Home⇛PAARL Research Journal⇛vol. 11 no. 1 (2025)

From Research Made Easy to TALASIK: A Mixed-Methods Assessment of the UP Diliman Main Library Instruction Program

Chloe Maeve L Domingo | Nicole R Zulueta

Discipline: library and information science

 

Abstract:

The educational landscape experienced shifts during the pandemic and the new normal from face-to-face towards online and hybrid modes of delivery. Libraries consequently sought to enhance their collections and services in response to the changing needs of library users. In the case of the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman Main Library’s instruction program, the Research Made Easy @ Your Library (RME) has been revamped to ‘TALASIK’ in the Academic Year 2024-2025 following the directive from the library administration. The program was redesigned based on the feedback from students in recent years. The purpose of this study is to assess perceptions of faculty and students on the enhanced library instruction program (TALASIK) compared to the previous program (RME). A case study mixed methods research (CS-MMR) design was used to assess the first implementation of TALASIK (AY 2024-2025) in comparison with the last iteration of RME (AY 2023-2024). Quantitative method was used to analyze data from student feedback gathered from the evaluation forms, which contain the same Likert scale questions about the usefulness and organization of RME and TALASIK. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, and an independent samples t-test was utilized to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between the two groups' ratings. Meanwhile, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six instructors who were selected through purposive sampling. Faculty participants should have requested both RME and TALASIK during the period covered and personally attended both programs. Interview transcripts were manually coded, and emerging themes were subsequently identified. Analysis was constrained using pre-existing survey data, which only assessed aspects of the programs in exactly the same manner. The number of respondents relied on faculty responsiveness and whether they met the criteria of having attended both programs to adequately provide their feedback. Results of the study revealed that students rated TALASIK similarly to RME in terms of usefulness but higher in terms of flow and organization. The instructors shared their insights regarding the library instruction sessions on the following themes: (1) perspectives on student experience, (2) perspectives on program content, (3) perspectives on faculty experience, and (4) perspectives on program limitations. All faculty members noted that the customizability of TALASIK is a major improvement they all appreciated because it allows them to choose tools or databases to be given the spotlight during the demonstration portion. The findings of this study may be used to further develop the UP Diliman Main Library's instruction program. This contributes to the field by providing valuable insights for other academic libraries that are looking into providing customized library instruction services. While literature argues against the use of one-shot library instruction sessions, various constraints make it difficult to do otherwise. Thus, this study sparks the discussion on how libraries can make the most out of the one-shot session within their institutional context and while ensuring its relevance for the class.



References:

  1. Abrigo, D. E., Eclevia, M. R., Samson, K. B. & Viray, M. A. (2023). Teaching information literacy during the pandemic: Current practice and challenges. PAARL Research Journal, 9(1 - Special Anniversary Issue), 31–44. https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=20038
  2. Adebayo, O. A., Oguntoye, F. B., Yusuf, T. I., & Jimoh, J. O. (2023). Library orientation as a predictor of library use among freshers in two selected academic libraries in Kwara State, Nigeria. Integrity Journal of Education and Training, 7(2), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.31248/IJET2023.172
  3. Adjei, K. O. K., Frimpong, A. D., M.R., & Dogbe, V. (2021). Library orientation and its impact on students academic journey: A case study of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Law Faculty Library. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal).  https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/6567
  4. Anna, N. E. V., Kiran, K., & Yanti Idaya, A. M. K. (2023). Teaching strategies for library instruction: directions from the literature. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 28(2), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol28no2.4
  5. Arendt, J. & Lotts, M. (2012). What liaisons say about themselves and what faculty say about their liaisons, a U.S. survey. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 12(2), 155–177. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2012.0015
  6. Barba, J. F. (2021). Gamified e-learning platforms as strategy to increase student engagement. Department of Education. https://e-saliksik.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/XI_2021_Barba_Gamified-e-Learning-Platforms-as-Strategy-to-Increase-StudentEngagement.pdf  
  7. Bean, T. M., & Thomas, S. N. (2010). Being like both: library instruction methods that outshine the one-shot. Public Services Quarterly, 6(2–3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/152 28959.2010.497746
  8. Becker, J. K., Simmons, S. B., Back, A. & Reyes, B. M. (2022). Incentivizing information literacy integration: A case study on faculty–librarian collaboration. Communications in Information Literacy, 16(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2022.16.2.5
  9. Benselin, J. C. & Ragsdell, G. (2016). Information overload: The differences that age makes. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(3), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614566341
  10. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13). https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
  11. Blackwell-Starnes, K. (2016). Preliminary paths to information literacy: Introducing research in core courses. In B. J. D’Angelo, S. Jamieson, B. Maid & J. R. Walker (Eds.). Information literacy: Research and collaboration across disciplines (pp. 139–161). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/ PER-B.2016.0834 
  12. Borrelli, S., Johnson, C. M. & Cummings, L. A. (2010). The ILE Project: A scalable option for customized information literacy instruction and assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 3(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2010.3.2.76
  13. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 56
  14. Brooks, A. (2013). Maximizing one-shot impact: Using pre-test responses in the information literacy classroom. The Southeastern Librarian, 61(1), 41–43. https://doi.org/10.62915/0038-3686.1461
  15. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Byerly, G., Downey, A., & Ramin, L. (2006). Footholds and foundations: setting freshmen on the path to lifelong learning. Reference Services Review, 34(4), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320610716477
  16. Bury, S. (2016). Learning from faculty voices on information literacy: Opportunities and challenges for undergraduate information literacy education. Reference Services Review, 44(3), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-11-2015-0047
  17. Chohda, N. & Kumar, S. (2025). Assessing literacy levels of Google generation users on information resources of the library in relation to demographic characteristics. Information Discovery and Delivery. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-09-2023-0106
  18. Cibaroğlu, M. O. & Yalçinkaya, B. (2022, May 26–28). Hybrid libraries in the pandemic [Conference Paper]. The International Symposium of Information and Records Management from Tradition to the Future, Bartin, Turkey. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/364224383_Hybrid_Libraries_in_the_Pandemic
  19. Cohen, M. E., Poggiali, J., Lehner-Quam, A., Wright, R., & West, R. K. ( 2016). Flipping the classroom in business and education one-shot sessions: A research study. Journal of Information Literacy, 10(2), 40-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/10.2.2127
  20. Commission on Higher Education. (2005). CHED Memorandum  Order  No.  04,  series  of  2023. https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/CMO-No.-4-s.-2023.pdf
  21. Cook, L., & Kamalodeen, V. (2023). Intersection of mixed methods and case study research (MM+CSR): Two design options in educational research. In C. N. Poth (Ed.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods research design (pp. 267–277). Sage Publications Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529614572.n27
  22. Cope, J. & Sanabria, J. E. (2014). Do we speak the same language? A study of faculty perceptions of information literacy. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(4), 475–502. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/si_pubs/5/
  23. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  24. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  25. DaCosta, J. W. (2010). Is there an information literacy skills gap to be bridged? An examination of faculty perceptions and activities relating to information literacy in the United States and England. College and Research Libraries, 71(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.5860/0710203
  26. Dawes, L. (2017). Faculty perceptions of teaching information literacy to first-year students: A phenomenographic study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(2), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617726129 (Original work published 2019)
  27. Dobreva, M. & Anghelescu, H. (2022). Libraries and COVID-19: Opportunities for innovation. IFLA Journal, 48(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352221077748
  28. Dotson, D. S. & Diaz, K. R. (2008). Discipline-specific library instruction for millennial students. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 563–573, https://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no4/dotson_1208.pdf
  29. Dubicki, E. (2013). Faculty perceptions of students’ information literacy skills competencies. Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.11645/7.2.1852
  30. Grafstein, A. (2002). A discipline-based approach to information literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00991333(02)00283-5
  31. Esposo-Betan, S. M. & Fresnido, A. M. (2022). COVID-19 and Philippine academic libraries. International Journal of Librarianship, 7(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2022. vol7.1.215
  32. Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2012). What’s skill got to do with it?: Information literacy skills and self-views of ability among first-year college students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21681
