







































 Chang, Lane, & Power 8 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

Research Paper 

 

A Preliminary Investigation Into the Effectiveness of Online Modules for Teaching 

Research and Writing Skills to Multilingual International Post-Secondary Students 

 

Daniel H. Chang 

Simon Fraser University 

 

Julia Lane 

Simon Fraser University 

 

Hope Power 

Simon Fraser University 

 

Abstract 

 

This paper describes a pilot project undertaken in 2019 by library instructors at Simon Fraser 

University (SFU) to transition from in-person to online research and writing skills instruction 

within the context of a foundational course for multilingual international students at Fraser 

International College (FIC), an international pathway school to SFU. Our research and writing 

skills modules were integrated into a course with academic skill-building opportunities to 

support students’ successful transition to English-medium university studies. This article reports 

findings from our mixed-methods study about the effectiveness of these modules. The first 

semester after we transitioned online, we collected response data from course instructors and 

students. Preliminary findings suggest students benefited from the self-paced and flexible nature 

of the online learning experience and resources. Course instructor feedback suggests a blended 

learning approach combining in-person and online components might be more effective for 

developing students’ university-level research and writing skills. Our work on the modules was 

highly collaborative, involving an extraordinary level of commitment from FIC and SFU Library 

staff and instructors. Our findings suggest further collaboration with more specialists, especially 

with expertise in the area of English language learning, would produce more effective online 

resources for multilingual international students developing their research and writing skills. 

 

Introduction 

 

As this paper makes its way to publication in 2023, we are aware that faculty, staff, and students 

in post-secondary institutions have become all too familiar with transitioning in-person programs 

and services online, and then often back again, in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. 

However, this paper describes work undertaken in 2019 at the Simon Fraser University (SFU) 

Library in British Columbia (BC), Canada to transition research and writing skills instruction 

from an in-person model to a fully online model. Whereas the widespread transition to online 

instruction beginning in March 2020 was undertaken as an emergency response intended to help 

slow the spread of COVID-19, our team of library instructors transitioned this aspect of our 

programming online back in 2019 for far more quotidian reasons. Namely, the number of 

requests we were receiving for research and writing skills workshops to support a foundational, 

academic skills program offered at Fraser International College (FIC) was becoming 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 9 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

unmanageable due to our staffing and space constraints. As a result, we needed to work towards 

developing a more strategic, course-integrated and sustainable approach to library instruction in 

this area. 

 

Background 

 

SFU is a public research university located in BC with over 30,000 students enrolled in 

undergraduate and graduate programs. FIC is located on the Burnaby campus of SFU, and offers 

classes at both the Burnaby and Surrey campuses. FIC is an academic pathway college for 

international students in BC, many of whom are also multilingual and English as an Additional 

Language (EAL) learners. Students from all over the world are admitted into FIC with a 

combined letter of offer from SFU, and students who successfully complete one year at FIC may 

directly transfer into the second year at SFU. FIC’s program is specifically designed to support 

international students with the transition to studying in a Canadian post-secondary environment, 

including supporting multilingual students who are actively engaged with EAL learning as a part 

of their transition to Canadian post-secondary studies. The FIC Cornerstone course provides 

students with foundational, skill-building opportunities as they begin post-secondary studies in 

Canada. This course also includes a particular focus on EAL learning. 

 

 SFU Library has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with FIC that affords FIC 

students with access to library resources, including some research and writing support services. 

As a part of this MOU, FIC instructors are encouraged to coordinate with library instructors 

(including instructors from the Student Learning Commons, which houses SFU’s equivalent to a 

writing centre) to support their students’ research and writing skills development. In 2018, 

library instructors offered 40 in-class research and writing skills development workshops to 

approximately 900 FIC students. At that stage, the three-year trend also indicated that the 

number of FIC Cornerstone course sections would likely continue to increase in future (although, 

it is worth noting that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted this trend). Scheduling 

these workshops was complex as it involved ensuring that all of the following were available 

during the requested class time:  

 

• the library’s one instructional computer lab that was large enough for the classes; 

• an instructor from the library’s Learning and Instruction (L&I) division;  

• an instructor from the library’s Student Learning Commons division.  

 

 In addition to being concerned about the sustainability of offering these in-class 

workshops from an administrative perspective, we also had pedagogical concerns. These 

workshops were scheduled as two back-to-back, one-hour sessions: a research focused session 

followed by a writing focused session. These back-to-back sessions were content heavy. As a 

result, library instructors often felt time pressures when covering the workshop content and 

activities. The intensive pace of these research and writing skills development sessions also 

seemed pedagogically unsupportive for multilingual students who were actively engaged in 

English language learning.  

 

 The integration of these research and writing skills development workshops into the FIC 

Cornerstone course fits within an approach to instruction that is known across the library 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 10 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

profession as “one-shot” instruction. In September 2022, the College and Research Libraries 

Journal (C&RL) published a special issue focused on one-shot instruction. According to Cook’s 

(2022) meta-analytic study on the effectiveness of library one-shot instruction published in that 

issue, this is “the most pervasive method of providing information literacy instruction” in 

academic libraries (p.739). Cook further explained that “the category of the ‘one-shot’ includes a 

diverse range of pedagogical approaches, goals, and outcome measures, all bound together by the 

common qualities of being a single standalone, time-limited (often 45- or 60-minute, though may 

be as short as 15 minutes) session” (p.740). In the introduction to the C&RL special issue on 

one-shot instruction, Pagowsky (2022) wrote,  

 

I am not claiming that one-shots are entirely problematic all of the time. However, this 

deep-seated, and perhaps innate at this point, instruction model does need to be 

problematized for us to even have the option to break free. We can do this through the 

lens of critique as care, meaning we critique because we care and hope for better. (p.714) 

 

 As part of the critique as care offered in that special issue, Cook’s (2022) meta-analysis 

on the effectiveness of one-shot instruction suggested “that one-shots that are targeted at specific 

skills to be measured on a test are more likely to have an effect than those that ask students to 

perform authentic tasks” (p.746). Relevant to the content of our instructional support, LeMire et 

al. (2023) argued that “separating library instruction from the teaching of writing skills creates 

the perception of a false division between library research and writing, as though they are 

discrete processes. Research and writing, however, are intertwined and recursive; they are 

inherently linked” (p. 293). Our instruction in the FIC Cornerstone course was intended to 

support students to complete their final course assessment, which was to write a compare-and-

contrast essay drawing on sources they found through library research—an authentic task goal. 

