developing information literacy with first year oral health students

Developing information literacy with first year oral healthstudentsP. J. Ford1, N. Foxlee2 and W. Green3

1 The University of Queensland, School of Dentistry,2 The University of Queensland Libraries,3 Teaching and Educational Development Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia

Introduction

The explosion in information made available by recent advancesin biomedicine and biotechnology has made it impossible forindividuals to keep pace with all aspects. ‘This is a world which isradically unknowable: even though we may make modest gainshere and there, our ignorance expands in all kinds of directions’(1). For oral health students, these rapid advances in biotechnol-ogies mean that in their future practice, they will be required tohave awareness of, evaluate and implement appropriatelytechniques, materials and therapies as they emerge. Recognitionthat students must be equipped by their undergraduate degree tocope with these challenges is enshrined in the Graduate Attri-bute statements published by most Australian universities; for

example, graduates of the School of Dentistry at the University ofQueensland will acquire ‘the ability to engage effectively andappropriately with information and communication technolo-gies’ and ‘the ability to collect, analyse and organise informationand ideas’ (2). The critical learning outcome becomes the abilityto learn when a need is recognised (3). This ability to learn iscritically dependent upon the attainment of information literacy.At the recent Dental Education Global Congress, informationliteracy emerged as one of the key recommendations for the con-tinued relevance of the profession.

Information literacy should be taught so as to ensurestudents know how to access, evaluate and apply newknowledge in the molecular biosciences and technologiesfor the benefit of patients (4).

Keywords

information literacy; oral health students;

embedded approach; assessment.

Correspondence

P. J. Ford

The University of Queensland

School of Dentistry

Brisbane Qld 4000

Australia

Tel: 61 7 33658085

Fax: 61 7 33592173

e-mail: [email protected]

Accepted: 29 August, 2008

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0579.2008.00536.x

Abstract

Context: In this time of rapid expansion of the scientific knowledge base, subjectmatter runs the risk of becoming outdated within a relatively short time. Instead ofadding more content to already crowded curricula, the focus should be on equippingstudents to adapt to their changing world. The ability to access, evaluate and applynew knowledge for the benefit of patients has been acknowledged as an important goalfor dental education. Information literacy is key to achieving this.

Methods: An information literacy programme for first year oral health students wasinstituted. This was integrated within a biosciences course and linked with its assess-ment. Small group instruction reinforced by the use of a tailored online AssignmentGuide was used in the context of a specific task. Effectiveness was measured in termsof assessment outcome, processes used and student experience.

Results: Twenty-seven students participated in the intervention which was effective inenhancing foundation literacy skills and confidence of students in accessing and evalu-ating information sources in the context of a clinical problem. Improvement in higherlevel literacy skills required to articulate this information in the synthesis of a scientificreview was not demonstrated.

Conclusions: Integration of this information literacy programme within the learningactivities and assessment of a basic sciences course resulted in significantly enhancedinformation literacy skills. As this is highly relevant for higher education students ingeneral, the wider promotion of information literacy should be encouraged.

European Journal of Dental Education ISSN 1396-5883

46 Eur J Dent Educ 13 (2009) 46–51 ª 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2009 Blackwell Munksgaard

What is information literacy?

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) hasdeveloped competency standards for information literacy whichhave been widely accepted in higher education (5). Informationtechnology skills, such as the use of software and databases, arerequired; however, information literacy is much more thansimply computer skills. These US standards were reviewed foruse in the Australian higher education context by the Austra-lian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy(ANZIIL) with information literate people defined as ‘thosewho know when they need information, and are then able toidentify, locate, evaluate, organise, and effectively use the infor-mation to address and help resolve personal, job related, orbroader social issues and problems’ (6).

The broadly understood but often ill-defined concept of aca-demic or discipline-based literacy encompasses a range of skillswhich include information literacy, critical thinking and prob-lem solving as well as written and oral communication (7). Assuch literacy may be defined as ‘being able to participate inappropriate ways in the discourse of one’s chosen discipline, toenquire, interpret, hypothesise and challenge – in short tonegotiate meaning’ (8). This definition describes a professionaland it is important to realise that it involves a broader andmore complex set of attributes than the ANZIIL definition ofinformation literacy. The intervention reported here wasdesigned for first year students and addressed the foundationskills of information literacy. A recent report (9) describes asimilar programme of library instruction and practical testingembedded within a first year university science course. Theseauthors found that this approach was successful in its aims ofenhancing students’ information literacy skills and suggestedthat longitudinal studies are required. Our subsequent researchwill involve a curriculum approach to build on these learningoutcomes and to develop progressively higher level literacyskills throughout the programme.

