catego-rizations to learning is still unclear and years of re-search in human-computer interaction have not re-sulted in an adequate understanding of what is re-quired to make interaction effective (74). In fact, itcould be that prior knowledge on the subject is themost significant indicator of achievement and thatstudents lacking appropriate prior knowledge may notsignificantly benefit from instruction at all (76). As-suming that this is the case, the insistence on takinginto consideration various learning styles (behavioristand constructivist learning experiences) when creat-ing online tutorials can very well be overstated. Fur-ther research might be needed to determine what ex-actly the best mixture of behaviorism andconstructivism is, since the insistence on more inter-action around the student and negotiated learning(Carr-Chellman and Duchastel 2001) can very wellbe undermined by the fact that the negotiation can-not be accomplished in real time. While in an in-


�E��*��K��-�?�7�*��7 ��

person teaching situation, it is theoretically possibleto change or modify teaching styles to suit the learn-ing styles of the learning subjects, in an online envi-ronment, until an intelligent teaching system can bedevised, such a change or modification is not possible.

In an online environment, determining ¡ ��?¢^��Q£��¤��a¢��K� ¡ ��¥��&�7¦ when library instruction should beoffered entails the reliance on students to be activelyseeking this instruction. I believe that we need to con-sider further whether an online tutorial is in practice,rather than in theory, the means to provide instruc-tion at the point of need. With in-class library ses-sions, presumably it has been determined by the pro-fessor that students need this sort of instruction. Withopen workshops that students attend, they have de-termined this need for themselves. But, will they goto an online tutorial when they need help with theirresearch, even assuming that the tutorial has been ad-vertised sufficiently? It seems to me that what theUniversity of Minnesota Library team which createdtheir online tutorial, QuickStudy, found about stu-dents’ attitudes and mental modes of research is veryrevealing. According to Veldof and Beavers (2001),the majority of their student testers made it clear thatthey would not likely use the tutorial unless it wereincorporated into a course curriculum, grading andinstructor expectations (15). It may be that the bestway to ensure the availability of instruction at thepoint-of-need is making live chat services availablethrough course pages, similarly to the experiment de-scribed by Viggiano and Ault (2001).

Offering online tutorials at the point of need isalso connected to another unresolved issue in theconceptualization of online library tutorials, i.e. their¢§��Q�>��K��>�¨�� X�%� ��_�0�K�*¤ ¡ �>©/� ¡ ��0��¢0� �7ª��>« . Most re-searchers argue that online tutorials should be used assupplements (Tricarico et al. 2001) or at least in somesort of conjunction with in-class instruction. That is,online tutorials are seen as more of a complement or atool of supplementary instruction rather than as aneffective stand-alone teaching tool. This, however,brings up the initial distinction between drill-and-practice systems and tutorials. If online library in-struction is a supplement to a presentation, lecture, oran in-person session, surely it would be more practi-cal to create drill-and-practice systems that test theuser’s knowledge of material presented outside theonline system.

Looking at the theoretical �Q¦1 ��>� ¡ ��ª0�7¤ of online

instructional media in general or library tutorials inparticular, it is also important to note that studies havenot exclusively concluded that multimedia capabili-ties enhance learning and retention. There are indeedstudies which have found that hypermedia may notbe an effective means of instruction if students lackthe ability to employ self-learning skills and that stu-dents with poor self-learning skills perform worse inmore complex learning tasks with hypermedia sys-tems than they would on linear systems (Pirolli andRecker 1994) or that, students exposed to in-class in-struction perform better in post-instruction tests thanthose exposed to online instruction only (Churkovichand Oughtred 2002). Although most of the studiesdevoted to comparisons between in-person and online(library) instruction report no or little difference instudent learning between online and lecture style in-struction (Russell 1999; Germain et al. 2000; Holman2000; Kaplowitz and Contini 1998; Gutierrez andWang 2001), in many of the instances reported tuto-rials were taken under the supervision of a librarian,post-test questions for the different groups were notidentical, or the tutorial was taken after a lecture by alibrarian. Significantly, Churkovich (2002) reports thatnot only did students with face-to-face instructiongain higher posttest mean scores than students com-pleting the online tutorial on their own but studentsattending library sessions felt more confident abouttheir library skills than those in the online tutorialonly sessions. Students who rated themselves poorlyat finding library material in the pretest did muchbetter in face-to-face class than those who attendedthe mediated or tutorial groups and the overall levelof student confidence was significantly less for thetutorial-only delivery (31).

Further, there is not enough research to prove that�>��*�>�"¢ ¡ ¤ can be taught effectively in an electronicenvironment (Gresham 1997). This may be even ex-acerbated by the fact that teaching concepts couldvery well be connected to a

�>�Q�K��Q¬�� ¡ �= 1� ¡ �&��%�a�=�/ª�>��¦��5�>��U�K�1ª environment, which may very well be

possible in an online course on information literacy,or in an in-person library session but is not a priorityin the creation of online tutorials, which emphasizethe individual’s convenience of access and learning. Infact, one of the biggest unresolved issues, to my mind,is the reconciliation of what is considered the speci-