Furthermore, we were attempting to support the students with both their research and writing 

tasks for the assignment, and to avoid reinforcing a false divide between these skills. We were 

therefore motivated to take a different approach to our library instruction for this course because 

of the intersection between increasing demand and concern about the effectiveness of our 

instruction to genuinely support students with their research and writing tasks. As we wrote in 

our initial funding proposal to support the project:  

 

It is difficult to staff, schedule, and book rooms for all requested classes. Instructors are 

challenged to fit all requested content into the available course sessions and times. 

Students experience information overload and struggle to find time to reflect on or 

practice strategies covered in the classroom. (Goldrick-Jones et al., 2018, p.1) 

 

 As a result of these intersecting concerns, in 2018 we secured financial support from 

SFU’s administration to develop a series of online, interconnected research and writing skills 

modules (hereinafter, “the modules”) for FIC Cornerstone within Canvas, SFU’s Learning 

Management System (LMS).  

 

Project Overview 

 

We hired a Graduate Writing Facilitator and a Reference Librarian to support us with the work of 

developing these modules, which were focused on introducing and elaborating on the content 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 11 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

from our past in-class research and writing workshop presentations. In developing these 

modules, we worked closely together to ensure we were taking a coordinated and integrated 

approach to teaching these skills and concepts so that we could effectively present research and 

writing skills as “iterative and recursive processes that inform each other” (LeMire et al., 2023, 

p. 307). Another intended benefit for students in transitioning to these online learning modules 

was that they could be used throughout the entire semester of study in their course, and provide 

more accessible, point-of-need learning support in comparison to the one-shot sessions we had 

previously delivered. Through this online and asynchronous approach, students could revisit the 

resources at their own pace as their learning progressed through the course and as they took up 

the work required by their course assignments (Munn & Small, 2017). We intentionally created 

the modules to leverage the strengths of online, asynchronous learning supports. Namely, they 

were designed to encourage students to interact with, reflect on, practice, and repeat research and 

writing exercises at various points in their assignment preparation when developing and applying 

those skills would be most relevant and helpful. Screenshots of the modules are provided below 

to help the readers visualize what we are discussing (see Figures 1–4 below).  

 

 The modules represented a significant departure from the way we had previously 

provided instructional support for FIC Cornerstone. Although SFU and FIC use different 

Learning Management Systems—Canvas at SFU and Moodle at FIC, the modules were built in 

Canvas because this was the platform that we, as library instructors, had direct access to work 

within. In addition to building the modules, we wanted to ensure that the course instructors were 

supported to engage effectively with the modules. We recognized that both the (potentially) 

unfamiliar platform and this change in approach to library instruction would heighten the need 

for course instructor support. Once the content of the modules was complete, we set up an 

instructor-only sandbox course. We also attended an FIC instructor professional development 

day to present the modules and discuss opportunities for integrating them into the existing FIC 

Cornerstone curriculum.  

 

Figure 1 

 

Module Thumbnail in Canvas Dashboard 

 

 
 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 12 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

Figure 2 

 

Overview of all of the Research and Writing Modules 

 

 

 
 

 Work to develop the modules and introduce them to the course instructors took place 

over the spring and summer terms in 2019, and we did an initial pilot of the modules in two 

sections of the FIC Cornerstone course in Fall 2019. We did a full-scale pilot of the modules in 

spring 2020, integrating the modules into all sections of FIC Cornerstone that term. It was during 

this full-scale pilot that we conducted the research that informs this article. Of course, it was also 

during the spring 2020 semester that emergency work from home orders were received by many 

around the world in response to COVID-19. These orders impacted both SFU and FIC, with 

many international students returning to their home countries before the end of the spring 2020 

term. While the modules provided some instructional continuity and stability in the context of 

these emergency orders (since they were already available for remote, asynchronous access), 

these orders undoubtedly impacted our research for this project, including the student response 

rate for our survey. 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 13 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

Figure 3 

 

Content in the Introductory Module 

 

 
 

Figure 4 

 

Content in the Final Combined Research and Writing Module  

 

 
 

Literature Review 

 

The development of information literacy and writing skills is a continuing and iterative process 

that involves a range of abilities and knowledge practices on a spectrum, from basic and practical 

skills to advanced intellectual cognitive functioning (Secker & Coonan, 2011). Library 

instructors can play a vital role in supporting students with building their research and academic 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 14 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

writing skills, and we are grateful when course instructors recognize our expertise in these areas 

and seek to collaborate with us in this area (Chao et al., 2010; Xu & Morris, 2007). 

Collaborations may involve library instructors being “embedded into disciplinary courses where 

they teach multiple one-shots, co-design assignments and assessments, and provide instructors 

with activities and train-the-trainer workshops. These strategies can be effective ways to increase 

information literacy learning beyond the scope of a one-shot” (LeMire et al., 2023, p. 296). In 

this study, our emphasis on the use of learning modules is not intended to replace other kinds of 

innovative and productive collaborations between course and library instructors, but rather to see 

what is possible when we bring these into an online, asynchronous mode.  

 

 Many post-secondary institutions have been exploring the possibilities offered by online 

learning modalities for years. These modalities include both fully asynchronous and blended 

approaches that integrate online and in-person learning components. These online options have 

the potential to increase accessibility, accommodate greater flexibility, and recognize the 

familiarity that many students already have with online search tools and resources. Online 

materials can also be especially useful for students who are studying in a language that they are 

actively engaged in learning. This usefulness is because multilingual students, including those 

who have EAL, may strategically seek out online tools that can help them with translating 

asynchronous course content into another language as they study, and they can also work 

through this content in a self-paced way without the time pressures of in-person learning. In 

these ways, online learning modes can offer a strengths-based approach to developing 

information and academic literacy.  

 

 For the purposes of this paper, we define academic literacy as a set of interconnected 

skills and abilities that students require to be successful in their post-secondary coursework 

(Gunn et al., 2011; Sutton, 2011). These are skills that are not discipline or course-specific, 

though there are also discipline and course-specific academic literacies. Our project focused on 

supporting students to develop their writing and information literacy skills as core competencies 

of academic literacy. Information literacy is an important component of academic literacy, and is 

defined as “the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, 

the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in 

creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning” (Framework for 

Information Literacy, 2015). In practice, information literacy instruction is often focused on 

developing strategies and skills for strategically finding, critically evaluating, and effectively 

using research resources for a range of course assignments.  

 

 To our best knowledge, to date, little study has been conducted on the online delivery of 

information and academic literacy instruction for multilingual international students. We are 

aware that some Canadian scholars have developed a nation-wide survey aiming to measure the 

effectiveness of library information literacy instruction in Canadian higher education (Julien, 

2005). But, as Trescases (2008) wrote, “these studies focused on information literacy instruction 

in general and not on instruction aimed primarily at first-year students” (p. 303), or, in our case, 

multilingual students seeking to transition from an international college into university. Research 

focused on the effectiveness of online academic literacy instruction is an increasingly essential 

area of study since the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the need for adaptable and easily 

accessible ways of learning and seeking academic assistance. Understanding the potentials of 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 15 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

online academic literacy support and instruction delivered to multilingual international students 

can help to shape effective practices for the development of successful online library instruction. 

It is also rare in the existing literature to hear directly from students and classroom instructors 

about the ways they actually use online support modules or about their own assessments of the 

value of such online learning tools. We believe that discussing evidence from students and 

course instructors creates a more complete picture of the effectiveness of online academic 

literacy supports.  

 

The Study 

 

Research Questions and Methods 

 

Our assessment of the modules has focused on the following areas: 

 

1. Students’ perspectives on the value, efficacy, and usefulness of the research and writing 

modules, especially for completing core course requirements.  

2. Instructors’ perspectives on the value, efficacy, and usefulness of the research and writing 

modules, especially for supporting their core curriculum expectations.  

3. Challenges that students and instructors encountered when using the research and writing 

modules, especially compared to the in-person research and writing instruction 

previously offered by the library.  

 

 We received an assessment grant from the SFU Library to support our research into the 

impact of the modules. This assessment grant funded us to hire a research assistant who helped 

us to design and conduct a research process. The core of this process was distributing two 

surveys, one to FIC Cornerstone instructors and the other to students in the course. Both surveys 

were administered using the SFU-supported version of SurveyMonkey. We distributed these 

surveys at the end of the spring 2020 term, after the students had completed their final compare-

and-contrast essay, which the modules were designed to support them to research and write. The 

instructor survey contained several logically connected open-ended questions. The student 

survey contained fifty-one questions including a combination of yes/no, Likert-scale, and open-

ended questions. 

 

 To guide the development of our survey instrument for students, we examined relevant 

research articles about the effectiveness of online library and writing centre instruction. We 

developed the student survey based on Kirkpatrick (1996) and Tham and Werner’s (2005) 

recommendations for survey constructs, such as perception, content learning, and behaviour, 

with some open-ended questions that elicited written feedback at the end of the survey. The 

course instructors were our close partners in the development and delivery of the research and 

writing modules, and so our questions for them targeted: 

 

• how they used the online modules in their classes,  

• the challenges they faced supporting their students to engage with the modules,  

• the merits they thought the online modules had, and  

• their suggestions for future improvement of the modules.  

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 16 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

 Invitations for filling out the survey were sent out to the students enrolled in seven 

Cornerstone classes. We had thirty-five (n=35) student respondents. These students indicated the 

following languages spoken at home: Chinese, Korean, and Portuguese. Six course instructors 

(n=6) responded to the instructor survey. They were all experienced teachers specializing in 

developing multilingual international students’ academic literacy.  

 

Data Analysis 

 

The student survey consisted of 52 items, 36 of which were binary (yes/no) questions pertaining 

to components of the modules. The next nine questions were Likert scale questions in which 

students were asked to select their level of agreement with statements reflecting their perceptions 

of the modules. To prevent acquiescence bias (Krosnick, 1999), there was no neutral choice 

presented. The next seven questions inquired about students’ suggestions for the modules, their 

demographic information, their stage of completeness at FIC, and their linguistic backgrounds. 

For the purposes of this article, we focused our analysis on one yes/no question asking about the 

students’ general experience with the online modules: whether the modules helped them with 

their final essay. We also analyzed the Likert scale items (nine questions in total) and determined 

the response rate for each scale (agree, kind of agree, kind of disagree, and disagree) among the 

35 respondents. We extracted the three open-ended questions and analyzed them thematically. 

The bullet points below show the details of the three open-ended questions: 

 

• What’s one thing you learned in the online modules that you think will stay with you? 

• What’s one question that you still have about the research and/or writing process? 

• What suggestion would you give us to improve the online modules (e.g., what functions 

do you want?) 

 

 For the instructor survey, six instructors answered 18 open-ended questions on their 

pedagogical use of the modules, their experiences with the modules, and suggestions for 

improvement. Our approach to data collection and analysis drew on grounded theory approaches 

(Cohen & Manion, 1994; Martin & Turner, 1986). We analyzed and categorized the instructors’ 

responses based on the codes developed, hoping to seek some guiding principles for online 

instruction from the data we collected. Initially, we analyzed all instructor responses and 

identified common themes. The instructors’ responses were then extracted and categorized 

according to the established themes. The project team had two meetings to discuss the categories, 

obtain consensus, and, where required, modify the categorization. 

 

Findings 

 

Student Survey 

 

Students generally agreed that the online modules helped them to develop their research and 

writing skills for their final essay (Yes = 86%; No = 14%). Specifically, as can be seen in Table 

1 below, students agreed that after working through the online modules, their summarizing skills 

had been improved (71%), they learned helpful strategies for writing their essays (61%), and 

they applied what they had learned while writing their final essays (71%).  

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 17 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

Table 1 

 

Student Survey Descriptive Results 

 

Questions/Scale Agree 
Kind of 

Agree 

Kind of 

Disagree 
Disagree 

Q37* After working through The Writing Module 

on Summary Writing, I feel that my 

summarization skill has been improved 

71% 12% 9% 9% 

Q38 After working through the Research Module, 

I am more confident in conducting research 
50% 27% 12% 12% 

Q39 After working through the Research Module 

on Evaluating Sources, I learned some good 

strategies for identifying trustworthy sources for 

my research 

50% 29% 15% 6% 

Q40 After working through the Writing Module 

on Essay Paragraphs, I learned some good 

strategies for writing my essays 

61% 12% 18% 9% 

Q41 After working through the Writing Module 

on Thesis & Outline Building, I am more 

confident in brainstorming ideas for my essays 

56% 27% 3% 15% 

Q42 After working through the Research Module, 

I can describe ways to identify scholarly and 

popular sources 

47% 32% 9% 12% 

Q43 I know how to get help from the Library 

when I need it. 
56% 27% 12% 6% 

Q44 At the end of the semester, I feel that the 

online modules supported my independent 

learning 

59% 24% 12% 6% 

Q45 I used what I learned from the online Canvas 

modules when researching and writing my final 

essay for FIC EFC 

71% 18% 6% 6% 

*Questions in the table start at 37 because question 1 to question 36 are yes/no questions; only results of one of the 

yes/no questions is reported here as it is the most relevant to this article.  

