Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a relationship existed between student learning styles and their preferences toward the various activities associated with the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) approach in the first-year pharmacy curriculum at the University of British Columbia. These PBL activities comprise group discussions, independent research, in-class critical-thinking and group report writing. In the fall semester of the 2000–2001 academic year, first-year pharmacy students completed Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory. Student preferences toward the various activities associated with the PBL tutorials were evaluated based upon the results of student surveys. Results from these surveys revealed that Divergers indicated the lowest preference overall for the activities associated with the PBL program in the first-year pharmacy curriculum compared to the other three learning style groups. Convergers showed strong preferences for these activities. While the Convergers and Divergers indicated opposing preferences overall for the activities associated with the PBL, the Assimilators and Accommodators indicated overall positive responses to the PBL activities. These findings may be used in future studies to evaluate whether student preferences for certain learning environments are correlated to their academic success as measured by grades.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, colleges of pharmacy have recognized the need to use alternative teaching methods to help students develop the abilities they require to practice pharmacy and provide pharmaceutical care. These abilities include the development of critical thinking, complex problem solving and communication skills(1–4). Numerous studies have suggested that the students’ active engagement in their learning has resulted in an increased ability to solve problems and communicate their solution(s) to others(5–9). These findings have convinced an increasing number of pharmacy educators to modify, supplement or replace their traditional lecture format with methods such as Problem-Based Learning (PBL).
PBL involves the use of “real-life” or simulated problems as the initial stimulus to learning fundamental concepts(10–12). Learning using PBL results from the process of working towards the understanding and possible solution(s) to a given problem. PBL enables students to become actively involved in their own learning since they choose what they will learn after exhausting their collective knowledge base in addressing the problem. A number of studies, particularly in the medical education literature(13), report greater student satisfaction with PBL over traditional teaching methods. However, few studies in the pharmacy education literature have attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of the PBL method in improving and/or enhancing grades, critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills of students. This remains a difficult and complex undertaking. As a first step toward addressing this difficult issue, we propose to use student learning styles to assess first-year pharmacy students’ preferences toward different activities of the PBL tutorials.
PBL Tutorial Process
The PBL component of the first-year pharmacy curriculum at the University of British Columbia takes a small-group (typically 5–6 students per group), student-centered approach. The small groups are facilitated by graduate students or faculty members that have participated in a two-day tutor-training workshop. The facilitators and the course coordinator usually meet once every two weeks to discuss content issues as well as group dynamics to ensure consistency between groups. A typical PBL problem takes place over two sessions. During the first session, the students are given a “real-life” problem or case dealing with concepts with which they are largely unfamiliar. Initially, the students read the problem and come to consensus as to what the problem is that they must solve. They then brainstorm what they already know about the problem and the concepts underlying it. They also discuss what they do not know and what they need to learn in order to understand the problem and arrive at a solution. These topics are written on the blackboard as a list of “learning issues”. The students then prioritized the learning issues and distributed the workload. In the case of high-priority learning issues, all members of the group were assigned these issues for independent research; for the lower priority learning issues, two people were assigned to each of these.
Between PBL sessions, the students research their assigned learning issues by consulting a variety of sources, including textbooks, journal articles, the Internet and other sources. Each student is required to summarize their research findings, and submit a copy of this summary to the facilitator at the beginning of session two. During the second session students discuss with each other their research findings and peer teach each other when necessary. Students are encouraged to articulate in their own words concepts they have learned from their independent research. This new information is integrated into their understanding of the problem. The role of the facilitator during this stage is to ask probing questions of the students as required, assessing the depth and accuracy of knowledge as well as asking for accountability. When the students and the facilitator are satisfied with the level of understanding, the meeting ends with the facilitator offering verbal feedback to each student. This feedback focuses on how the students are functioning as a member of the team. Finally, each small group is given guidelines for a group summary report that they are expected to write up and submit for grading one week from the end of session two. It is expected that this group report will outline the pertinent issues surrounding this problem, and offer a solution that is supported by literature or other sources.
