Self-efficacy

The level of self-efficacy was also measured to get insight the students’ motivation. Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy as: ‘People’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances.’ Often described as task-specific self-confidence (Artino, 2012).

5.2 | Participants

In this study, 12 students of group 6 of CBS De Fontein were involved to test the effect of the learning materials towards the trained skills and the motivation. Participation in the experiment was voluntary and the students were randomly chosen. The group consists of 5 boys and 7 girls with an average age of 115.8 months (SD = 1.9). The participants were randomly but evenly assigned to either the experimental or the control group.

5.3 | Instrumentation

The learning materials probably have an effect on the students’ motivation and knowledge. These aspects were tested by a questionnaire and an instruction booklet.

Questionnaire self-efficacy

First, to determine to what extent students think they are able to make an oral presentation a self-efficacy questionnaire was developed that determines their confidence. This questionnaire consists of five statements on which the students fill in to what extent they agree with these statements on a seven-point Likert scale. The options to answer were: strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, slightly agree, agree, strongly agree. The statements were based on the four trained skills, every skill was merged into one statement, except the second skill, this skill includes two statements:

1. I can come up with good topics for my oral presentation about a rabbit. 2. I know which search terms I have to use on Google.

3. I know which websites provide good information.

4. I know which information I could use for my oral presentation. 5. I know when I have enough information for my oral presentation.

After the implementation the students responded to the same statements as they responded to before the implementation. The mean scores of this questionnaire are calculated and compared to determine the effect of the learning materials on the level of self- efficacy. Also the relationship between self-efficacy and knowledge is described.

Instruction booklet with code book

In order to test the effects of the instructional videos, an instruction booklet was designed and implemented. The tasks in the instruction booklet exactly correspond to the tasks in the instructional videos. The students of both the control group and the experimental group have fulfilled these tasks. A code book is designed to evaluate the results, this code book is given in Appendix H. The results in the instruction booklets were scored per video per task per step. Most of the steps of the four tasks were divided in subparts for which the student could achieve points. The codebook displays what the maximum amount of points is and which amount of points belongs to a given answer or performed task. Some aspects were not scored, but only noted whether this aspect is present or not. In that case, one point for present and zero points for missing. These scores were not included in the final scores per video. Afterwards the mean scores of the experimental group were compared to the mean scores of the control group. The differences in the scores between the two groups can be seen as an indication of the effect of the instructional videos.

5.4 | Procedure

The last version of the instructional videos and instruction booklet were tested on its usability by a questionnaire and the answers on the tasks in the instruction booklet. Prior to the implementation, the self-efficacy questionnaire was taken to determine students’ confidence about information literacy. The researcher introduced the questionnaire shortly by mentioning the aim of the questionnaire and the whole study. The students were told they have to imagine to make an oral presentation about a rabbit and honestly answer on the statements.

The implementation phase includes four moments spread over two weeks. The first week for the experimental group the introduction video and first and second instructional video were introduced with the corresponding worksheets in the instruction booklet. For the control group the worksheets in the instruction booklet for developing the first two tasks were introduced. In the second week the last two instructional videos and worksheets were introduced. The participants were not allowed to ask the researcher or teacher questions about the videos or worksheets during these phase. The participants were told to work independently. There was no time limit and the experimental group had unlimited access to the videos, these could be watched as often as necessary. It has been said explicitly that it was important to read carefully and make the tasks with full attention. The last task consisted of making a new mind map, to compare this one to the first mind map. Before finishing this task, the teacher had to print the found information of the participant. So, they have used their own information to make this mind map.

After completing the final phase, the students had to fill in the same self-efficacy questionnaire. The students were told they have to make an oral presentation about a rabbit again and answer how they think they are capable to make this presentation now. For the experimental group this means after the implementation of the instruction booklet and instructional videos. For the control group this means after the implementation of the instruction booklet. These instruction booklets were scored based on the code book. These scores were given to every single task and question.

5.5 | Data analysis

To find out the effects on students’ self-efficacy the answers on the self-efficacy questionnaire before and after the implementation were analysed. Comparisons within conditions were tested with repeated measures t-test.