�®�¯�°�®�±²�³�´�µ�¶�°�·�¯�¸�¹�µ�¶�º�°�»�¶�· ¶"¼$½%®�¸�´�¶&³(¾&´�°�µ�®*¿&À$®,-®/Á0µ�°�®1Á3Â*¶ µ5Ã6±&¾7´9Ä�®�Å�±�¶<Æµ�®�¸�´=·>®?´�ÇA±7È&°�¸�°�µ�®

ficity of online instruction and one of its greatest ad-vantages, i.e. the creation of online learning commu-nities (Harasim 2000), and the nature of library in-struction, which is normally not a semester-long ex-perience. It could very well be that in a one-time onlinelibrary tutorial shot, even the already limited possi-bilities for collaborative learning that a face-to-face50 to 90 minute library session offers, are effectivelylost. In fact, if Veldof and Beavers (2001) are rightwhen they argue that students view the research pro-cess as something to hurry through in order to get toan end and students are focused on a final productrather than a process, the question arises as to how anonline tutorial could meet this goal? If we accept thatthis is the model that librarians should adopt (i.e. theso called “racing model of research”), an online tuto-rial cannot be an effective substitute for a library ses-sion, or even better, a one-on-one consultation at thereference desk, where the precise goal of the studentcan be met most effectively (i.e. locating an X num-ber of articles on topic Y). If we disagree with theidea that library instruction should follow the racingresearch mental model, and should instead teach con-cepts and how-to skills that could be applied in vari-ous other situations, the question becomes can onlinelibrary instruction teach concepts effectively in a lim-ited amount of time?

Â?¶ ·Q¾7�°�¾�±6¿�É*°�®�ÅX°�®/Á ¸Out of the 47 online systems reviewed, two could notbe accessed beyond the home page because of pass-word protection (Seneca College’s Library ResearchSuccess and Deakin University’s Smart Searcher).However, since there is a description of Seneca College’stutorial in the literature (Donaldson 2000), it was in-cluded in the analysis. One tutorial was not accessiblebeyond the home page for what appeared to be tech-nology problems (Falcon), which left 45 online sys-tems in the sample analyzed.

Despite the numerous studies demonstrating apositive correlation between discipline specific librarytutorials and learning, the vast majority of tutorials(36) reviewed were stand-alones, and even some, whichappeared to be discipline-based contained a disclaimerthat they could be used in other areas. Notable excep-tions include the online tutorial at Seneca College inToronto and the legislative history tutorial at theUniversity of Illinois Law Library. The best example

was found in the LIBeRation tutorial from the Uni-versity College Northampton, which was discipline-based from the very start and asked the user to selecta subject area before taking the tutorial. Only one tu-torial, Library Explorer from the University of Iowa,was entirely research-problem based (“You want toknow...”). However, the vast majority of online learn-ing systems examined focused either entirely on con-cepts rather than skills or incorporated conceptuallearning on at least some level.

In other words, the practical findings seem to sup-port the possibility for teaching information conceptseffectively. Whether anchored, i.e. student-centered,problem-based, online library instruction is feasibleremains unclear at this point.

Â�¶�·�¾7_°�¾>±6¿UÊ�Ë7Ì�±�¶�°�± ®�¾>±Mann Library’s online library instruction tutorialproject began in the fall of 2001. It was conceived asa potential model for developing course-integrated li-brary instructional tools and consisted of three mod-ules—Library Catalog, Library Gateway to ElectronicResources, and Electronic Journals—with three asso-ciated lessons each: selecting, searching, and evaluat-ing. The goal was to create content structure and in-terface design that allow for extending the model byfaculty and other library professionals to createcustomizable tutorials for their disciplines and sub-ject areas.

The tutorial is accessible via the World Wide Weband optimized for Netscape 4.0, Internet Explorer4.0 or newer versions of both. It uses dynamically acreative blend of Macromedia Flash animation,JavaScript, and animated gif images. A text-only ver-sion of the site was planned and Flash was to be usedonly where it did not prevent users from accessing thecontent.

The biggest theoretical issue that we faced wasprecisely resolving the tension between teaching con-cepts and teaching skills and making the learning sys-tem problem-based rather than system-based. Whileour in-person sessions are invariably problem- anddiscipline-based (e.g. the students need to locate andevaluate information sources on various well-definedtopics relevant to their specific class), the breadth ofsubject areas in the two colleges that we serve (fromanimal science to business, from microbiology to com-munication, from textile and apparel to policy analy-


ÍEÎ�Ï�Ð*Ñ�ÒKÓ�Ô-Õ?Ô7Ð*Ö�×�Ñ7Ø�Ô

sis and management) is such that no common prob-lem could be determined to satisfy the requirementfor anchored instruction. Thus, a system-based modu-lar approach was chosen for the pilot project, withthree modules on the Library Catalog, the LibraryGateway, and e-journals, each consisting of three les-sons: Selecting, Searching and Evaluating. Thecustomization possibilities were seen in selecting dif-ferent examples to illustrate the concepts taught forthe different subject areas or class content. Thus inthe example below, which illustrates journal titlesearching, instead of Nature, the example would beappropriate to the respective class or subject area.

Or, instead of genetically modified foods as subjectheading search example, a more appropriate subjectheading will be used.