The PBL groups for the fall term were randomly assigned according to their lab schedule. Random assignment, as it pertains to this study, is defined as randomly placing the students in groups without preference to age, background, or ethnicity. New PBL groups were assigned at the beginning of the second semester to give students the opportunity to work with different classmates. In both the first and second semesters the students rotated weekly between the PBL tutorials and a first-year Pharmacy Practice laboratory, therefore each small group had PBL every second week over the two semesters. Throughout the full two-semester academic year, we ran five PBL problems, two cases in the first semester and three in the second semester.
Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory
The term “learning style” is used to describe the different ways that people learn. A number of researchers have developed tools to assess individual learning styles. One of the most widely used of these instruments was developed by Kolb(14). Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) is primarily a cognitive learning preference tool that categorizes learners as to ‘how one acquires knowledge.’ Some people require the stimulus of hands-on experience while others rely on abstract sources such as books and lectures to acquire knowledge. The way a learner perceives and acquires information defines his or her learning style. Over time, learners develop a preferred pattern of knowledge acquisition, and Kolb’s LSI assesses this. Kolb’s model identifies two dimensions of learning, perception and processing, whereby he described a continuum of experiences for these two dimensions (see Figure 1). The extremes along the horizontal or processing dimension, from the left to the right, are characterized as “concrete experience” (doing) and “reflective observation” (watching). Extremes on the vertical or perception dimension (which describes the initial stage of cognition and involves receiving and discerning information), from top to bottom, are characterized as “active experimentation” (feeling/sensing) and “abstract conceptualization” (thinking). Descriptions of these four specific ways of learning are as follows:
Fig. 1.
The specific ways of learning (listed outside the circle) and general learning styles (listed in the quadrants inside the circle) as defined by Kolb s Learning Styles Inventory (adapted from ref. 16).
concrete experience - learning from specific experiences, relating to people, and sensitivity to feelings and people;
reflective observation - careful observation before making a judgement, viewing things from different perspectives, and looking for the meaning of things;
abstract conceptualization - logical analysis of ideas, systematic planning, acting on intellectual understanding of a situation;
active experimentation - ability to get things done, risk taking, influence people and events through action.
By combining these two opposing dimensions (perception and processing) from this model, Kolb(15) defined four general learning styles (or behaviors):
Divergers - perceive concretely and process reflectively; strengths lie in an imaginative ability; tend to be interested in people and are feeling-oriented; like to use their imagination when solving problems - preferred learning activities include logs, journals, brainstorming.
Assimilators-perceive abstractly and process reflectively; strengths lie in their inductive reasoning and the ability to create theoretical models; tend to be less interested in people issues and less concerned with practical applications of knowledge; like logical explanations, abstract ideas and concepts; - preferred learning activities include case studies, lectures, papers, analogies.
Convergers - perceive abstractly and process actively; greatest strength lies in problem solving, decision making, and the practical application of ideas (Convergers have the opposite learning strengths from Divergers); tend to be controlled in their expression of emotion, and prefer dealing with technical tasks and problems rather than social and interpersonal issues; like solving problems and finding practical solutions and uses for their learning - preferred learning activities include laboratories, field work, observations.
Accommodators - perceive concretely and process actively; strengths lie in doing things and involving themselves in new experiences - excel in adapting to changing immediate circumstances (Accommodators have the opposite learning strengths from Assimilators); tend to solve problems in an intuitive trial-and-error fashion, relying on others for information rather than their own rationalistic ability; like applying their learning in real life situations - preferred learning activities include simulations, case study, homework, group discussions.
The Learning Styles Inventory is based on the comparison of nine sets of phrases distributed across four columns, each column representing one of the four ‘specific ways of learning’. The respondent is asked to rank four phrases (within each of the nine sets) according to which phrase best describes his/her learning style. A score of “four” is assigned to the phrase that is believed to be most characteristic of his/her learning style, while a “one” is assigned to the phrase that is believed to be least characteristic of his/her learning style. The responses in each of the four columns are then summed, and the totals reflect a weighted preference for each of the four specific ways of learning. Subtracting the concrete experience score from the abstract conceptualization score results in a value that sits along the vertical axis (the perception continuum), and subtracting the reflective observation score from the active experimentation score results in a value that sits along the horizontal axis (the processing continuum; Figure 1). The learning style category is identified by locating the point of intersection of the perception and processing scores on the array.