 

 Based on their written responses, we can also report that students felt that after using the 

modules, their APA citation skills had improved and that these skills would likely be retained 

after the course (Student 4, Student 15, Student 26). Some of the students indicated that they 

would like to see more interactive features included in the online modules (Student 21, Student 

23, Student 34). Some of the students appreciated that the online modules were easily accessible 

at any time (Student 5). However, other students reported that they experienced technical 

difficulties when using the modules (Student 5) as they were hosted on a different LMS than the 

one primarily used and supported by the college.  

 

Instructor Survey 

 

Three common themes that emerged from the instructor survey included “How modules were 

used,” “Benefits of using the modules,” and “Challenges.” Subthemes were further developed as 

shown in the Table 2 below. Complete data are included in Appendix 2.  

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 18 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

Table 2 

 

Instructor Survey 

 
Themes Subthemes Example Excerpts 

How were 
modules used in 

class? 

• Homework 

• Extra practice 

• I had students do many of the modules as homework in preparation for research. Students 

were more able to identify academic sources. They understood how to evaluate credibility 

better. (Instructor 1) 

• The students used the module as both review and practice and as assignments to do before 

the lectures. (Instructor 4) 

Benefits of using 
the modules 

• Research skill 

improvement 

• Writing skill 

improvement 

• Self-pacing 

advantage 

• Others 

(specific 

modules that 

are helpful) 

• Many of the students were able to distinguish the difference between quoting, 

paraphrasing, and summarizing their sources within their research papers and properly use 

I.C.E. in their paragraphs. (Instructor 2) 

• A good chunk of the class was able to use ICE in their writing in a way that made sense 

connected to their topic in a meaningful way. (Instructor 5) 

• They were able to check the information and examples as many times as they wanted on a 

screen—they seem to be more motivated by onscreen info. The information is quite dense 

and some students had issues finding their way around. (Instructor 6) 

• Paragraph and essay writing had to be the best ones. Lots of great examples even though 

they were difficult topics. I loved the brainstorming/thesis building module. There were 
videos I believe on the steps needed to take to come up with a thesis. (Instructor 5) 

Challenges • Research skills 

• Writing skills 

• Content level 

• Student 

language level 

• Pedagogical 

• Technical 

• Many still had problems with using APA to properly cite their sources (in-text citation and 

references) and struggled with patchwork writing despite class practice and usage of 
canvas on avoiding plagiarism and patchwork writing. There was also a confusion with 

weaving contents from their research versus using their own input. Some ended up not 

using any research sources within parts of their paper to properly support a point while 
others made a mistake of using too many facts from their sources (one after another) 

without explaining the significance of their ideas properly to the reader. (Instructor 2) 

• Some examples and exercises were still at a too high level of challenge for some students. 

(Instructor 4) 

• The information is quite dense and some students had issues finding their way around. 

Students benefited from the types of sources and evaluating sources bit. It is clearly 

highlighted and it saved them tons of time and saved me tons of explaining! I cannot say 
they are less effective. I find the course is already overloaded with info and to be honest, 

we could not cover a lot of things. One of the main issues is the amount of information in 

some of the modules. (Instructor 6) 

• I did not use the part on the “Independent Paragraphs” within the writing module section 

because the information was not really relevant to what was covered in class with my own 

materials on writing paragraphs, especially with the samples of “Video Game Addictions” 
and the Post Quiz related to forest fires did not use the same structure, transitions, cause 

and effect phrases, and topic/concluding sentences format taught in class. (Instructor 2) 

Recommendations • Improving 

language 

• Adding 

content 

• Blended 

modules 

• I would love to have both the online components and the in-person training to help 

students prepare for research to help them navigate the SFU Library portal and how to 

access information. (Instructor 1) 

• We are teaching the basic essay structure, so would you mind changing the 1–2 sentence 

thesis explanation to a complex one-sentence thesis in your description? (Instructor 3) 

• They [the students] would benefit from more paraphrasing exercises and from evaluating 

source exercises—easier examples helpful … some examples and exercises were still at a 

too high level of challenge for some students … Both formats of workshops [in person 
and online] were helpful and appreciated. If we could have more videos and audios it 

might help with engagement and confidence levels of students. (Instructor 4) 

• I’d like to keep the online library modules, but I’d really like the opportunity for students 

to still go to the computer labs at SFU and have the library staff there help them with their 

initial researching. (Instructor 5) 

 

Discussion 

 

Based on the students’ and instructors’ survey responses, we have found that there are merits to 

using online modules for research and writing instruction, especially for multilingual 

international students enrolled in an academic preparation program.  

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 19 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

 The majority of student respondents indicated that they returned to the modules when 

they were completing their assignments for their course (Q45: 71% agree; 18% kind of agree; 

12% kind of disagree/disagree). This finding confirmed the original intention of the project—that 

is developing students’ research and writing skills through the opportunities to view the modules 

when they were most relevant to their coursework and return to them multiple times if content 

needed to be reviewed. Consistent with previous research findings (e.g., Zhang et al., 2015 ), the 

present project reveals that students seem to benefit from the repeatability of online modules. 

 

 The content of the modules seems to have supported students with developing both 

declarative and procedural knowledge of academic writing and information literacy (Myhill & 

Jones, 2015; Penner et al., 2022). In particular, the online modules can help students develop 

criteria and guidelines for conducting research for their final essay assignment, including how to 

select keywords to search with, critically evaluate resources, select appropriate citation styles for 

specific genres or disciplines, and understand the importance of citing other scholars’ work when 

paraphrasing (Yahia & Egbert, 2023). In addition, the online modules can also help these 

students develop the procedural skills needed to cite the sources, such as using a reference 

management software or formatting the citation manually. Repeatedly accessing the online 

modules might reinforce the acquisition of these students’ research and writing skills and make 

them more likely to transfer what they have learned in the online modules to the completion of 

their class assignments (Amiryousefi, 2016). It might also further develop their confidence for 

engaging in scholarly research and writing activities (Kim, et al., 2015). When student writers 

navigate content in the online space, their self-organizing and self-regulatory systems allow them 

to take in given information, process the information, and create new information internalized as 

part of their declarative and procedural knowledge (Myhill & Jones, 2015). Online modules 

provide an accessible environment that repeatedly reinforces students’ academic literacy skills as 

they complete their assigned coursework.  