Design ConsiderationsÕ×�ÑQÎ1Ï�ÙPreceptsThe design considerations that this paper is concernedwith are more closely related to the theory of onlineteaching and learning rather than simply the visuallayout and graphic capabilities of the product. It isuniversally accepted that online library tutorials needto be

ÓKÐ?Ú�Ñ�Ï�ÔQÖ&Ú_ÓKØXÑ and Û Ö Ô�Ò�ÔQÜQÒ�Ñ and their feel and tone

should be ÔZÝ�Ý�Ñ7Ô�Ò�ÓKÐ1Þ¨Ú�Îàß�Ð�á�Ñ�Ï�Þ�Ï�ÔQáUß/Ô�Ú�Ñ Û , i.e. employ

visual learning, animation, and graphics (See also Hook(2002) on information visualization). As all instruc-tional hypermedia, they should rely on

Ü�Ï�Ô>Ð0Ö�×�ÓKÐ1Þ, i.e.

a way of structuring learning units without a fixedsequence of instruction for all students, so that learn-ers can choose linear or non-linear paths (Song 2002).Amplifying on Gagne’s principles of effective instruc-tional design, Deek et al. (2000) also stress the im-portance of engaging the user in relevant tasks, pro-viding the

Ö>ÔZÝ�Ô�Ü�Ó_ÒKÓ"Ú Ù�Ú�ÎbÚ�Ñ Û Ú whether the user pos-sesses the requisite knowledge prior to instruction, themeans to compensate for the absence of similar knowl-edge, as well as remedial opportunities for learners withdifficulties.

As far as assessment is concerned, in order for itto be worthwhile, Deek argues, there should be facili-ties to

Ï Ñ7Ö>Î�Ï�áâÚ_×�Ñ�ß Û Ñ�Ï�ã Û ÔQÖ7ÚKÓKØ6Ó�Ú_Ó�Ñ Û Ú�×UÏ�Î�ß>Þ�×�Î�ß�ÚUÚ_×�Ñ Û Ñ Û�äÛ Ó�Î�Ð ; take note of where and how much time is spent,record performance on lesson exams and tasks; ulti-mately examine the data and construct a user profile.

ContradictionsAs is seen, a key element in the design of online learn-ing systems is

Ó�Ð?Ú�Ñ%Ï ÔQÖ&Ú�Ó=Ø&Ó�Ú�Ù.

Interactivity can be accomplished in several dif-ferent ways—through feedback on assessment andthrough live connections with the catalog and differ-ent databases. Probably the biggest contradiction asfar as design is concerned is embedded in the conceptof interactivity. For the time being, human-computerinteraction, at least for mass-produced computers, canin no way approximate the interaction between hu-mans. Since human (teaching) agency is removed oncethe online tutorial is completed, the interactivity needsto be controlled. This could be achieved most easilyby relying on multiple-choice knowledge assessmenttools, in which the number of possible incorrect orincomplete answers if finite and predetermined. Work-


å�æ�ç�è�æ�éê�ë�ì�í�î�è�ï�ç�ð�ñ�í�î�ò�è�ó�î�ï î"ô$õ%æ�ð�ì�î&ë(ö&ì�è�í�æ*÷&ø$æ,å-æ/ù0í�è�æ1ù3ú*î í5û6é&ö7ì9ü�æ�ý�é�î<þí�æ�ð�ì=ï>æ?ì�ÿAé��&è�ð�è�í�æ

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

Another design-related tension resides in theachievement of an acceptable balance between

ö�í�æ��ì5é>æ�ì�ï&æ�ýàñ%í�î��

. There are no definitive studies atpresent, which look at the same information contentpresented in different forms to determine whetherthere is a statistically significant correlation betweeninformation form and successful learning that is notthe result of differences in learning styles.

ú?î ïQö7ì�è�ö�é6÷��*è�æ�ýXè�æ/ù^ðThe interactivity requirement for effective online in-struction was determined not to be satisfied by thebulk of the tutorials examined. First of all, an enor-mous number of tutorials, even those, which bill them-selves as “interactive” rely heavily on long textual ex-planations. To all practical purposes, they are merely atraditional textual medium transferred to the web. Outof the 45 tutorials examined, 17 were completely orextensively employing purely textual presentation. Ineffect they were nothing more than a print guide trans-ferred online. By far the most common means of uti-lizing the visual capabilities of the WWW were screenshots or scanned images with accompanying explana-tions, used in varying degrees by 28 tutorials. Onlyrarely is animation employed and even more rarelydoes it contribute to the learning objectives of thetutorial. The exceptions are the Data Game fromColorado State and TILT, where the animation doesnot distract from the content because it is sparinglyused and yet contributes to the visual pleasure of thesystem (top right).

An interesting example is Cornell University’sOlin Library’s audio and video version of parts of theirresearch tutorial, which uses RealMedia player topresent a “real-time” search in a system accompaniedby audio instructions.

Real-time live links to databases or library cata-logs, as in the University of Oregon’s Get Ready tuto-rial are rare and understandably so. Even with veryprecise instructions, “Try it! Use the following link togo to the UO Library Catalog. Find the record forthe item titled “Patterns of social drinking behaviorsamong female university students” by Joanne Allyson

Frank (hint: use keyword search for “college drinking”then use “next page” if necessary. When you find thefull record, note the location and call number, thenuse the BACK button on your browser to return here,”it is not possible to account completely for changes inthe system (e.g. a second copy of the book was addedsince the completion of the tutorial), or individualvariations in searching. Instead, the searches the usersare invited to perform, are in a controlled “live” envi-ronment, i.e. the database searched appears to be livebut the searches are canned.

The visual layout of textual instructions and “live”links was found to be inconsistent. If instructions pre-cede the hand-on portion, their length and complex-ity present an almost insurmountable challenge. Tosolve the problem, some tutorials use two or even threeframes for simultaneous presentation of instructionsand “live” systems. However, often the frames are notsynchronized (Information Literacy Tutorial, Univer-sity of Wisconsin Parkside) or the instructions framerequires constant scrolling because of the length ofthe instructions.