In this preliminary study, we explored whether a relationship existed between student learning styles and their preferences toward the various activities associated with the PBL approach in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia. These activities comprise group discussions, independent research, in-class critical-thinking and group report writing.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
First-Year Pharmacy Course
The first-year pharmacy course in this study is a two-semester undergraduate course in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, that deals with drug delivery and compounding issues related to tablets, solutions, suspensions and emulsions. Historically, a two-semester wet lab supplemented the lecture component of this course. Eight years ago, the wet laboratory component was replaced by problem-based tutorials as a new approach to help students develop critical thinking abilities, acquire skills of life-long learning, communication and team building. The lecture and PBL components of this first-year course are coordinated in such a way that the students are exposed to new concepts in pharmacy for the first time through the PBL tutorials.
Student Demographics
This study involved 116 students out of a class of 140 in a first-year pharmaceutics course at the University of British Columbia. Student demographic data is listed in Table I. The typical student was a female between the ages of 19 to 21 years old. The majority of students in the first-year of our Pharmaceutical Sciences program typically have completed only their first-year undergraduate general sciences prior to enrolling in our Faculty. In addition, most of the students do not have experience in retail or hospital pharmacy.
Table I.
Demographic description of the surveyed students
| Variable | N (percent) |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Female | 85 (73.3) |
| Male | 31 (26.7) |
| Total | 116 (100) |
| Age | |
| Younger than 19 | 3 (2.6) |
| 19–21 | 85 (73.3) |
| 22–25 | 23 (19.8) |
| 26–30 | 3 (2.6) |
| 31 or older | 2 (1.7) |
| Total | 116 (100) |
Learning Styles Inventory and Student PBL Surveys
In-class surveys were conducted with the first-year students in our Pharmacy undergraduate program using the Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory (LSI), and subsequently a student PBL survey. The Kolb’s LSI was completed by the students in the fall semester of the 2000–2001 academic year, while the student PBL survey was first administered in early January of 2001 (Survey 1), then administered a second time in late March of 2001 (Survey 2).
Twenty-four of the 140 students did not complete the learning styles inventory when administered, and therefore they were excluded from the study. The inventory was self-scored by the students and later reviewed by the researchers for compliance with directions and for accuracy of scoring.
Student preferences toward the various activities associated with the PBL tutorials (including group discussions, independent research, in-class critical-thinking and group report writing) were evaluated based upon the results of a student survey. The survey consisted of five questions (Table II), and students were asked to circle the number (on the Likert scale from 1–5, where 5 = excellent and 1 = poor) that best reflected their rating of the PBL activity listed.
Table II.
Pharmacy PBL student survey
| Question | Statement |
|---|---|
| 1 | The PBL component is a valuable part of my pharmacy program. |
| 2 | I learn best in the PBL component of the course when I can:
|
The survey questions were developed to address each of the specific learning styles. In addition, the data retrieved from the surveys could be cross-referenced to each student’s learning style through assigned identification numbers. The surveys were conducted and compiled by the survey administrator who was unfamiliar with this first year class. Having completed two PBL problems in the first semester, the survey was first administered in early January of 2001 (Survey 1) since we felt at that time the students would have ample knowledge of and experience with PBL to complete the survey.
Statistical Analysis
Differences between the score in Survey 1 compared to Survey 2 in each group were determined by a student t-test (Instat 2, Graphpad Inc., San Diego, CA). Critical differences were assessed by Neuman-Keuls post-hoc tests. Differences were considered significant if P was < 0.05.
RESULTS
Learning Styles Inventory
Of the 116 students that were involved in this study, the largest group in terms of learning style was the Accommodators at 36.2 percent. The remaining students were evenly divided among the other three learning styles (19.8 percent Assimilators, 22.4 percent Convergers, and 21.6 percent Divergers).