 

 The self-paced nature of the online modules and the flexibility of pedagogical ways to 

incorporate them into the existing course curriculum also stood out as benefits. From the 

perspective of self-regulated learning theory (Panadero, 2017), the modules engage student 

agency and empower their conscious decisions vis-à-vis their own learning. Online modules 

allow multilingual students to assess their own learning and decide on pathways to further their 

learning (Penner et al., 2022). The students’ overall positive perceptions of the online modules 

suggest that library instructors should consider developing additional online support materials to 

increase the accessibility, repeatability, and flexibility of instruction.  

 

 Some of the course instructors’ written responses pointed to potential benefits of 

integrating both in-person and online instruction. As suggested by Walton and Hepworth (2013), 

students may benefit from a blended approach to academic literacy instruction, with more 

foundational materials presented online (for ease of access and repeatability) and more complex 

materials presented in-person. Having said that, the terms blended and hybrid have been 

somewhat contested and evolving in recent years. At SFU, the Centre for Educational Excellence 

(CEE) has defined blended learning as a type of course where some of the face-to-face classroom 

sessions are substituted with self-paced online activities (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Martínez-

Caro & Campuzano-Bolarín, 2011). The modules in this project were originally designed to 

replace the in-person instruction provided by the library. However, the findings from our 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 20 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

research suggest that we may need to consider a more hybrid approach to this instruction and its 

incorporation into classes—with some content offered through online modules and other content 

addressed through in-person activities. The course coordinator for FIC CNST captured this 

desire for a hybrid approach well by explaining that one of the benefits of the in-person 

workshops that was not replicated with the online modules was the sense that students had of 

being “part” of the university because the workshops took place in the SFU library computer lab 

and involved interaction with librarians and SLC staff members.   

 

 Walton and Hepworth’s (2013) study investigated the use of such an approach, and their 

findings have indicated that the students who participated in blended information literacy 

learning outperformed those who received either in-person or online-only instruction. In this 

study, the blended approach involved face-to-face instruction followed three weeks later by an 

online component. This finding points to an important pedagogical implication. First, timing of 

spaced interventions blending two delivery modes might enhance the effectiveness of 

information literacy and academic writing instruction. From the information processing 

perspective, skills and knowledge gained by students might be lost if intervention only occurs 

once. Multiple or mixed offerings of academic literacy sessions might reinforce or strengthen 

their acquisition of key research and writing skills. This finding is unsurprising, as it stands to 

reason that students benefit from multiple opportunities to engage with content, including in 

different formats and modes. That being said, this finding presents a challenge for one of our 

initial reasons for undertaking this research: the challenge of meeting increasing demand for 

workshops. Offering both online and in-person supports for each course increases the workload 

on library instructors. As such, libraries need to consider these findings and determine if they can 

provide sufficient resources for a blended learning approach to instruction if this is, indeed, the 

most pedagogically sound approach. Future research will also need to focus on determining 

which learning goals and skillsets are best addressed online and which are best addressed in-

person, as also discussed in Walton and Hepworth (2013).  

 

 The course instructors’ feedback also recommended several ways to improve the online 

research and writing modules, such as adapting the language level in the modules, particularly 

the writing modules (Instructor 3); including more interactive video and audio content (Instructor 

4); incorporating easier examples for exercises (Instructor 4); and offering a blended model of 

instruction including both in-person sessions and online modules for students in future semesters 

(Instructor 4; Instructor 5). In follow up correspondence, the FIC CNST Coordinator emphasized 

that one of the strengths of the modules is that students and instructors alike appreciated that the 

modules were created specifically for them. He elaborated that we could further build on this 

strength by ensuring that content is tailored toward students’ interests (e.g., nutrition and 

relationship wellness) could help to support engagement. Evidence from cognitive psychology 

and multimedia learning suggests that increasing the content relevance and interactivity of the 

modules, including by incorporating more audio and video content, might indeed impact 

students’ retention of the materials, their attention, and their focus (Geri et al., 2017). Further, it 

suggests that details, such as the length of the videos, be taken into consideration to maximize 

their impact (Geri et al., 2017). It is also possible that easier examples for exercises might impact 

these multilingual students’ self-efficacy (Williams & Takaku, 2011). While improving self-

efficacy could potentially give them the false impression that they had learned the skills in 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 21 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

question, it could also provide increased motivation to continue learning and practicing those 

skills.  

 

 The instructors reiterated several times the concern that the language used in the modules 

was too advanced for their students’ English proficiency levels (Teacher 4), and that there were 

inconsistencies between the online modules and their course textbooks (Teacher 6). Teacher 4 

and Teacher 6’s concerns shed light on the consistencies of composition language (or 

terminologies) used for instructions and the need for even closer collaboration in the 

development of course-integrated academic literacy materials. It is worth noting, however, that 

instructors shared similar concerns about the use of language with in-person library instruction as 

well, indicating that the research and writing workshops were often not at the right level and, 

further, that workshop instructors spoke too quickly for students to follow. Determining the 

appropriate level of language and content, therefore, appears to be an important issue to address 

for library instruction, regardless of the mode of delivery.  

 

 According to a systematic review carried out by Munn and Small (2017), embedded 

models of instruction are the most effective approach for teaching information literacy and 

academic writing skills. In their words, the embedded model “moves the development of 

information literacy and academic skills into the mainstream unit curriculum” (p. 59) in contrast 

to the one-shot approach in which information literacy “resources, modules, or workshops are 

offered outside of timetabled unit sessions, either lectures or tutorials” (p. 59). Their findings 

point to the need to bring course instructors, research and writing support specialists, and 

instructional designers together when developing curricular content such as these modules. In 

this way, support modules can become fully embedded into the academic literacy curriculum for 

multilingual students (Munn & Small, 2017). Additionally, in classroom practice, teachers adjust 

their level of vocabulary in teaching to accommodate multilingual students’ level of 

understanding. For example, in a lower-level English for Academic Purposes (EAP) class, a 

thesis statement might be called the main idea, an argument might be called a claim, and 

supporting evidence might be called supporting ideas. Theoretically speaking, presenting 

materials slightly above students’ level (i+1) might facilitate acquisition of language learning 

(Krashen, 1992), yet the application of this theoretical i+1 idea has not been clearly documented 

in the research literature or classroom practice, especially in writing pedagogy or information 

literacy (Payne, 2011). Therefore, effectively embedding instructional supports into a classroom 

requires consistent use of language and terminology which is best accomplished through even 

more direct collaboration between course and library instructors.  