Achieving interactivity in online instruction de-pends heavily on providing immediate and meaning-ful feedback on exercises and other tasks to be per-formed by the user. Of the 45 tutorials, 16 had noquizzes or exercises, in 2 the assignment link did notwork, or was password protected, 5 of the ones thathad exercises did not provide immediate feedback butsuggested that exercises are printed and submitted toinstructors or librarians for feedback. Only a few tu-torials provided continuous update on score percent(e.g. University of Oregon’s Get Ready Tutorial) or


��

had a final feedback that included a comparison tableof right and wrong answers (e.g. the Information Com-petence Tutorials from California State UniversitiesInformation Competence Initiative).

Multiple-choice evaluation was found to be thepreferred mode of assessment in the tutorials andguides examined. Only a handful of tutorials employdifferent types of knowledge assessment tools, fore-most among them TILT, which requires the user toproduce a list of acceptable search terms for a topic,for instance, and then compares it to a master list,pointing out the common terms.

�� !��"�$#&%('�)(��*��+ ��"�Our design goals for the tutorial at Mann were two-fold: maintain a balance between the visual and ani-mation possibilities and the learning objectives, andcreate as close a simulation of an interactive situationas possible. The first iteration of the system was heavilyvisual, relying on animation that subsequent usabilitytests with library staff determined to be distractingfrom rather than adding to the accomplishment ofthe learning objectives. In our enthusiasm to producea visually pleasing system, we had fallen into the trapof “using technology for its own sake” and had ini-tially produced a system that was visually and graphi-cally overloaded.

Providing interactivity was accomplished by mul-tiple-choice quizzes after each lesson on searching,selecting and evaluating:

However, the initial version of the quizzes didnot include content feedback on the correct or incor-rect responses, e.g. “Incorrect. The correct answer is...because...” The reason was the free test-generatingsoftware that we were using, which allowed for mark-ing the correct or incorrect response without explana-tion or the opportunity to try again. The usabilitytest confirmed what we already knew—quizzes shouldbe used as additional teaching opportunities that notonly test the user’s knowledge but also amplify on theinformation presented in the module.

Technological Considerations�,��-.��/PreceptsIdeally, online instruction in general and library in-struction in particular needs to account for the pos-sible

�0�"�1/2�3 5476&�*48��$�-9:0;< =�$�+�> ��?@4�/A��'�)B�+�- 3�C9D� and

experience (Bender and Rosen 2000), as well presenta minimum technological barrier to users. They shouldnot be browser-dependent or require paid plug-insand should take into consideration the remote modeof access, which may include slow dial-up modems.

Much more importantly, with the constant evolv-ing of technology, it becomes imperative to have a stra-tegic plan for

�+�?4�E$��FE")�6�� 3�@9��" �6<�+��@��9�� 9 (Hansen

2001), as well as day-to-day maintenance.

ContradictionsThe G �� &� G E GIH J�@��8 �-�="4�/ HDK �"�1�*�� requirement ap-pears to be in direct contradiction to a design thatavails itself of the full graphic and even streaming ca-pabilities of the medium. Graphically and visuallyintensive content cannot necessarily be delivered in atechnological-minimum environment. The necessityfor downloading plug-ins and their updated versions,as well as connection speed and browser compatibil-ity is a major roadblock to delivering effective libraryinstruction online, albeit not specific to library in-struction tutorials.

Another issue to consider is the tension between9��@�"E��C /, which requires users to sign in and which

also enables tracking of performance and @)L�� M�0� H�@��9+9

. If the system is to keep track of the user’sperformance for grading purposes, some sort of au-thentication is needed, as well as a database at theback-end, which keeps track of users. The exact wayof providing access (secure vs. open or a combina-


NPO�QSRSO�T,U(V�WJX�Y�RJZ�Q�[�\*X�Y^]_R�`�Y�Z+Y?acbDO�[�WSY@V5d@WSRJX�O�e@fcOgN�OihjX�RSO.hMk�Y+X=l$T@d�WBm_O�n�T�Ypo,X�O�[�WqZ"O�W�r<T�s@RJ[�R�X�O

tion thereof ) will be determined by the uses towhich the system is put.

k�Y+Z-d�WtR�d�T$e�u�RSO�nvRSOihw[Very few of the tutorials in the sample required plug-ins (the audio component of Cornell’s Olin Library’sResearch Tutorial, The Data Game from ColoradoState University) or were browser specific (e.g. Infor-mation Skills Mini Course at the University of Floridarecommended the use of IE). What was a lot moreevident though is that online tutorials relying heavilyon screen shots from other systems to illustrate theconcepts they are teaching, need to have a systematicway of regular updates. Databases change interfacesand when this happens, screen shots in the tutorialsneed to be updated as well, or else, patrons could befacing potential confusion, as in the NMSU LibraryShortcuts module on Proquest which was last updatedin 1998 and uses Proquest’s old interface.

k�Y�Z�d�W!R�d"T$e&x(y�z(T�Y*R�T+O�d"TThe biggest technological challenge for us was theconstant interface change of the systems used to illus-trate information literacy concepts and sources. Bythe time the initial version was completed, the screenshots we had used to illustrate searches on the cata-log 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 screenshots in the spring of 2002 was not cost effective,and thus the graphic update was left for the fall of2002. In the meantime, the whole concept of a Li-brary Gateway providing access to electronic re-sources that point to information, i.e. databases andprint indexes, was undergoing a reconceptualizationwith the implementation of the Voyager Endeavor’scapabilities for simultaneous searching across da-tabases, which is scheduled for spring 2003. Thiswill require not only graphical update but also atotal overhauling of the content of Module Two,since the nature of the Information portal it pre-sents will change drastically.