Student PBL Survey
Table III reports the analyzed data from Questions 1 and 2a-d of the student PBL surveys. Question 1 asked the students to reflect on the ‘value’ of the PBL component in their pharmacy program. As Table III shows, all groups indicated, in both Surveys 1 and 2, that the PBL component to their program is valuable to their pharmacy education. The Convergers felt strongest about the value of PBL in the first survey, while the Assimilators ranked this highest in Survey 2. In addition, with the exception of the Divergers, all other groups rated the value of PBL higher in Survey 2, with the Assimilators showing the greatest increase once they had experienced PBL over the entire academic year.
Table III.
First-year pharmacy class (2000–2001) learning styles inventory survey before (Survey 1) and after (Survey 2) problem-based learning sessionsa
| Group | Q 1 | Q 2a | Q 2b | Q 2c | Q 2d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (n=116) | |||||
| Survey 1a | 3.93 ± 0.17 | 3.93 ± 0.17 | 4.11 ± 0.14 | 3.98 ± 0.18 | 3.32 ± 0.22 |
| Survey 2a | 4.11 ± 0.14 | 4.12 ± 0.18 | 4.13 ± 0.18 | 4.06 ± 0.16 | 3.75 ± 0.20* |
| Net Change | + 0.18 | + 0.19 | + 0.02 | + 0.08 | + 0.43 |
| Accommodators (n=42) | |||||
| Survey 1a | 3.91 ± 0.14 | 3.72 ± 0.15 | 4.09 ± 0.13 | 4.14 ± 0.12 | 3.14 ± 0.23 |
| Survey 2a | 3.96 ± 0.12 | 3.86 ± 0.13 | 4.00 ± 0.14 | 3.86 ± 0.14* | 3.49 ± 0.19 |
| Net Change | + 0.05 | + 0.14 | − 0.09 | − 0.28 | + 0.35 |
| Assimilators (n=23) | |||||
| Survey 1a | 4.03 ± 0.16 | 4.21 ± 0.18 | 4.13 ± 0.18 | 4.00 ± 0.22 | 3.40 ± 0.22 |
| Survey 2a | 4.33 ± 0.16* | 4.19 ± 0.15 | 4.00 ± 0.23 | 4.33 ± 0.17 | 3.88 ± 0.20* |
| Net Change | + 0.30 | − 0.02 | − 0.13 | + 0.33 | + 0.48 |
| Convergers (n=26) | |||||
| Survey 1a | 4.17 ± 0.15 | 3.87 ± 0.18 | 4.17 ± 0.12 | 4.09 ± 0.19 | 3.35 ± 0.23 |
| Survey 2a | 4.25 ± 0.11 | 3.92 ± 0.22 | 4.42 ± 0.13* | 4.13 ± 0.18 | 3.90 ± 0.13* |
| Net Change | + 0.08 | + 0.05 | + 0.25 | + 0.04 | + 0.55 |
| Divergers (n=25) | |||||
| Survey 1a | 3.83 ± 0.20 | 4.15 ± 0.17 | 4.10 ± 0.14 | 3.90 ± 0.19 | 3.50 ± 0.21 |
| Survey 2a | 3.60 ± 0.18 | 4.20 ± 0.22 | 3.75 ± 0.20* | 3.58 ± 0.16 | 3.53 ± 0.27 |
| Net Change | − 0.23 | + 0.05 | −0.35 | − 0.32 | + 0.03 |
Data presented as mean +/− standard error of the mean.
P<0.05 vs. Survey 1.
Parts a) to d) of Question 2 in the survey (see Table II) were concerned with the various activities associated with the PBL tutorials. Table III reports data from Question 2a for both the first and second administration of the survey, which asked the students to reflect on their preference for ‘independently researching the Learning Issues.’ Again, all groups felt favourable toward this activity, as indicated by ratings of greater than 3.70 in both Surveys 1 and 2. The Assimilators felt strongest about independent research in the first survey, while the Divergers rated this highest in the second administration of the survey. Only the Assimilators’ preference for independent research of the learning issues dropped from Survey 1 to 2, all other groups revealed a positive net change.
