Post on 11-Jan-2016
description
GABRIELA SONNTAGCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN MARCOS
LAC 2008
Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes
“the unanimous conclusion from the testing done and from personal observation is that most students are seriously lacking in knowledge and ability to use books and libraries effectively.”
Felix Snider (1974)
Kellogg library at the California State University in San Marcos
CSUSM facts:Undergraduates 8,577Graduates 582Full-time Faculty 187Bachelor’s Degrees 27Master’s Degrees 10
Top degrees:business , biology, communication, psychology, kinesiology, human development, pre-nursing, sociology.
CSU system: 23 campuses, 450,000+ students , 47,000 faculty and staff.
Three assessments
Overall Results
GEL Pre/Post Scores
GEO Pre/Post Scores
Three assessments
“…discussing assessment methods collaboratively is a very productive exercise in planning a systematic, comprehensive information literacy program. This assessment program …..should make explicit to the institution’s constituencies how information literacy contributes to producing educated students and citizens.”
(Information Literacy Competency Standards, p. 6)
General Education
Cycle 1: Written Communication and Information Literacy
Rounds: each semester select an Area to focus on: several classes in each Area, several sections of each class: Round 1: (GE Writing) and (Critical Thinking) Round 2: (Quant Reasoning) and (US History) Round 3: (Social sciences)
The Assessments
Cycle 1 Rounds:
#Faculty participants
#Different courses represented*
#Pieces of student writing assessed
Round 1 20 4 737
Round 2 9 7 442
Round 3 19 8 617
Total 48
19*multiple sections of the courses were assessed
1796
Information Literacy
Finding appropriate sources: Students can locate appropriate references for their papers and assignments.
Using sources: Students interpret and use the information found in their paper and assignments.
Results
Student Learning Outcome
Meeting minimum
Rated superior
Thesis 86.9% 20.0%
Organization 86.0% 21.1%
Mechanics 86.2% 20.9%
Finding sources 86.5% 25.5%
Using sources 82.9% 20.1%
Comparison possible?
iSkills Using Information Data
Three assessments
Annual Assessments and Program Reviews
Required self-study includes assessment of Programmatic Student Learning Outcomes.
Includes annual assessment findings – benchmarking, changes, evidence of impact.
Plans for next cycle of assessment studies.
IL Assessment
Programmatic Student Learning Outcomes are Standards for Information Literacy (ACRL).
Annual assessments are embedded.
Measured student knowledge of characteristics of scholarly information sources (Evaluate).
Results
#Different courses represented*
# Student participants
Fall 7 471
Spring 17 776
Total 24 1247
*multiple sections of the courses were assessed
Scores by year
Deeper study
Degree #core courses
#cores with IL
#courses with IL
Biology 7 3 9
Comm. 6 4 6
History 1 1 8
H Develop. 5 4 0
Kinesiology 16 1 0
Lit/Writing 8 2 9
Pol. Science 6 4 9
Psychology 6 1 10
Sociology 6 3 10
Mean Scores by Course
Mean Scores by Major
Class score cross tabulation
Failing Adequate Excellent Total
FreshmenCountPercent w/n class
31750.50%
19831.50%
31118.00%
628100%
SophomoreCountPercent w/n class
5959.60%
2323.20%
1717.20%
99100%
JuniorCountPercent w/n class
13368.20%
3920.00%
2311.80%
195100%
SeniorCountPercent w/n class
11866.70%
2614.70%
3318.60%
177100%
TotalCountPercent w/n class
62757.10%
28626.00%
18616.90%
1099100%
Comparison Possible: Evaluate?
iSkills scores
GE Assessment
Annual Assessment
Pre-test score =59%
Post-test score = 64%
n/a Freshmen =50%
Economics
Learning Outcomes measured: Formulate meaningful economic questions (4.57) Retrieve information (2.43) Apply relevant concepts (4.14) Effectively communicate (3.86)
Conclusion: “more direct incorporation of library resources”
History
Learning Outcome measured: “incorporate new digital and multimedia formats into the practice and presentation of history” specifically “questions about what issues are raised in using the Internet for research…”
Conclusion: “we should address this issue in more detail than we do… .discussing not just how one can judge reliability of a source but also how to sift through even the most reliable sources [for evidence]….”
Political Science
Learning Outcomes measured: “Demonstrate working knowledge of research methods”
Pre-test score of 9.8 -weakness in formulating research questions, sampling, drawing conclusions.
Post-test score of 17.7 -general improvement but especially in formulating research questions, hypotheses, and identifying appropriate research methodology.
Psychology
Learning outcomes measured: Information Literacy
Faculty survey on student IL abilities : 57% reported students find it difficult to
locate sources. 45.3% students need help with evaluating
sources 26.4% students lack synthesis skills (using
information)
General Education Assessment
Results: Superior Rating
Student Learning Outcome
Psychology
All GE
Thesis 31.5% 20.0%
Organization 35.6% 21.1%
Mechanics 32.4% 20.9%
Finding sources 39.9% 25.5%
Using sources 30.5% 20.1%
Sociology
Learning Outcome measured: Write a literature review and research report.
Assessed research papers in capstone seminar. Interviewed faculty teaching course.
Locate: 81.5%Understand: 39.5%Summarize/Synthesize (USING): 36.8%Mechanics: 36.8%
Conclusions
Need for multiple measures.
Need for collaboration with academic departments.
Strive for improvement.
Future Goals
Year 2 measure Define.Engage the university community in dialog on teaching, learning, and information literacy.
Look to departmental assessments and program reviews for inclusion of IL.