Ideal Library Instruction TutorialHaving looked at over 40 existing tutorials and workedon a prototype of one, in this section, I would like toenumerate some of the features that I consider essen-

tial to the ideal online library instruction tutorial.They are all interrelated and complement each other.

1. Preliminary Assessment. A pre-test to deter-mine the level at which a user is will ensure the rel-evance of the system to the particular needs of theuser, and consequently its effectiveness. Further, it willprovide an objective underpinning of the

2. Branching Capabilities, which can be satisfiedby a modular approach with modules of increasingdifficulty. Alternatively, branching can be achieved bya structure that is

3. Problem-Based, and addresses the specificneeds of the user at the present moment. The ideallibrary instruction tutorial should be discipline and/or assignment-based from the very beginning, as isthe case with LIBeRation:

This feature in turn relates hierarchically to theneed to relate the particular problem to a

4. Concept-Based goal of enabling the user tofunction as an information consumer in the future.To ensure the transferability of concepts, online learn-ing systems should be heavily

5. Interactive. To enhance active learning, simu-lations of a live links to databases and catalogs, thatare clearly signified should constitute the main as-sessment tool, as in Western Michigan’s Labyrinth,where clicking on Search the Catalog at WesternMichigan link from within a First Search databaseperforms a simulated search for the journal on thelibrary catalog (top left, next page).

Such a controlled simulation allows for the elimi-nation of uncertainty and impossibility to provide


{|�}�~��~��

meaningful feedback and at the same time immersesthe learning subject in a “real” searching environment.Simulations of “live” searches can also be presented inseveral frames, as in the University of BritishColumbia’s Library navigator module created in Black-board:

Interactivity should be accomplished with morethan multiple-choice questions, as in TILT, whereinteractivity is also achieved through a comparisonbetween the responses submitted by the subjects anda list of the suggested responses (top right).

An excellent attempt at both interactivity andteaching concepts rather than just skills was foundin the HPS 101 Online Tutorial from centralMichigan University, where the presentation wassystematically accompanied by questions that re-quired the student to think (“Do you think this isa good choice?”)

Last, but not least are the features associated with6. Assessment and Feedback. First and foremost

among them is the ability of the system to keep trackof where the user is so that they can return to wherethey left off, a feature that is part of the Internet De-tective:

Further, the ideal online tutorial should provideboth continuous updating on score percent, as in theGet Ready Tutorial of the University of Oregon, anda final assessment of the total quiz with each ques-tions assessed individually, as in the Information Com-petency Tutorials from the California State Universi-ties Initiative.

Every time an incorrect response is given, the op-portunity to “try again” should be present, instead ofsimply providing feedback on the incorrect response.A very good example in this respect is WesternMichigan’s University Labyrinth 101, in which a 15-


�P��S�S��,�(��J��J��*��^�_��+�?�c�D��S�@�5�@�S�J��@�c�g��i�j��S�.�M��+�=�$�@��B�_��p ,��q�"��¡<��¢@�J��

question quiz is randomly generated to test thestudent’s knowledge and if the student does not an-swer 11 questions correctly, s/he is invited to reenterthe Labyrinth again and retake the quiz with a newset of randomly generated 15 questions.

ConclusionsTo go back to the initial definition of online learningsystems and the differentiation between drill-and-practice, online tutorials, and simulations systems thatDeek proposes, I would suggest it is pertinent to thecreation and design of online library learning systems,as well. The purpose and setting in which an onlinelibrary learning module is used should ultimately de-fine its content, its design, and the technology it uses.If, what are now called tutorials, but are in practicedrill-and-practice learning systems, are to follow apresentation, a lecture, or an in-person session, thescope of the system should be different from an onlinetutorial in which new information is presented andconcepts are taught and connections established. Iwould seriously question the feasibility of creating full-blown simulation systems, as defined by Deek et al.(2000) for the programming environment, as a neces-sity in online library instruction, but the inclusion oflimited or predefined simulated “live” searches un-doubtedly enhances the interactivity of the project.

Ultimately, the question is whether the resourcesand time spent on creating an online library instruc-tion tutorial that is truly interactive are justified intheir specific context. The pilot project that we wereengaged in took three semesters to complete a proto-type, with one full-time library fellow spending atleast 60 percent of her time on the project for twosemesters, one full-time librarian spending 20 per-cent of her time on the project for three semesters,one programmer in a consulting function, and threestudent assistants working 20 hours a week on theaverage between the three of them for two semestersand one student assistant working about five hoursper week for one semester. The project was time- andresource-consuming and ultimately we determinedthat it was not ready for prime time because of con-ceptual, as well as design and technology issues. Whatwill justify its completion? It would seem that theanswer is an institutionalized use for the purposes ofclass instruction. If completing an online library tu-torial is required as part of students’ coursework, which

of course immediately brings us back to the require-ment for anchored, i.e. problem-based, learner-cen-tered instruction, then and only then will those re-sources be well spent.

Finally, creating online library instruction tutori-als that can provide the same degree of concept-teach-ing, interactivity, and active collaborative learning cen-tered on the user, i.e. ultimately achieving the goal ofinformation-literate users, requires further researchinto the implication of the online medium on the pro-cess of teaching and learning; automated tools thatallow for easier and more systematic update process,as well as a technological stability that may never beachieved. In other words, online library instructiontutorials are still a work in progress, under extensiverevisions.

BibliographyAllen, Eileen E. 1995. “Active Learning and Teaching: Im-

proving Postsecondary Library Instruction.” Reference Li-brarian 51/52: 89–103.

Bates, Tony. 1995 Technology, Open Learning and DistanceEducation. London: Routledge.

Bender, Laura J., and Jeffrey M. Rosen. 2000. “Working To-wards Scalable Instruction: Creating the RIO Tutorial atthe University of Arizona Library.” Research Strategies16 (4):315–25.

Carr-Chellman, Alison, and Philip Duchastel. 2001. “TheIdeal Online Course.” Library Trends 50 (1) summer:145–58.

Cherry, Joan M., Weijing Yuan, and Marshall Clinton. 1994.“Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Concept-Based Com-puter Tutorial for OPAC Users.” College and ResearchLibraries 55: 355–64.

Churkovich, Marion, and Christine Oughtred. 2002. “Canand Online Tutorial Pass the Test for Library Instruc-tion? An Evaluation and Comparison of Library SkillsInstruction Methods for First Year Students at DeakinUniversity.” Academic and Research Libraries 33 (1)March: 25–38

Dabbour, Katherine Strober. 1997. “Applying Active Learn-ing Methods to the Design of Library Instruction for aFreshmen Seminar.” College and Research Libraries 58(4): 299–308.

Deek, Fadi P., Ki-Wang Ho, and Haider Ramadhan. 2000.“A Critical Analysis and Evaluation of Web-based En-vironments for Program Development.” Internet andHigher Education 3 (4):223–69.


£¤�¥�¦�§�¨�©�ª�«�ª�¦�¬��§�®�ª

Dewald, Nancy H. 1999. “Transporting Good Library In-struction Practices into the Web Environment: An Analy-sis of Online Tutorials.” The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship 25 (1): 26–31.

———. 1999. “Web-Based Library Instruction: What isGood Pedagogy?” Information Technology and Libraries18 (1): 26–31.

Dewald, Nancy., Anne Scholtz-Crane, and H. Austin Booth.“Information Literacy at a Distance: Instructional De-sign Issues.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (1):33–44.

Donaldson, Kelly A. 2000. “Library Research Success: De-signing an Online Tutorial to Teach Information LiteracySkills to First-year Students at Seneca College in Toronto.”The Internet and Higher Education 2 (4): 237–51.

Drueke, Jeanetta. 1992. “Active Learning in the UniversityLibrary Instruction Classroom.” Research Strategies 10:77–83.

Ells, Rick. 2002. “Effective Use of the Web for Education:Design Principles and Pedagogy.” Available at http://staff.washington.edu/rells/effective/. Accessed 12/23/02.

Falk, Dennis, and Helen Carlson. 1995. Multimedia in Highereducation: A Practical Guide to New Tools for InteractiveTeaching and Learning. Medford, N.J.: Learned Infor-mation.

Fister, Barbara. 1990. “Teaching Research as a Social Art:Collaborative Learning and the Library.” RQ 29: 505–9.

Gagne, Robert Mills. 1985. The Conditions of Learning, 4thed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Gagne, Robert Mills, and Marcy Perkins Driscoll. 1988. Es-sentials of Learning for Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall.

Gagne, Robert Mills, Leslie J. Briggs, and Walter W. Wager.1992. Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt,Rinehart, and Winston.

Germain, Carol Anne, Trudi Jacobson, and Sue A. Kaczor.2000. “A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Presenta-tion Formats for Instruction: Teaching First-Year Stu-dents.” College and Research Libraries 61 (1):65–72.

Gibson, Craig. 1995. “Critical Thinking: Implications for In-struction.” RQ 35, fall: 27–35.

Gresham, Keith. 1997. “Electronic Classrooms: Linking In-formation Concepts to Online Exploration.” RQ 36: 514–20.

Gutierrez, Carolyn, and Jianrong A. Wang. 2001. “A Com-parison of an Electronic vs. Print Workbook for Informa-tion Literacy Instruction at Richard Stockton College of

New Jersey.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 27 (3):208–20.

Hansen, Carol. 2001. “The Internet Navigator: An OnlineInternet Course for Distance Learners.” Library Trends50 (1): 58–72.

Harasim, Linda. 2000. “Shift Happens: Online Education asa New Paradigm in Learning.” Internet and Higher Edu-cation 3 (1/2): 41–61.

Hawley, Chandra L., and Thomas M. Duffy. 1998. “DesignModel for Learner Centered, Computer-Based Situa-tion.” In Proceedings of Selected Research and Develop-ment Presentations at the National Convention of the As-sociation for Educational Communications and Technology(AECT). Sponsored by the Research and Theory Divi-sion (20th, St. Louis, MO, February 18–22, 1998. Avail-able online at http://www.edrs.com/members/sp.cfm?AN=ED423838. Accessed 12/10/02.

Holman, Lucy. 2000. “A Comparison of Computer-AssistedInstruction and Classroom Bibliographic Instruction.”Reference and User Services Quarterly 40 (1): 53–65.

Hook, Peter A. 2002. “Creating an Online Tutorial and Path-finder.” Law Library Journal 94 (2): 243–65.

Jonassen, David H., ed. 1996. Handbook of Research for Edu-cational Communication and Technology: A Project of theAssociation for Educational Communications and Technol-ogy. New York: Simon and Schuster, Macmillan.

Johnson, Anna Marie, and Phil Sager. 1998. “Too Many Stu-dents, Too Little Time: Creating and Implementing aself-Paced, Interactive Computer Tutorial for the Librar-ies’ Online Catalog.” Research Strategies 16 (4): 271–84.

Kaplowitz, Joan R., and Janice Contini. 1998. “Computer-Assisted Instruction: Is It an Option for BibliographicInstruction in Large Undergraduate Survey Classes?”College & Research Libraries 59: 19–28.