The results of the instruction booklets of the experimental and control group were compared. Comparisons between conditions were tested with Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs).

An alpha level 0.05 for significance is applied. Besides, the mean scores per task per video of the experimental group were compared to the mean scores of the control group.

6 | RESULTS

6.1.1 | Knowledge outcomes

The students had to fulfil tasks in an instruction booklet that exactly correspond to the tasks in the instructional videos. The experimental group had to fulfil these tasks with access to the instructional videos, and the control group without this access.

In order to test if the instructional videos affect students’ development of information literacy, a One-Way ANOVA was used. Expected was that the students in the experimental group scored higher than students in the control group. Table 11 presents the data for knowledge level. The results per step per task are displayed in Appendix I.

Table 11

Mean knowledge level (standard deviation) per condition and task Total Mean (SD) Task 1 Mean (SD) Task 2 Mean (SD) Task 3 Mean (SD) Task 4 Mean (SD) Control group (n=6) 58% (8%) 61% (16%) 45% (13%) 55% (12%) 72% (6%) Experimental group (n=6) 71% (10%) 77% (17%) 65% (8%) 65% (22%) 78% (11%) Total (n=12) 65% (11%) 69% (18%) 69% (18%) 60% (17%) 74% (9%)

Table 11 shows the mean scores of both conditions. A score of 55% or higher means a sufficient score on that task. Both conditions scored sufficient after the implementation of the learning materials, where the experimental group scores higher (71%) than the control group (58%). So, assuming the initial situation was the same, the experimental group has made more progress than the control group. Considering that the control group scored sufficient, it can be concluded that the instruction booklet alone already contributes to the knowledge level of primary school students. The instructional videos give extra illustrations

group. The experimental group scored sufficient on every task, where the control group scored sufficient on task 1 and task 4 (6.1 and 7.2), insufficient on task 2 (4.5), and just sufficient on task 3 (5.5).

There was a significant difference between conditions on the mean (overall) score for knowledge level, F (1, 11) = 6.35, p = 0.03 d, = 0.23.

So it can be stated that there is a statistical evidence that the learning materials influenced the students’ level of information literacy.

The differences were not significant for every single task. Only task 2 showed a significant difference between conditions, F (1, 11) = 10.92, p = 0.01 d, = 0.36. The ANOVA showed no significant difference between conditions in the other tasks for task 1, (0.32 > 0.05) for task 3 and (0.29 > 0.05) for task 4.

6.1.2 | Self-efficacy

In order to test the reliability of the items of the self-efficacy questionnaire, Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for this scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the items was 0.765, which deemed sufficient.

In order to test if the learning materials affect students’ motivation concerning information literacy, a One-Way ANOVA was used. Table 12 presents the data for self-efficacy, before and after the implementation of the learning materials.

Table 12

Mean self-efficacy (standard deviation) per condition and test Before Mean (SD) After Mean (SD) Total Mean (SD) Control group (n=6) 4.60 (1.21) 5.33(0.94) 4.97 (1.08) Experimental group (n=6) 5.70 (0.83) 6.33 (0.8 6.02 (0.82) Total (n=12) 5.15 (1.15) 5.83 (0.98) 5.49 (0.95)

• Scores on a 7-point Likert scale; higher means more self-efficacy

Table 12 shows that the mean score of the questionnaire after the implementation of the learning materials was higher than the mean score of the questionnaire before the implementation.

It is shown that the level of self-efficacy for the control group before the implementation was slightly above the neutral value of 4 (i.e., 4.6). The table shows the level of self-efficacy for the experimental group before the implementation was higher (i.e., 5.7).

A paired sample t-test was conducted to compare the means of both conditions to examine whether there was a time effect. The mean score before the implementation of the learning materials was 5.835 (SD=1.14) and the mean score after the implementation was 5.15 (SD=1.14); t(11)=3.54, p = 0.005.

The ANOVA showed that there was no significant difference between conditions for self-efficacy after the implementation of the learning materials, F (1, 11) = 3.37, p = 0.10 d = 0.64.

7 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION