Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes
description
Transcript of Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes
![Page 1: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
GABRIELA SONNTAGCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN MARCOS
LAC 2008
Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes
![Page 2: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
“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)
![Page 3: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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.
![Page 4: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Three assessments
![Page 5: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Overall Results
![Page 6: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
GEL Pre/Post Scores
![Page 7: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
GEO Pre/Post Scores
![Page 8: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Three assessments
![Page 9: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
“…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)
![Page 10: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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)
![Page 11: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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.
![Page 13: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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%
![Page 14: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Comparison possible?
![Page 15: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
iSkills Using Information Data
![Page 16: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Three assessments
![Page 17: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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.
![Page 18: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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).
![Page 19: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Results
#Different courses represented*
# Student participants
Fall 7 471
Spring 17 776
Total 24 1247
*multiple sections of the courses were assessed
![Page 20: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Scores by year
![Page 21: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Mean Scores by Course
![Page 23: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Mean Scores by Major
![Page 24: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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%
![Page 25: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Comparison Possible: Evaluate?
iSkills scores
GE Assessment
Annual Assessment
Pre-test score =59%
Post-test score = 64%
n/a Freshmen =50%
![Page 26: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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”
![Page 27: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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]….”
![Page 28: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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.
![Page 29: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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
![Page 30: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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%
![Page 31: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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%
![Page 32: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Conclusions
Need for multiple measures.
Need for collaboration with academic departments.
Strive for improvement.
![Page 33: Measuring student information literacy learning outcomes](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070408/568143b5550346895db040a6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
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.