Lloyd, Les, ed. 1999. Teaching With Technology: RethinkingTradition. Medford, N.J.: Information Today.

Manuel, Kate. 2001. “Teaching an Online Literacy Course.”Reference Services Review 29 (3): 219–28.

Mason, Robin. 2000. “From Distance Education to OnlineEducation.” Internet and Higher Education 3 (1/2): 63–74.

Maule, William R. 1998. “Content Design Frameworks forInternet Studies Curricula and Research.” Internet Re-search 8 (2): 174–84.

Meyen, Edward L., Ronald J. Aust, Yvonne N. Bui, EugeneRamp, and Sean J. Smith. 2002. “The Online AcademyFormative Evaluation Approach to Evaluating Online In-struction.” Internet and Higher Education 5 (2): 89–108.


¯P°�±S²S°�³,´(µ�¶J·�¸�²J¹�±�º�»*·�¸^¼_²�½�¸�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@²Jº�²�·�°

Moore, Michael G., and Greg Kearsley. 1996. Distance Edu-cation: A Systems View. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Parise, Pierina. 2000. “Herding Cats: Or, How are OnlineCourses Changing the Education Paradigm?” LibraryComputing 19 (1/2): 93–97.

Pirolli, Peter., and Magaret Recker. 1994. “Learning Strate-gies and Transfer in the Domain of Programming.” Cog-nition and Instruction 12 (3): 235–75.

Plankis, B.J. 1998. “Implementing Good Web Style.”TechTrends 43 (3): 37–40.

Prestamo, Anne M. 1998. “Development of Web-Based Tu-torials for Online Databases.” Issues in Science and Tech-nology Librarianship 17. Available online at http://n e w f i r s t s e a r c h . o c l c . o r g / We b Z / F S P a g e ?pagetype=return_frameset:sessionid=sp02sw03-5 5 7 3 2 - d a p k 2 f o 8 - v y x x u : e n t i t y p a g e n u m =1 1 : 0 : e n t i t y f r a m e d u r l = h t t p % 3 A % 2 F% 2 F w w w. l i b r a r y. u c s b . e d u % 2 F i s t l % 2 F 9 8 -w i n t e r % 2 F a r t i c l e 3 . h t m l : e n t i t y f r a m e dtitle=Library+Literature:entityframedtimeout=30. Accessed 12/21/02.

Pyle, Ransford C., and Charles D. Dziuban. 2001. “Technol-ogy: Servant or Master of the Online Teacher?” LibraryTrends 50 (1): 130–44.

Russell, Thomas L. 1999. “The No Significant DifferencePhenomenon as Reported in 355 Research Reports, Sum-mary and Papers: A Comparative Research Annotated.”Bibliography on Technology for Distance Education. NorthCarolina State University.

Scholtz, Ann Margaret, Richard Cary Kerr, and SamuelKeith Brown. 1996. “PLUTO: Interactive Instruc-

tion on the Web.” College and Research Libraries News57 (6): 346–49.

Sheridan, Jean. 1990. “The Reflective Librarian: Some Ob-servation on Bibliographic Instruction in the AcademicLibrary.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 16: 22–26.

Smith, Susan Sharpless. 2001. Web-Based Instruction: A Guidefor Libraries. Chicago: ALA.

Song, Chiann-Ru. 2002. “The Branching Structure for Indi-vidual Learning Skills Differences in InstructionalHypermedia.” Online Information Review 26 (2): 73–78.

Tricarico, Mary Ann, Susan Von Daum Tholl, and ElenaO’Malley. 2001“Interactive Online Instruction for LibraryResearch: The Small Academic Library Experience.” Jour-nal of Academic Librarianship 27 (3): 220–23.

Veldof, Jerilyn, and Karen Beavers. 2001. “Going Mental:Tackling Mental Models for the Online Library Tuto-rial.” Research Strategies 18 (1): 3–20.

Viggiano, Rachel G., and Meredith Ault. 2001. “Online Li-brary Instruction for Online Students.” Information Tech-nology and Libraries 20 (3): 135–38.

Weston, Cynthia, Terry Gandell, Lynn McAlpine, and AdamFinkelstein. 1999. “Designing Instruction for the Con-text of Online Learning.” Internet and Higher Education2 (1): 35–44.

White, Herbert. S. 1992. “Bibliographic Instruction, Informa-tion Literacy, and Information Empowerment.” LibraryJournal 117: 76–78.

Williams, Peter. 2001. “Learning Area Network: InformationDissemination and Online Discussion in an EducationEnvironment: The Capabil-IT-y Project.” ASLIB Pro-ceedings 53 (3): 99–107.


ËÌ�Í�Î�Ï�Ð�Ñ�Ò�Ó�Ò�Î�Ô�Õ�Ï�Ö�Ò

1. American Civilizations Research Tutorial. Grand Val-ley State University. http://www.gvsu.edu/library/History/toc.htm.

2. Biology 14: Library Research. Tufts University. http://ase.tufts.edu/biology/bio14v2/.

3. BlaisQuizz. The Libraries of The Claremont Colleges(password protected). http://voxlibris.claremont.edu/research/tutorials.html.

4. Business 100: Solving the Mystery of Company Re-search. Wake Forest University, Z. Smith Reynolds Library.http://www.wfu.edu/Library/referenc/business/.

5. The Data Game. Colorado State University. http://manta.library.colostate.edu/datagame/.

6. Duke Libraries Guide to Library Research. http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/home.htm.

7. Electronic Resources for the Bachelor of Science inNursing Programs. Emmanuel College, Cardinal CushingLibrary. http://www1.emmanuel.edu/library/nursing/index.html.