Question 2b of the surveys asked the students to indicate their preference for “expressing their understanding of concepts in group discussions.” Again, this activity ranked high among all groups (all mean scores are greater than 4.00 for the first survey, and greater than 3.70 for Survey 2), where the Convergers rated this highest in Survey 1 and again in Survey 2. In addition, only the Convergers had a significant increase in their preference for self-expression during group discussions in the second survey. However, the Divergers had a significant decrease in their preference for this activity.
Question 2c asked for the students’ preference for listening to other group members during the tutorials, then formulating their own understanding of concepts. The Accommodators indicated the strongest preference for this activity in the first survey, and the Assimilators expressed the strongest preference in Survey 2. The Assimilators expressed the greatest increase in their preference for this activity between Surveys 1 and 2. However, while both the Accommodators and the Divergers showed a decrease in their preference for this activity in the second survey, this decrease was significant only for the Accommodators.
Finally, Question 2d asked for the students’ preference for writing up the group solution(s) in a final report. While all groups rated this activity associated with the PBL tutorials the lowest of all PBL activities, each group rating was still above 3.10 for both surveys. The Divergers expressed the greatest preference for this activity in the first survey, and the Convergers expressed the greatest preference in Survey 2. It should also be noted that this is the only PBL activity that received a positive increase in preference from Survey 1 to 2 for all groups. Furthermore, the “All”, the Assimilator and Converger groups showed a significant increase in this activity.
DISCUSSION
We surveyed first-year pharmacy students in a two-semester first-year undergraduate course in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, which deals with drug delivery and compounding issues related to tablets, solutions, suspensions and emulsions. As reported in Table III it appears by the end of the second semester that the Assimilators felt strongest that the PBL component of the first-year pharmacy course is a “valuable” part of their pharmacy program. This is not only evident by their largest overall mean score reported in Question 1, but it is confirmed by the greatest positive net change between surveys. This can be explained by the fact that Assimilators like logical explanations, abstract ideas and concepts, and prefer learning activities that include case studies, papers and analogies - aspects associated with learning through PBL. It should be noted that while the Assimilators generally report a preference for all of the activities that students engage in during the PBL tutorials, there was a negative change reported between Survey 1 and 2 for Question 2b. This is not unexpected for learners that process reflectively, and that are in general reluctant to express their untested understanding of concepts with their group. The survey data for Question 2c supports this interpretation as it reveals the strong preference Assimilators gave to ‘listening to others, then formulating their own understanding of the concepts.
The Divergers, however, had the least preference for the PBL component of this course. Not only did the Divergers have the lowest mean scores, but a negative trend or net change between the two surveys is reported for Question 1 (Table III). Divergers perceive concretely and process information or knowledge reflectively and their preferred learning activities include such activities as logs, journals, brainstorming. We found it somewhat surprising, therefore, that the self-directed learning and group brainstorming associated with PBL generally did not appeal to the Divergers. Furthermore, the negative trend in their rating of the importance of PBL within this course suggests that they are not as comfortable about getting information by this teaching method. This is supported by the relatively high rating the Divergers gave to ‘independently researching the Learning Issues’ (Question 2a), arguably the one PBL activity with the greatest overlap with activities associated with traditional approaches to learning (i.e. lectures). Additional evidence for the dissatisfaction that Divergers expressed toward the PBL approach is supported by the survey data for Question 2b. This data reports that the Divergers did not prefer to express their understanding of concepts during group discussions. Being reflective observers, one might interpret this to mean that Divergers simply prefer more time than the PBL process allows to reflect on and internalize knowledge. Divergers want information that is presented in a detailed, systematic, reasoned manner. This type of learner benefits from a ready reference guide, which reinforces the lecture, and a set of exercises. Furthermore, the idea of listening to other group members to provide information (during the PBL tutorials), then having to formulate their own understanding of concepts does not appeal to the Divergers to the extend it does other learning styles.
Contrary to the Divergers, Convergers indicated strong preferences for most of the activities associated with the PBL approach. These results are consistent with learners that are motivated to discover the relevancy of a situation, and are most suited to instructional methods that are interactive rather than passive.