 

 Where our modules were largely created by library instructors for use by FIC course 

instructors, more sustained and intentional collaboration between both sets of instructors would 

undoubtedly result in more effective modules. However, as the course instructors’ comments 

also note, this collaboration can be challenging because they are already hard-pressed to cover 

everything in their content-heavy classes. In our project, we were also concerned that contract 

instructors might end up having to do substantial unpaid labour if we asked them to collaborate 

even more intensively on the modules. As it was, many FIC and SFU library staff members and 

instructors took on additional responsibilities to create and implement these modules. Without 

this level of commitment, it is doubtful that we could have completed this project. However, 

after we received this feedback from the course instructors, we sought out further support by 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 22 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

consulting with educational designers from SFU’s Centre for Educational Excellence (CEE) who 

specialize in EAL supports. They provided valuable feedback on the language used in the 

modules and suggested that future iterations more intentionally reflect the admission 

requirements expected of students at FIC. One practical way they suggested to gauge these 

expectations was to examine the can do statements included on admission gatekeeping tests like 

TOFEL or IELTS and ensure that the language used in the modules was in step with the relevant 

admission levels.  

 

Next Steps 

 

We were encouraged to see the overall positive responses we received from students who 

experienced the modules. However, we are also aware of the socially desirable responding effect 

(Paulhus, 1984). Some students may have felt pressure to tell us what we wanted to hear by 

responding that they found the modules useful and that they had made use of what they learned 

when researching and writing their final essays. We also note the discrepancies between the 

students’ self-reported learning and their instructors’ perceptions. Around 50% of the students 

surveyed indicated that they were more capable of conducting research, finding trustworthy 

sources, and identifying scholarly and popular sources. An even higher percentage (60–70%) of 

students felt that their summary and essay writing skills had improved through what they learned 

in the modules. While these findings suggest that the modules were effective as part of building 

these students’ self-efficacy, they are not necessarily reflected in the instructors’ views of their 

students’ progress. For instance, the instructors consistently indicated that they felt the level of 

the modules was too high for their students (a concern that no students themselves raised) and 

told us that even at the end of the term, the students’ work demonstrated ongoing challenges, 

especially with citing and paraphrasing their sources. These discrepancies suggest to us that more 

research into the impact of these modules—including, ideally, longitudinal studies to examine 

the students’ ongoing skills development—would be beneficial.  

 

 The urgency that we originally felt to develop these online modules has largely dissipated 

since the broader move to emergency remote teaching due to COVID-19 and especially since the 

FIC Cornerstone course has been slow to recover its enrolments. Since our pilot in 2020, 

however, we have worked to transition the modules from Canvas into Moodle, to further 

integrate them into the class curriculum. This transition of LMS platforms was challenging and 

has unfortunately slowed the uptake of the modules. We therefore have work to do to improve 

the instructor and student experiences of working with the content in Moodle. We are also 

continuing to consider options for adjusting the language levels and types of examples and 

exercises provided in the modules. However, with lower enrolment, there are also fewer FIC 

Cornerstone instructors and so collaboration with those who are directly in the classroom has 

continued to be a practical challenge.  

 

 We have continued to work on adjusting the content and language level in the modules, 

both in the FIC Cornerstone versions and in more generic version of the modules (which we call 

Research Essay Essentials) that we have adapted as an open educational resource (OER) for SFU 

students. We continue to be interested in how we might effectively blend in-person and online 

components of research and writing skills instruction. We also continue to be interested in 

considering which content benefits from self-paced, easily repeated asynchronous online 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 23 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

delivery and which content may benefit from synchronous in-person delivery. If we can 

demonstrate that the blended approach makes a significant and positive impact on students’ and 

instructors’ experiences of our academic literacy support, it will provide additional data to 

support the use of online, flexible, and course-integrated alternatives to the more traditional, one-

shot model of library instruction. In addition, we will continue to seek and build on instructional 

collaborations, both within and beyond the library, to advance the integration of information 

literacy and writing skills development across the undergraduate curriculum. 

 

Acknowledgement 

 

We would like to thank all the FIC staff, instructors, and students who contributed to and 

collaborated on this study. We are also grateful to Kate Elliott (Graduate Writing Facilitator) and 

Melissa Smith (Reference Librarian) for their excellent work on the research and writing 

modules. Finally, we would like to thank the two reviewers and the editors for their feedback on 

this article. The creation of the research and writing skills modules was funded by SFU’s VP 

Academic Office. Research into the effectiveness of the modules was funded by an SFU Library 

Assessment grant. 

 

References 

 

Amiryousefi, M. (2016). The differential effects of two types of task repetition on the 

complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: A focus 

on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1052–1068. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040  

Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve 

online course quality standards. International Review of Research in Open and 

Distributed Learning, 11(3), 106–126. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912  

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. (4th ed.). Routledge 

Cook, D. B. (2022). Is the library one-shot effective? A meta-analytic study. College & Research 

Libraries, 83(5), 739–750. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.5.739  

Framework for information literacy for higher education. (2015). Chicago: Association of 

College & Research Libraries. 

https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/framework1.pdf  

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, 

principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons. 

Geri, N., Winer, A., & Zaks, B. (2017). Challenging the six-minute myth of online video 

lectures: Can interactivity expand the attention span of learners?. Online Journal of 

Applied Knowledge Management (OJAKM), 5(1), 101–111. 

https://doi.org/10.36965/OJAKM.2017.5(1)101-111  

Goldrick-Jones, A., Lane, J., McGee-Thompson, D., Power, H., & Thomson, J. (2018). 

Cornerstone module proposal. Unpublished manuscript. SFU Library.  