  33. Hansen, J. I. (2022). As you like it: Building, executing, and assessing an adaptable library instruction program for first-year experience courses. Communications in Information Literacy, 16(2), 182–203. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2022.16.2.6
  34. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teachingand-online-learning
  35. Humairoh, M., & Hakiki, N. (2022). Junior high school students’ engagement in gamified learning experiences through Quizizz. CLLiENT (Culture, Literature, Linguistics, and English Teaching), 4(1), 17-40. https://ojs.unsiq.ac.id/index.php/cllient/article/view/3389
  36. Ibacache, K., Rybin Koob, A. & Vance, E. (2021). Emergency remote library instruction and tech tools: A matter of equity during a pandemic. Information Technology and Libraries, 40(2). https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i2.12751
  37. Junisbai, B., Lowe, M. S. & Tagge, N. (2016). A pragmatic and flexible approach to information literacy: Findings from a three-year study of faculty-librarian collaboration. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(5), 604–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. acalib.2016.07.001
  38. Katz, A. & Godfrey, J. (2021). Using decision-based learning to teach source evaluation in oneshot library sessions. In N. Wentworth, K. J. Plummer, & R. H. Swan (Eds.). Decisionbased learning: An innovative pedagogy that unpacks expert knowledge for the novice learner (pp. 117–131). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-180043-202-420211012
  39. Kumar, A. & T. A., Y. (2025). Proposing a conceptual framework for social listening in libraries: A potential game changer to engage Gen Z and centennial users. Open Information Science, 9(1), 20240012. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2024-0012
  40. Lacy, M., & Hamlett, A. (2021). Librarians, step out of the classroom!: How improved facultyled IL instruction improves student learning. Reference Services Review, 49(2), 163175. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-09-2020-0062
  41. Lasig, C. A. (2021). The influence of library orientation on the library utilization of students at Central Luzon State University, Philippines. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/7321
  42. Latham, D., & Gross, M. (2013). Instructional preferences of first-year college students with below-proficient information literacy skills: A focus group study. College & Research Libraries, 74(5), 430-449
  43. Lierman, A., McCandless, B. & Kowalsky, M. (2022). Learning from academic libraries’ pivot to online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 16(2), 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15 33290X.2022.2124342
  44. Maraza-Quispe, B., Traverso-Condori, L., Torres-Gonzales, S., Reyes-Arco, R., Tinco-Túpac, S., Reyes-Villalba, E., & Carpio-Ventura, J. D. (2024). Impact of the use of gamified online tools: A study with Kahoot and Quizizz in the educational context. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 14(1), 132–140. http://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.1.2033
  45. Martzoukou, K. (2020). Academic libraries in COVID-19: A renewed mission for digital literacy. Library Management, 42(4–5), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-092020-0131/FULL/PDF
  46. Mulraine-Campbell, A. & Quintero, S. (2023). Reimagining freshmen library orientation at the forde library, USC. Journal of Adventist Libraries and Archives, 8(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32597/jala/vol8/iss1/1
  47. Nguyen, L. T., & Suthiprapa, K. (2024). Management of library services during the pandemic crisis in university libraries of Thailand and Vietnam. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102850
  48. Norton, C., Armstrong, A., Phares, D. A., Allen, K., Hall, A. & Hayes, T. (2023). “Survive and sustain”: Adaptive and innovative library instruction in the time of COVID-19. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 27(2), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2022.2 163021
  49. Ogbomo, E. F. (2023). Orientation and use of library resources among undergraduates of the Delta State Main Library, Abraka. Library Waves, 9(1), 66–80. https://librarywaves.com/index.php/lw/article/view/142
  50. Omeluzor, S. U., Akibu, A. A., Dika, S. I., & Ukangwa, C. C. (2017). Methods, effect and challenges of library instruction in academic libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2017(1). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1465/
  51. Pagowsky, N. (2021). The contested one-shot: Deconstructing power structures to imagine new futures. College & Research Libraries, 82(3), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.3.300
  52. Peacock, R. (2025). Barriers to online library instruction in academic libraries: A qualitative study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 51(2), 103021. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. ACALIB.2025.103021
  53. Priyadarshani, A. (2023). Library branding: Requirement, implication and importance. International Journal of Research in Library Science, 9(2), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.26761/ijrls.9.2.2023.1674
  54. Sahli, F., Alidousti, S., & Naghshineh, N. (2023). Branding in libraries: Identifying key requirements and dimensions to provide a conceptual model. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 55(1), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211056650
  55. Salubi, O. G., Ondari-Okemwa, E., & Nekhwevha, F. (2018). Utilisation of library information resources among Generation Z students: Facts and fiction. Publications, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020016
  56. Saunders, L. (2012). Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a student learning outcome. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.06.001
  57. Spievak, E. R., & Hayes-Bohanan, P. (2013). Just enough of a good thing: Indications of longterm efficacy in one-shot library instruction. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(6), 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACALIB.2013.08.013
  58. Stone, E. (2022). T test, independent samples. In The SAGE encyclopedia of research design (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1671–1675). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071812082.n622
  59. Subedi, K. R. (2021). Determining the sample in qualitative research. Scholar’s Journal, 4, 1–13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED618228.pdf
  60. Tajik, O., Golzar, J., & Noor, S. (2024). Purposive sampling. International Journal of Education and Language Studies, 2(2), 1–9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391849280_ Purposive_Sampling
  61. Wang, R. (2016). Assessment for one-shot library instruction: A conceptual approach. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(3), 619-648. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0042
  62. York, M., & Clymer, A. (2025). “It’s just like . . . a lot.”: Gen Z, new student orientations, and information overload. College & Research Libraries News, 86(4), 151. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.86.4.151.
  63. Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020). The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Computers and Education, 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103729 60

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic