Martina Nicholas

1
Whos Afraid of the Big Bad Library?

• By
• Martina Nicholas
• Catherine Rudowsky
• Jesus Valencia
• Slippery Rock University
• Slippery Rock, PA
• March 31, 2007

2
Library Anxiety

• First introduced by Constance Mellon in 1986
  after completing a two-year qualitative study
  finding that 75-85 of students describe their
  initial feelings of the library in terms of
  anxiety.

• Four Causes
• Size of library
• Lack of knowledge about where things were located
• How to being
• What to do

3
Library Anxiety Scale

• In 1992, Sharon Bostick furthered library anxiety
  research by developing the Library Anxiety Scale
  (LAS), a validated instrument used to quantify
  library anxiety.
• The LAS consists of 43 statements making either a
  definitive positive or definitive negative
  declaration about libraries and library use.
• Available responses for all 43 statements are
  strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree or
  strongly agree.

4
Library Anxiety Scale

• The LAS Identifies 5 facets of library anxiety
• Barriers with staff
• Affective barriers
• Comfort with the library
• Knowledge of the library
• Mechanical barriers

5
Use of the Library Anxiety Scale

• In 2003, Anna Van Scoyoc used the LAS to test
  pre- and post-anxiety levels one week apart with
  one of three treatments taking place between the
  two tests.
• Three treatments tested
• Traditional Bibliographic Instruction
• Computer-based Tutorial
• Control Group
• Findings
• Students in the bibliographic instruction group
  experienced less anxiety than the control group.
• The same could not be said for the computer-based
  tutorial group.

6
Slippery Rock UniversityBailey Library

• Library Anxiety Research Project
• Fall 2005
• Fall 2006

7
Objective

• Compare various methods of easing library anxiety
  in freshmen to determine which method(s) prove to
  offer the greatest decrease in library anxiety
• Treatments
• Bibliographic Instruction
• One-on-one Instruction
• Online Tutorial
• Control Group

8
Fall 2005 Participants

• 18 student participants
• Strictly volunteers
• All from College of Business, Information, and
  Social Sciences

9
Fall 2005 Treatment Groups

• Group 1 Online Tutorial
• Group 2 Control Group
• Group 3 One-on-One Instruction
• Group 4 Group Instruction

10
Fall 2005 Study Design

• Students completed the pre-survey (the LAS)
  approximately three weeks into the semester.
• Students complied with the instructions
  applicable to the group in which they were
  assigned.
• Students completed the post-survey (the LAS)
  approximately two weeks before the end of the
  semester.
• NOTE Students in the control group were given
  one-on-one instruction after the post-survey.

11
Fall 2005 Overview of Results

• In order of effectiveness
• One-on-One Instruction
• Group Instruction
• Control Group
• Online Tutorial

12
Fall 2005 Findings

• One-on-one instruction reduced library anxiety by
  as much as 200.
• Group instruction reduced library anxiety by as
  much as 170.
• Students receiving no form of instruction
  experienced a reduction in library anxiety by as
  much as 160.
• Students completing the online tutorial did not
  experience a reduction in library anxiety.

13
Fall 2005 Limitations

• Participation was on a voluntary basis, which
  could have presented us with students already
  having low levels of library anxiety.
• We had a very small sample size.
• We did not have a way of ensuring that students
  in Group 1 completed the online tutorial.
• Difficult and time consuming to track student
  participants, since there was no logical grouping
  for these volunteers. They all had different
  class schedules and no relationship to each other.

14
Fall 2006 Participants

• 74 student participants
• Obtained our participants from 4 FYRST seminar
  classes at Slippery Rock University
• FYRST seminar is a one-credit class taken by
  freshmen to help them adjust to college life.

15
Fall 2006 Treatment Groups

• Group 1 Online Tutorial
• Group 2 Control Group
• Group 3 One-on-One Instruction
• Group 4 Group Instruction

16
Fall 2006 Study Design

• Each of the 4 FYRST classes served as one of the
  study groups.
• Students completed the pre-survey (the LAS)
  approximately one to three weeks into the
  semester.
• Each class complied with the instructions
  applicable to the group that they were assigned.
• Students completed the post-survey (the LAS)
  around mid-November.
• NOTE The class serving as the control group was
  brought to the library for group instruction
  after completing the post-survey.

17
Statistical Analysis

• Choice of dependant variable
• Difference between pre-survey score and
  post-survey score for Fall 2006 study
• Percentage change between pre-survey score and
  post-survey score for Fall 2005 study
• Statistical technique
• ANOVA

18
Statistical AnalysisANOVA All Students
19
Fall 2006 Overview of Results

• In order of effectiveness (all students)
• Group Instruction (Group 4)
• One-on-One Instruction (Group 3)
• Online Tutorial (Group 1)
• Control Group (Group 2)

20
Fall 2006 Overview of Results

• In order of effectiveness (low anxiety vs. high
  anxiety students)
• Low Anxiety Group
• None of the treatments were significant at
  reducing anxiety.
• High Anxiety Group
• Each treatment became more effective, but there
  was no clear winner.

21
Fall 2006 Findings

• Number of library visits does matter

22
Fall 2006 Findings
Regardless of mapping, students with relatively
high levels of anxiety do best with Group
Instruction and worst with Online Tutorials.
23
Fall 2006 Findings
The greater the level of anxiety, the greater the
difference between effectiveness when comparing
Group Instruction and Online Tutorials.
24
Conclusion

• Students with the highest levels of library
  anxiety entering their first semester of college
  (the most critical group) are most effectively
  treated with Group Instruction and least
  effectively treated with Online Tutorials.

25
Implications for Further Study

• Raise the level of measurement for how library
  anxiety is measured
• Currently at ordinal level
• Future at interval level