Strategies for promoting informationliteracy

Library skills classes are a commonly used method for thedevelopment of information literacy and Owusu-Ansah (10)argues for a separate course that ensures every undergraduate isprovided information literacy instruction. He sees librarians asbest suited to teach information literacy and predicts that theacademic library will evolve into a distinct and formal teachingdepartment. Many such as Elmborg (11) and Maybee (12)however support an integrated approach. Galvin (13) pointsout that what librarians sometimes overlook is that informationliteracy encompasses skills and concepts which are ‘learned overtime, both in and outside the library’. She maintains that activelearning experiences are needed in addition to any classroominstruction.

The first year of university study is the critical time toengage students with their learning community and to providethe framework and resources for the acquisition of academicskills, including information literacy, necessary for their successas undergraduates and beyond (14, 15). In the first year of the

Oral Health Program, students are introduced to student-cen-tred learning environments, where learning activities developproblem solving skills, facilitate deep learning providing thebasis for clinical reasoning in dental practice (16). First yearstudents are also required to produce written reports whichcritically analyse currently available information. Informationliteracy learning activities should therefore be initiated in thefirst university year.

The aim of the educational intervention reported here was tofoster information literacy for students in a first year course inthe Bachelor of Oral Health Program at the University ofQueensland. The intervention consisted of the following learn-ing activities and assessment tasks embedded within a first yearbiosciences course for oral health students.1. Baseline formative information literacy practical test

(immediately prior to InfoSkills Day, week 1)2. Information literacy workshop including a questionnaire

and followed by a second formative practical test (Info-Skills Day, week 1)

3. Assignment (literature review on an aspect of the course)with information use record and reflective essay (week 6)

4. Summative practical test (week 6)This embedded approach was used as the literature supports

the integration of information literacy within the curriculumand the use of relevant and active learning experiences. Theeffectiveness of this intervention was measured in terms ofassessment outcomes and student experience.

The guiding question was – does the intervention enhanceinformation literacy? Specifically, does the intervention improvethe process of finding suitable information sources; does theintervention improve the end product, which is the writtenreport; and does the intervention improve the student experi-ence and confidence in accessing information and producing areport?

Methods

Participants

All 27 students enrolled in a compulsory basic sciences coursein the first year of the Oral Health Program at The Universityof Queensland experienced the intervention. The students weremostly young female school leavers with English as their firstlanguage. All students regularly used computers and the Inter-net with a large proportion reporting very frequent use. Datawere also collected from 22 second year students and 19 thirdyear students in this program. All student year groups hadreceived annual library skills workshops previously, althoughthese were not embedded within courses and were thereforedecontextualised experiences. This project was approved by theinstitutional human ethics review committee and informedconsent was received from all participants.

Strategy

The intervention consisted of a number of learning activitiesand assessment tasks which took place during the first 6 weeksof semester 2 in a first year biosciences course.

Ford et al. Information literacy of oral health students

Eur J Dent Educ 13 (2009) 46–51 ª 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2009 Blackwell Munksgaard 47

InfoSkills Day

Students first completed a practical test which functioned asa baseline measure of their information literacy skills. Aclinical problem (Appendix S1) was given and students wereasked to find three appropriate information sources whichwould be of likely benefit in solving the problem. Noguidance or assistance was offered. Student responses wereassessed using predetermined criteria (Appendix S1); however,these marks did not count towards their final grades. Aquestionnaire was then administered which providedadditional data on students’ information literacy anddemographics prior to the intervention (Appendix S2). AnInfoSkills workshop followed. This workshop was conductedby the librarian in small groups with each studenthaving access to a computer. The students were shown thefollowing and then given the opportunity to practise forthemselves.1. How to search the library catalogue2. How to search a database (Ovid Medline)3. How to find and evaluate Internet resources

Immediately following the workshop, a web-based Assign-ment Guide (Appendix S3) was explained. This was tailoredto a specific assessment task and provided some initialresources and hints to get the students started with theirinformation search. Responses from a practical test givenimmediately after the workshop allowed direct comparisonwith the pre-test and therefore gave a measure of the effect ofthe InfoSkills session in enhancing information literacy skills.In order to obtain data on the students’ experience of Info-Skills Day, they were given the opportunity to provide anony-mous written feedback.