8. Falcon: An Interactive Web Tutorial. Bowling GreenState University. http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/library/infosrv/tutorial/tutor1.html. (actual site not found).

9. Galileo Tutorial. Georgia State Virtual Library. http://pluto.gsu.edu:80/cgibin/homepage.cgi?style=&_id=80fd4e7c-1076368830-3336.

10. Get Ready Tutorial. University of Oregon. http://libweb.uoregon.edu/getready/.

11. Go for the Gold. James Madison U., Harrisonburg,Virginia, Carrier Library. http://www.lib.jmu.edu/library/gold/modules.htm.

12. The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly. New Mexico StateUniversity. http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html.

13. HPS 101 Online Tutorial. Central Michigan Univer-sity. http://www.lib.cmich.edu/departments/reference/in-struct/hps101/.

14. Information Competence Tutorials. California StateUniversities’ Information Competence Initiative. http://multiweb.lib.calpoly.edu/infocomp/modules/.

15. Information Literacy Tutorial. University of Wiscon-sin, Parkside. https://uwp.courses.wisc.edu/public/Infolit3/index.html.

16. Information Skills Mini-Course. University of Florida;Smathers Library. http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/instruct2/mini/begin.html.

17. InfoTrekk. Curtin University Library and InformationService, Australia. http://lisweb.curtin.edu.au/finding/index.html.

18. Internet Detective. http://sosig.ac.uk/desire/internet-detective.html.

19. Jumpstart. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. http://www.uark.edu/libinfo/refdept/instruction/index.html.

20. Labyrinth University 101 Tutorial. Western MichiganUniversity. http://www.wmich.edu/library/labyrinth/labyrinth.html.

21. LIBerATION. University College Northampton. http://193.61.82.57/liberation/web/.

22. Library Explorer. University of British Columbia. http://www.library.ubc.ca/home/instruct/.

23. Library Explorer on the World Wide Web. Universityof Iowa. http://explorer.lib.uiowa.edu/.

24. Library Resources and Research Interactive Tutorial,University of Missouri, St. Louis. http://www.umsl.edu/ser-vices/libteach/.

25. Library Research at Cornell: A Hypertext Guide. OlinLibrary, Cornell University. http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/research/tutorial.html.

26. Library Research Success for Nursing Program. Sen-eca College, Toronto. Not publicly accessible.

27. Library Research Tutorial. Griffith University,Queensland, Australia. http://www4.gu.edu.au/shr/lrt/.

28. New York University Federal Regulations Virtual Tour(visual elements). http://www.law.nyu.edu/lawyeringprogram/virtualtour/regulat/index.html.

29. NMSU Library Shortcuts. http://library.nmsu.edu/projects/tutorial/index.html.

30. Origins of Western Civilization. Monash University,Australia. http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/vl/ary11/ary1con.htm.

31. PLUTO (Purdue Libraries Universal Tutorial Online).http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/instruction/tutorials/pluto/.

32. QuickStudy: Library Research Guide. University ofMinnesota. http://tutorial.stcloudstate.edu/.

AppendixExamined Tutorials, Virtual Tours, Online Information Services

(The lists includes several sites that could not be accessed with notes to that effect.)


×PØ�ÙSÚSØ�Û,Ü(Ý�ÞJß�à�ÚJá�Ù�â�ã*ß�à^ä_Ú�å�à�á+à?æcçDØ�â�ÞSà@Ý5è@ÞSÚJß�Ø�é@êcØg×�Øiëjß�ÚSØ.ëMì�à+ß=í$Û@è�ÞBî_Ø�ï�Û�àpð,ß�Ø�â�Þqá"Ø�Þ�ñ<Û�ò@ÚJâ�Ú�ß�Ø

33. RIO. http://www.library.arizona.edu/rio/.34. Smart Searcher Tutorial. Deakin University, Aus-

tralia. http://www.deakin.edu.au/library/findout/learn/index.php.

35. SUNY at Albany Libraries Instruction and Tutorials.http://library.albany.edu/usered/. Tutorials. http://library.albany.edu/usered/tut.html.

36. Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for WWW Re-sources. Widener University. http://www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/pyramid.htm.

37. Thurmond Clarke Memorial Library at ChapmanUniversity. http://www.chapman.edu/library/instruction/.

38. TILT. U. of Texas, Austin. http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu.39. University of Buffalo Libraries Research Assistant.

http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/ugl/tutorials/research.html.

40. University of California Berkley Teaching Library Re-search Guides. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/.

41. University of Cincinnati Libraries (general research).http://www.libraries.uc.edu/help/how/tutorial/about-tutorial.html.

42. Tutorial for Online Catalogue Minerva. University ofLouisville, Kentucky. http://library.louisville.edu/research/help/bgtm.html.

43. U. of Tennessee, Knoxville catalog tutorial. http://www.lib.utk.edu/refs/tutorials/catalog.html.

44. University of Texas at Austin McKinney EngineeringLibrary Patent Searching Tutorial. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/engin/patent-tutorial/index.htm.

45. University of Utah Internet Navigator. Spencer S.Eccles Health Sciences Library. http://medlib.med.utah.edu/navigator/.

46. University of Washington Research 101 tutorial. http://www.lib.washington.edu/uwill/research101/.

47. Washington State University Training Modules, Self-Tests, and Interactive Readings. http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/electric/trainingmods/index_of_quizzes.htm.

online tutorials for libr ary instruction: an ongoing project

Documents