The Accomodators have a significant decrease in their mean score for Question 2c between Surveys 1 and 2, which asks whether they learn best when they listen to others then formulate their own understanding of the concepts. Based upon the Accomodators learning style preferences, it is not surprising that they would have a decrease in their mean score for this activity. Accommodators perceive concretely and process actively, and their strengths lie in doing things and involving themselves in new experiences.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
There are several limitations of this study. First, it would have been more appropriate to use anchors in the student PBL surveys for the Likert scale (from 1–5) that read “strongly disagree to strongly agree” rather than “poor to excellent” because they would better fit the questions asked and be less restrictive. Second, items in Question 2 are not mutually exclusive, and as such, a student could have rated all items equally. Another way to analyze the data would have been to compare Learning Styles Inventory and responses to Question 2 for each individual student. Third, the Kolb’s Learning style categories have overlaps, and therefore the characteristics that define the learning styles themselves are not mutually exclusive and may lead to different interpretation of the results.
CONCLUSIONS
This study reveals that of the four learning styles Divergers indicated the lowest preference overall for the activities associated with the PBL program in the first-year pharmacy curriculum at the University of British Columbia. In general, the Convergers showed strong preferences for these activities. While the Convergers and Divergers indicated opposing preferences overall for the activities associated with the PBL program, overall the Assimilators and Accommodators indicated positive responses to the PBL activities. Future efforts will be directed towards linking individual students’ learning preferences to their academic success as measured by grades.
References
- 1.Wallace C, Franson KL. Incorporation of ability-based outcome education into pharmacotherapeutics using an expanded soap format. Am J Pharm Educ. 1996;60:87–93. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Adamcik B, Hurley S, Erramouspe J. Assessment of pharmacy students critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. ibid. 1996;60:256–265. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Harris MF, Harrold MW, Giudici RA, Boni RL, Wu WC, Bricker JD, Avila JR. Development and implementation of critical thinking assignments throughout a pharmacy curriculum. ibid. 1997;61:1–11. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Alsharif NZ, Theesen KA, Roche VF. Structurally-based therapeutic evaluation - A therapeutic and practical approach to teaching medicinal chemistry. ibid. 1997;61:55–60. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Austin Z, Boyd C. Development of a sequenced strategic thinking assignment syllabus for a senior-level professional practice course. ibid. 1998;62:392–397. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Monk-Tutor MR. Development of a problem-based learning course in human resources management. ibid. 2001;65:64–73. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Borrego ME, Rhyne R, Hansbarger LC, Geller Z, Edwards P, Griffin B, McClain L, Scaletti JV. Pharmacy student participation in rural interdisciplinary education using problem based learning (PBL) case tutorials. ibid. 2000;64:355–363. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Haworth IS, Eriksen SP, Chmait SH, Matsuda LS, McMillan PA, King EA, Letourneau-Wagner J, Shapiro K. A problem based learning case study approach to pharmaceutics: Faculty and student perspectives. ibid. 1998;62:398–405. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Culbertson VL, Kale M, Jarvi EJ. Problem-based learning. A tutorial model incorporating pharmaceutical diagnosis. ibid. 1997;61:18–26. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Sibbald D. Bridging the gap from classroom to practice: PBL students develop consumer website for nonprescription drugs. ibid. 2000;64:339–348. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Shih YCT, Kauf TL, Biddle AK, Simpson KN. Incorporating problem-based learning concepts into a lecture-based pharmacoeconomics course. ibid. 1999;63:152–159. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Abate MA, Meyer-Stout PJ, Stamatakis MK, Gannett PM, Dunsworth TS, Nardi AH. Development and evaluation of computerized problem-based learning cases emphasizing basic sciences concepts. ibid. 2000;64:74–82. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Students’ perceptions about their courses in problem-based-learning and conventional curricula. Acad Med. 1996;71:s52–s54. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199601000-00042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kolb DA. Learning Style Inventory: Self-Scoring Inventory and Interpretation Booklet. McBer and Co; Boston MA: 1985. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kolb DA. Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall; Englewood Cliffs NJ: 1984. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Litzinger ME, Osif B. Accommodating diverse learning styles: Designing instruction for electronic information sources. In: Shirato L, editor. What is Good Instruction Now? Library Instruction for the 90s. Pierian Press; Ann Arbor MI: 1992. pp. 73–81. [Google Scholar]