Assignment and information use record

Students were required to write a scientific review of a giventopic. Using a template located on the Assignment Guide, stu-dents were also required to record strategies and resourcesused. The template included a space for the students to write ashort reflective essay on their use of information resources. Asreflection is a ‘process by which learners connect theory andpractice’ (17), this activity was designed to ask the studentswhat information literacy meant for them and what issuesremained unresolved. This was intended to guide the studentsto conceptualise information use in more complex ways asencouraged by Maybee (12). These reflections were examinedas a measure of the impact of the intervention on the studentexperience.

Information literacy practical test

Following assignment submission, students were given a finalinformation literacy practical test. This time, the task wasassessed and the marks contributed to the final grade for thecourse. The questionnaire was administered again at this ses-sion. In order to compare information literacy skills of this stu-dent cohort with other students in the same programme,current second and third year students were invited to partici-pate in this practical test.

Statistical analysis

Practical test results for the first year students were comparedacross different time points – before the workshop, after theworkshop and after completion of the assignment. The resultsfor first year students at this last time point were then com-pared with the results achieved by second and third year stu-dents who had not taken part in the information literacyintervention. The use of data from both the second and thirdyear cohorts enabled a cross-sectional evaluation of currentinformation literacy of the entire Oral Health Program. Meanscores for the practical tests were calculated and pairs of groupswere tested for significance using the Student’s t-test. Data werepaired for analysis of results for the first year students at differ-ent time points. The proportion of students successfully com-pleting the practical test was compared across time pointsfor the first year students using McNemar’s test for matchedsamples, and across year groups using the chi-squared test.

Results

Practical tests

The students experiencing the intervention showed a significantincrease (from 1.07 to 2.12) (P < 0.0005) in mean practical testscores immediately after the InfoSkills session. Scores increasedsomewhat after the assignment had been completed (from 2.12to 2.28), however this was not significant (Fig. 1). Studentswho had not experienced the intervention (second year stu-dents 1.45; third year students 1.95) scored lower than thosestudents who had (first year students 2.28) and for second yearstudents this difference reached statistical significance(P < 0.007) (Fig. 2).

The data were also analysed to examine the percentage ofstudents who had successfully completed the task, that is hadfound three relevant information sources. The percentage ofstudents achieving this outcome dramatically increased after theInfoSkills session, from 4% (1/27) to 37% (10/27) (P < 0.01).There was a further increase to 48% (13/27) after assignmentcompletion (Fig. 3). Surprisingly, given the additional experi-ence of the third year students, the percentage of students

* P < 0.0005

Prac test scores

0

0.5

Sco

re

1

1.5

2

2.5

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

*

*

Fig. 1. Mean practical test scores for first year students. Test 1 was per-

formed immediately before and Test 2 was performed immediately after

the InfoSkills session. Test 3 was performed 4 weeks later, following the

submission of the written report task. *P < 0.0005.

Information literacy of oral health students Ford et al.


successfully completing the task (32%; 6/19) was lower than forthe first years. The second year student group had the lowestnumber of students who were able to successfully complete thetask (18%; 4/22) and this was significantly lower than for thefirst years (P < 0.05) (Fig. 4).

Comments by first year students after their InfoSkills work-shop were overwhelmingly positive and demonstrated a high

level of student satisfaction and a student perception of learn-ing; for example ‘…actually found 3 articles! Better use ofkeywords, now know how to search…’.

Questionnaire

The initial questions provided demographic and computer useinformation about the students. The remaining questionsallowed a score each for ‘Catalogue Searching Skills’, ‘DatabaseSearch Strategies’ and ‘Plagiarism Awareness’ before and afterthe intervention. Scores in each of the categories of informationskills increased after the intervention. The per cent of correctresponses increased from 77% to 83% for catalogue searchingskills, from 56% to 69% for database search strategies and from81% to 89% for plagiarism awareness.