Gunn, C., Hearne, S., & Sibthorpe, J. (2011). Right from the start: A rationale for embedding 

academic literacy skills in university courses. Journal of University Teaching & Learning 

Practice, 8(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.8.1.6  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.5.739
https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/framework1.pdf
https://doi.org/10.36965/OJAKM.2017.5(1)101-111
https://doi.org/10.53761/1.8.1.6


 Chang, Lane, & Power 24 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

Julien, H. (2005). A longitudinal analysis of information literacy instruction in Canadian 

academic libraries. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences, 29(3), 289–

313. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais290  

Kim, D. H., Wang, C., Ahn, H. S., & Bong, M. (2015). English language learners' self-efficacy 

profiles and relationship with self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual 

Differences, 38, 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.016  

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1996). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Berrett-Koehler  

Krashen, S. (1992). The input hypothesis: An update. In J. E. Alatis, (Ed.). Linguistics and 

language pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 409–431). Georgetown University Press. 

http://hdl.handle.net/10822/555484  

Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 537–567. 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537  

LeMire, S., Graves, S. J., & Anders, K. C. (2023). Librarians as teachers: Effecting change in 

composition instruction. Libraries and the Academy, 23(2), 293–312. 

https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2023.0011  

Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The journal 

of applied behavioral science, 22(2), 141–157. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200207  

Martínez-Caro, E., & Campuzano-Bolarín, F. (2011). Factors affecting students’ satisfaction in 

engineering disciplines: Traditional vs. blended approaches. European Journal of 

Engineering Education, 36(5), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.619647  

Munn, J., & Small, J. (2017). What is the best way to develop information literacy and academic 

skills of first year health science students? A systematic review. Evidence Based Library 

and Information Practice, 12(3), 56–94. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8QS9M  

Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2015). Conceptualizing metalinguistic understanding in 

writing/Conceptualización de la competencia metalingüística en la escritura. Cultura y 

Educación, 27(4), 839–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2015.1089387  

Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2014). Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study 

from a Dynamic Systems Perspective. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchon (Eds.), Task-based 

language learning and teaching: Insights from writing (pp. 107–136). John Benjamins. 

https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.05nit  

Pagowsky, N. (2022). Introduction to the special issue: Critique as care: Disrupting narratives of 

the one-shot instruction model. College & Research Libraries, 83(5), 713–724. 

https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.5.713  

Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for 

research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422  

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. 

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598  

Payne, M. (2011). Exploring Stephen Krashen’s ‘i+ 1’ acquisition model in the classroom. 

Linguistics and Education, 22(4), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.07.002  

Penner, T. L., Abbott, M. L., & Lee, K. K. (2022). Scaffolding self-regulated learning for 

English as an additional language literacy learners. BC TEAL Journal, 7(1), 85–97. 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.469  

Secker, J. & Coonan, E. (2011). A new curriculum for information literacy. 

http://ccfil.pbworks.com/f/ANCIL_final.pdf  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499
https://doi.org/10.29173/cais290
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.016
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/555484
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2023.0011
https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200207
https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.619647
https://doi.org/10.18438/B8QS9M
https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2015.1089387
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.05nit
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.5.713
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.07.002
https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.469
http://ccfil.pbworks.com/f/ANCIL_final.pdf


 Chang, Lane, & Power 25 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

Sutton, P. (2011). Re-crafting an academic literacies approach to pedagogic communication in 

higher education. Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 45–61. 

https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2011.040204  

Tham, C. M., & Werner, J. M. (2005). Designing and evaluating e-learning in higher education: 

A review and recommendations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2), 

15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501100203  

Trescases, U. (2008). The role of the library in the first college year: The Canadian perspective. 

Reference Services Review, 36(3), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320810895387  

Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal 

on E-learning, 6(1), 81–94. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/6310/  

Walton, G., & Hepworth, M. (2013). Using assignment data to analyse a blended information 

literacy intervention: A quantitative approach. Journal of Librarianship and Information 

Science, 45(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000611434999  

Williams, J. D., & Takaku, S. (2011). Help seeking, self-efficacy, and writing performance 

among college students. Journal of Writing Research, 3(1), 1–18. 

https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2011.03.01.1  

Xu, H., & Morris, L. V. (2007). Collaborative course development for online courses. Innovative 

Higher Education, 32(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9033-5  

Yahia, I., & Egbert, J. L. (2023). Supporting non-native-English speaking graduate students with 

academic writing skills: A case study of the explicit instructional use of paraphrasing 

guidelines. Journal of Writing Research, 14(3), 305–341. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-

2023.14.03.01  

Zhang, Q., Goodman, M., & Xie, S. (2015). Integrating library instruction into the course 

management system for a first-year engineering class: An evidence-based study 

measuring the effectiveness of blended learning on students’ information literacy levels. 

College & Research Libraries, 76(7), 934–958. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.7.934  

 

Appendix 1 

 

Instructor Survey 

 

1. Describe how you integrated the modules into your course. (e.g. at what point(s) in your 

lessons did you refer students to the Canvas modules?) 

2. As an instructor, describe an improvement that you noticed in the students’ research and 

writing skills, as reflected in their final assignments 

3. Based on what you saw in your students’ final assignments, what aspects of research and 

writing do you think your students still need more support with? 

4. Describe a specific situation where you and/or your students found the modules helpful. 

5. If any, describe a specific situation where the modules were not helpful for your students. 

6. Tell us what module(s) you found the most effective. 

7. Tell us what modules you found the least effective. 

8. When you worked with the online modules, what challenges did you encounter? (e.g. 

technical challenges or pedagogical challenges) 

9. Can you please tell us why you did not integrate the modules into your class? 

10. What changes to the online modules would you recommend, so that you will consider using 

the online modules in your future classes? 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499
https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2011.040204
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501100203
https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320810895387
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/6310/
https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000611434999
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2011.03.01.1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9033-5
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2023.14.03.01
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2023.14.03.01
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.7.934


 Chang, Lane, & Power 26 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

11. Even if you did not integrate the modules directly into your classes, did you find other 

ways to make use of the module content? (e.g., using examples from the modules, using the 

quizzes, providing them to students as optional support materials)? 

12. Have you previously requested in person research and/or writing workshops from the PU 

Library? 

13. If relevant, what benefits did you observe the students receive when they participated in in-

person workshops? 

14. If relevant, what were the challenges when students participated in in-person research and 

writing workshops? 

15. If relevant, what benefits did you observe when the students used the online modules? (if 

you did not use the modules, please feel free to skip) 

16. If relevant, what were the challenges when students used the online modules? (if you did 

not use the modules, please feel free to skip) 

17. Overall, which method of delivery did your students find more engaging? 

18. Do you have any additional feedback for us to help us improve our instructional services? 

 

Appendix 2 

 

Instructor Responses 

 

Teacher 1: Use online modules as homework; students struggle with APA 

I had students do many of the modules as homework in preparation for research. Students were 

more able to identify academic sources. They understood how to evaluate credibility better. We 

found the models on research and accessing SFU useful. Some aspects of paragraph writing I 

did not agree with. Sometimes students had difficulty logging on. I would love to have both the 

online components and the in-person training to help students prepare for research to help them 

navigate the SFU Library portal and how to access information. 

 

Teacher 2: Technical problems; students continue to struggle with analytical skills; struggle with 

research skills; content level challenges.  

Mostly [integrated] with summary writing, paraphrasing, research (finding sources, getting 

started, evaluating sources), writing an outline and thesis for final essays, writing cause/effect 

essays (paragraph structures/using I.C.E., citation, avoiding patchwork, APA usages etc.). Many 

of the students were able to distinguish the difference between quoting, paraphrasing and 

summarizing their sources within their research papers and properly use I.C.E. in their 

paragraphs. Many still had problems with using APA to properly cite their sources (in-text 

citation and references) and struggled with patchwork writing despite class practice and usage 

of canvas on avoiding plagiarism and patchwork writing. There was also a confusion with 

weaving contents from their research versus using their own input. Some ended up not using any 

research sources within parts of their paper to properly support a point while others made a 

mistake of using too many facts from their sources (one after another) without explaining the 

significance of their ideas properly to the reader. "Getting Started" (concept maps, background 

information) "Finding Sources" (keywords, library search), "Evaluating Sources" (different 

information sources, reliability and credibility, scholarly vs. popular sources). We focused on 

these various modules during class time when it came to looking at the library website to 

properly locate sources; knowing how (using keywords), where to find sources as well as saving 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 27 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

the links (by pinning or emailing them) or downloading the PDF files or knowing the 5W to 

properly locate the information on the sources were particularly useful. I did not use the part on 

the "Independent Paragraphs" within the writing module section because the information was 

not really relevant to what was covered in class with my own materials on writing paragraphs, 

especially with the samples of "Video Game Addictions" and the Post Quiz related to forest fires 

did not use the same structure, transitions, cause and effect phrases and topic/concluding 

sentences format taught in class. Writing Module on Paraphrasing/Summary Writing and 

Research Modules (all of them)/Combined Research and Writing Module [were most effective]; 

Writing Module: Independent Paragraphs [were least effective. [There were] some technical 

challenges - e.g. students were not able to join or access canvas at times.] 

 

Teacher 3:Use as supplementary materials; adapting and changing the language level  

Students were asked to read/review sections pertaining to the material covered in class ( from 

paragraph to essay/research) and we worked with their knowledge on class assignments. 

[Paraphrasing] is something that will change only if students come in with higher level of 

English vocabulary knowledge. At this time, their English is not at the level to paraphrase with 

confidence. Examples of academic writing and research modules [are useful and effective for 

students]. We are teaching the basic essay structure, so would you mind changing the 1-2 

sentence thesis explanation to a complex one-sentence thesis in your description? 

 

Teacher 4: Use online modules as supplementary materials and extra practice in class; concern 

about the language level of the online modules; include more interactive videos; offering blended 

models; easier examples.  

The students used the module as both review and practice and as assignments to do before the 

lectures. I did notice an improvement among students who were motivated. They clearly gained 

more understanding of the skills in the module, but weaker students avoided doing the module 

readings and assignments as they found it difficult. They would benefit from more paraphrasing 

exercises and from evaluating source exercises--easier examples helpful. It had some good 

introductions to the writing process and also a good intro to using the library. [However,] some 

examples and exercises were still at a too high level of challenge for some students. The 

paragraph writing and the citing sources [are most effective for students]. Students struggled 

with the paraphrasing and selecting sources at the right level. They choose articles that were far 

too advanced for their actual reading capability. I had several students who could never access 

canvas even with SFU IT help. Both formats of workshops [in person and online] were helpful 

and appreciated. If we could have more videos and audios it might help with engagement and 

confidence levels of students. 

 

Teacher 5: Improvement in student essays; offering blended model 

Particularly for research, paragraph and essay writing. I assigned modules that corresponded to 

each topic prior to studying them OR after we studied each topic to further solidify their 

knowledge. Their ability to paraphrase academic material was much better than other semesters. 

Also, their ability to use APA was significantly better. Such an improvement! Students definitely 

need more help with ICE. It was a difficult concept for them to grasp and so much more practice 

is still needed for them to really get it. However, a good chunk of the class was able to use ICE 

in their writing in a way that made sense connected to their topic in a meaningful way. Since we 

didn't do the library modules in class, I don't know which ones the students found to be more 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499


 Chang, Lane, & Power 28 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 8 Number 1 (2023): 8–28 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499 

helpful than others. Paragraph and essay writing had to be the best ones. Lots of great examples 

even though they were difficult topics. I loved the brainstorming/thesis building module. There 

were videos I believe on the steps needed to take to come up with a thesis. However, I found that 

since students were not doing an argumentative essay, some of this would have been confusing 

for them. INTG 100 (the class following CNST) does an argumentative essay so this would've 

been super helpful for that class. Pedagogical challenges as some of the techniques just didn't 

match with what I was teaching the class. I didn't want to confuse them further by teaching the 

students the modules in class, so the modules were used more as extra practice outside class 

time. Overall, I'd like to keep the online library modules, but I'd really like the opportunity for 

students to still go to the computer labs at SFU and have the library staff there help them with 

their initial researching. 

 

Teacher 6: Use as supplementary (before class); overloaded information; self-pacing advantage; 

challenges with APA and understanding information or integrating information in writing.  

It was pre-class most of the times - eg. they read about paragraph structure and we had a quick 

quiz at the beg. of the lesson- other times I used the materials during class- especially to analyze 

examples on the board  (we noted on examples on the board while projecting the material). A 

small percentage had fewer problems using APA. They have a very hard time making sense of 

the information the find. Say they have a relevant point for the topic of their paragraph. They use 

it. They add something else also relevant, but they cannot add their interpretation of what the 

information means- what are the implications-. Most of them have never experienced this kind of 

writing assignments. Not sure we need to push them to interpret as of yet. They were able to 

check the information and examples as many times as they wanted on a screen - they seem to be 

more motivated by onscreen info. The information is quite dense and some students had issues 

finding their way around. Students benefited from the types of sources and evaluating sources 

bit. It is clearly highlighted and it saved them tons of time and saved me tons of explaining! I 

cannot say they are less effective. I find the course is already overloaded with info and to be 

honest, we could not cover a lot of things. One of the main issues is the amount of information in 

some of the modules. Also, the fact that you have to jump from one page to the next one to do the 

exercises. Wondering if some of these can be done side to side. 

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Copyright rests with the author(s). 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v8i1.499
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