Assignment

Assessment task outcomes were analysed using comparison ofsemester 1 assignments with those submitted by the same stu-dents in semester 2. The use of criterion referenced assessmentwas used to facilitate standardisation of the assessment. Despitesignificant enhancement of the performance of the students inthe practical tests following the intervention, this was not mir-rored in the mean assignment marks, which showed only asmall increase in semester 2 (from 74% to 77%).

The reflective essays however indicated marked changes inthe students’ practice and understanding of informationliteracy.

I tackled the assignment firstly by writing my research ques-tions. This is not how I have started my assignments in thepast, so it was a new experience…I must admit, had I nothad to write down my research strategies into a template, Iprobably would not have used these techniques. However,now that I have, I will definitely be using the planningstrategy for all future assignments.

Teacher reflections

Throughout the intervention, the authors recorded their reflec-tions on the progress of the intervention. The positive and pro-ductive experience of the academic/librarian collaboration wasof particular note. The librarian felt that the insight gained intothe effectiveness of the library classes would be valuable ininforming her future teaching. The dramatic increase in confi-dence and skill of students in accessing and evaluating informa-tion sources in the context of a particular clinical problem wasfelt to be an extremely useful learning outcome for clinicalpractice. The need to specifically address academic writing skillswas acknowledged and this will be incorporated into the inter-vention for the next year. A satisfying culmination of the inter-vention for teachers and students alike was the acceptance of astudent manuscript for publication by the regional professionalnewsletter.

Discussion

The impact of the intervention was evaluated on both the ‘pro-cess’, that is the demonstration of information skills and the

Prac test scores by year group

0

Sco

re

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

* P < 0.007

*

*

Fig. 2. Mean practical test scores for the 3 year cohorts. *P < 0.007.

Percentage of students able to find three relevantinformation sources

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

% s

tud

ents

* P < 0.01

*

*

Fig. 3. Percentage of students able to find three relevant information

sources in the practical test for first year students. Test 1 was performed

immediately before and Test 2 was performed immediately after the

InfoSkills session. Test 3 was performed 4 weeks later, following the

submission of the written report task. *P < 0.01.

Percentage of students able to find three relevantinformation sources by year group

0

% s

tud

ents

10

20

30

40

50

60

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

* P < 0.05

*

*

Fig. 4. Percentage of students able to find three relevant information

sources in the practical test for the 3 year cohorts. *P < 0.05.



experience of the students and also the ‘product’, that is thesubmitted work. The use of the practical test for current secondand third year students has provided data to allow comparisonacross three cohorts. The value of the data is that it allowedcomparison of the cohort experiencing the intervention withother cohorts who had not. Obvious limitations are the intrin-sic differences between the groups, different levels of experience –both academic and clinical, and the recency of exposure toinformation skills-learning activities.

The marked differences in performance of the practical testacross year cohorts are particularly surprising as the content ofthe InfoSkills session had been delivered to all year groups onseveral occasions throughout the Program. These workshopscommenced with database searching in year 1 and progressedonto reference managing software in year 2 and evidence-basedoral health in year 3. This content had always been tailoredaround a specific assignment task, however never assessed assuch. The second and third year students would be expected tohave had more opportunity to develop their information skillsand to understand the clinical basis of the given problems morefully, however the differences may be at least partially explainedby the time elapsed since their last formal InfoSkills session. Thisperiod was up to 1 year for the third year students. Lack of reten-tion of these skills however signals a surface approach to learningand/or limited opportunities to put the skills into practice (18).Embedding literacy instruction within a course and its assess-ment provides an immediate reason for using the newly acquiredskills and this approach has been used successfully in otherdisciplines (19) as well as in the current intervention.

It would appear that a related reason for the success of thisintervention was its close alignment to the assessment tasks. Fol-lowing Biggs’ model of constructive alignment, all componentsof the curriculum – learning objectives, learning context, assess-ment tasks and marking criteria – were aligned, so that eachstudent was ‘entrapped’ in a ‘web of consistency’ that optimisedhis/her learning (18). This made the information literacy pro-gramme highly relevant and immediately useful for the students,guiding them towards deeper learning approaches. The natureof the online template for the assignment was critical as it ledthe students through the required steps from formulating theresearch question through to search strategies and reflection onthis process. These results support the assertions of Galvin thata combination of approaches to the learning of information lit-eracy, including active learning experiences, is beneficial to stu-dents (13). Despite the familiarity of today’s students withinformation technologies, they seem ill prepared to make use ofthe vast amount of information available and are attracted tosearch engines such as Google because they believe that will savetime (20). Student comments show that although libraryinstruction can make students aware of scientific databases andsearching techniques, unless they are specifically required to usethem, they remain unconvinced of their usefulness.

Whilst the majority of students learnt to successfully findinformation during the course of this intervention, few wereable to use this information appropriately in their writtenreport. There may be several explanations for this. First, theintervention may have improved the ability of the students toaccess relevant literature, but they lacked the skills to use theseinformation sources effectively in the production of their

report. Therefore information literacy was demonstratedaccording to the narrower ANZIIL definition, but academicwriting skills, as part of a broader concept of literacy as out-lined by Kirkpatrick and Mulligan (8), had not been addressed.Rather predictably then these skills did not improve. Criticalthinking, use of language, structuring and argument have beenput forward as four core criteria for academic writing (21). Thehigher level skills of critical thinking and argument in terms ofa scientific review are highly dependent upon information liter-acy and are often the most difficult learning outcomes toachieve, particularly for students inexperienced in writing (21).Secondly, although formal criteria and standards were used toassess these reports, they may have failed to pick up on thoseparticular aspects of the work which were improved. These cri-teria will now be reviewed and refined using the core criteriadescribed by Elander et al. (21). The provision of well writtencriteria is an important means of communicating the desiredlearning outcomes to students, who are often confused aboutwhat constitutes a good assignment. Finally, there may havebeen some bias in marking the work as the expectations of theteacher may have been higher in semester 2 compared withsemester 1 with most students new to tertiary study.

Defining the attributes and skills of an information literateperson is a difficult task. Rangachari and Rangachari (9) uti-lised an easily understood and therefore helpful interpretationof the ACRL information literacy standards. This consisted ofthe ability to: frame a clear question to be answered; listsources needed to obtain the relevant information; find sourcesif possible; evaluate the credibility of the source; and synthesisethe information available. The use of standards in the absenceof an overarching understanding of information literacy hasbeen cautioned. Elmborg is critical of the attempt to defineinformation literacy through standards and calls on the aca-demic library community to engage in the literacy literature(11). Maybee also addresses the shortfalls in formulaic and tea-cher-centred approaches to information literacy (12). Thisauthor argues that the ‘list of skills’ approach actually limitsthe potential for student learning and suggests that a relationalapproach is needed to integrate information literacy into thecurriculum and that this should focus on guiding learners toconceptualise information use in more complex ways. Maybeedescribes a desired process of change in the student conceptionof information – from one where information is seen as some-thing separate from the user, to one where information ‘is anintegral part of the individual’. Student reflections providevaluable information about such changes. These ideas are sup-ported by Elmborg who argues that learning should be rede-fined as the ‘humanistic process of engaging and solvingsignificant problems in the world’ and information as ‘the rawmaterial students use to solve these problems and to createtheir own understandings and identities’ (11). Although stan-dards could be seen negatively as a ‘recipe’ for literacy, theirarticulation provides a useful framework for implementing andevaluating embedded approaches to information literacy skills.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this information literacy intervention has dem-onstrated significant enhancement of the process students used

Information literacy of oral health students Ford et al.


to access and to some extent evaluate information sources. Ithas also shown that the quality of the experience was greatlyimproved for these students. It did not show a real improve-ment in the quality of the product; however, it is arguablewhether the written report was the best product to evaluate todemonstrate these particular foundation level learning out-comes. This is likely due to the failure to address academicwriting skills as part of the intervention.

In this study, the teacher and librarian worked collabora-tively to produce a programme which integrated the librarywith the course being taught. Whilst such collaborations aredependent upon the views and attitudes of the academic, thereis a requirement to provide students with the skills to be com-petitive in the global workforce. As such, there will be increas-ing pressure from universities to ensure that this occurs. Evans(22) asserts that in higher education ‘integrating teaching,learning and technology is a mandate, not an option, anddoing any less would border on professional irresponsibility’.Although this intervention was carried out in the context of anOral Health Program, it has addressed an issue highly relevantfor all students in the health sciences and perhaps for highereducation students generally.

References

1 Barnett R. Learning for an unknown future. Higher Educ Res Dev

2004: 23: 247–260.

2 University of Queensland. Handbook of university policies &

procedures. 3.20.5 Statement of graduate attributes. 2006. http://

www.uq.edu.au/hupp/index.html?page=25095 [accessed on 9

January 2008].

3 McManus IC. How will medical education change? Lancet 1991:

337: 1519–1521.

4 Ford PJ, Seymour GJ, Beeley J, et al. Adapting to changes in molec-

ular biosciences and technologies. Eur J Dent Educ 2008: 13: 3–10.

5 American Library Association. Information literacy competency

standards for higher education. 2006. http://www.ala.org/acrl/

ilcomstan.html [accessed on 9 April 2007].

6 Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy.

Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework: prin-

ciples, standards and practice, 2nd edn. 2004. http://www.caul.

edu.au/info-literacy/InfoLiteracyFramework.pdf [accessed on 9

January 2008].

7 Green W, Hammer S, Stephens R Locating learning advisors in the

new university: what should be our role? In: Milnes S, Craswell G,

Rao V, Bartlett A, eds. Critiquing and reflecting: LAS profession

and practice: refereed proceedings of the Language and Academic

Skills in Higher Education conference 2005. Canberra: Academic

Skills and Learning Centre, ANU; 2005: 87–98.

8 Kirkpatrick A, Mulligan D. Cultures of learning: critical reading in

the social and applied sciences. Aust Rev Appl Linguist 2002: 25: 74.

9 Rangachari PK, Rangachari U. Information literacy in an inquiry

course for first-year science undergraduates: a simplified 3C

approach. Adv Physiol Educ 2007: 31: 176–179.

10 Owusu-Ansah EK. Information literacy and higher education: plac-

ing the academic library in the center of a comprehensive solution.

J Acad Lib 2004: 30: 3–16.

11 Elmborg J. Critical information literacy: implications for instruc-

tional practice. J Acad Lib 2006: 32: 192–199.

12 Maybee C. Undergraduate perceptions of information use: the basis

for creating user-centered student information literacy instruction.

J Acad Lib 2006: 32: 79–85.

13 Galvin J. Alternative strategies for promoting information literacy.

J Acad Lib 2005: 31: 352–357.

14 Burnett L. The first year experience project report. St Lucia, Qld:

University of Queensland, 2006.

15 Krause K, Hartley R, James R, McInnis C The first year experience

in Australian universities: findings from a decade of national

studies. Centre for Studies in Higher Education (CHSE), University

of Melbourne, 2005. http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/

1B0F1A03-E7BC-4BE4-B45C-735F95BC67CB/5885/FYEFinalReport-

forWebsiteMay06.pdf. [accessed on 29 May 2007].

16 Walsh LJ, Seymour GJ. Dental education in Queensland: II.

Principles of curriculum design. S Afr Dent J 2001: 56: 140–146.

17 Grant A, Berline A, Freeman GK. The impact of a student learning

journal: a two-stage evaluation using the Nominal Group

Technique. Med Teach 2003: 25: 659–668.

18 Biggs J. What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning.

Higher Educ Res Dev 1999: 18: 57–75.

19 Andrews T, Patil R. Information literacy for first-year students: and

embedded curriculum approach. Eur J Eng Educ 2007: 32: 253–259.

20 Breivik PS. 21st Century learning and information literacy. Change

2005: 37: 20–27.

21 Elander J, Harrington K, Norton L, et al. Complex skills and aca-

demic writing: a review of evidence about the types of learning

required to meet core assessment criteria. Assess Eval High Educ

2006: 31: 71–90.

22 Evans R. Student learning outcomes in a cyberspace age. Diverse

Issues High Educ 2007: 24: 85.

Supporting information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the onlineversion of this article:

Appendix S1. Example of an information literacy practicaltest with marking criteria.

Appendix S2. Questionnaire.Appendix S3. Assignment Guide and Information Use

template.Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the con-

tent or functionality of any supporting materials supplied bythe authors. Any queries (other than missing material) shouldbe directed to the corresponding author for the article.



developing information literacy with first year oral health students

Documents