The library views assessment as a continuous process and engages in ongoing action-research, which informs our instruction. We gather feedback from students, which we use to assess and improve our teaching practices. To properly assess information literacy (IL) outcomes, the library uses the Framework of Information Literacy for Higher Education, as established by the Association of College & Research Libraries (ARCL).
Student learning outcomes, formative assessment, and other assessment data is recorded by the SFCC Library. Assessments include student instructional feedback, a faculty satisfaction survey, and continued communication as liaisons to academic departments and support services. Program-level assessment of instruction has been performed within the library’s Strategic Program Assessment, the SFCC Library Flipped Class Project, and the joint CCS Libraries Authority Assessment.
Flipped Class Project
Starting Fall 2018 the SFCC Library collaborated with 7 English 101 faculty members to administer an information literacy (IL) flipped class. The SFCC Library typically teaches "one-shot" a.k.a. one 50 minute library lessons that can cover a range of learning outcomes, from research question development to source evaluation and database search strategies. In an effort to streamline instruction and maximize active learning in class the flipped class project was created to meet the following goals:
- Promote Active Learning: Utilize Canvas modules to establish baseline IL skills before the library session and create opportunities for active learning during the in-person session.
- Tier IL Instruction: Create scaffolding of IL skills by integrating the modules into a specific course (ENG 101) to create targeted, tiered IL instruction.
- Assess Effectiveness of IL Instruction: Assess effectiveness of flipped class modules and in-person led librarian instruction.
- Assess Students IL Skills: Assess students' IL skills at the introductory level of IL instruction.
In total, 93 Students opted to participate in the flipped class assessment by completing a four quiz module in Canvas, followed by an in-person IL session. The four content areas covered by the quizzes include research as a process, search strategies, evaluation, and citations. The quizzes were created using the ACRL Frameworks, backwards course design, and GenEd IL Learning Outcomes.
The flipped class module was followed by an in-person library session, taught by one of four SFCC Librarian's focused on research question development. At the end of the quarter, students' final research papers were collected and assessed using the SFCC IL Rubric, which is based on the AACU IL Value Rubric.
General Findings
In should be noted that these findings are mere implications and would require a greater number of participates and data to be statistically significant.
- Out of all four quiz content areas, students assessed highest in the area of research as a process and research question development, which was the topic of the follow-up, in-person librarian led instruction sessions. This could possibly imply that library instruction is beneficial towards students' achievement of IL learning outcomes.
- Students who spent 10 minutes or more on the modules general assessed higher than students who spent 10 minutes or less on each module. Possibly indicating that engagement with the modules before an in-person library session can improve students' achievement of IL learning outcomes.
- Students' struggled the most with evaluating information critically and documenting information ethically and legally (citations), on both the modules and their final research papers.
Next Steps
- Promote Active Learning: Focus on one or two learning outcomes (research as a process, search strategies, evaluation, and citations) per class and have students complete a shorter more manageable assignment beforehand, that does not have to be a canvas module.
- Tier IL Instruction: Create specific rubrics for each library session's learning outcomes, developed from the GenEd Rubric to target specific courses (ENG 101, ENG 102, CMST 101, & upper 200 level courses) and focus on IL skill building.
- Assess Effectiveness of IL Instruction: Assess effectiveness of IL instruction by surveying students and faculty every year, while building instructional resources, especially in the content areas of critically evaluating sources and documentation information ethically, and soliciting continuous feedback.
- Assess Students IL Skills: Assess students' IL skills by selecting one course to assess every other year and support GenEd institutional assessment of IL every "off year."
Authority Assessment
This assessment was part of a pilot of a joint assessment between the SCC and SFCC Libraries, intended to learn about students understanding of the authority of information as given in the ACRL information literacy framework.
The project assessed students’ ability to identify indicators of authority and recognize that authority of information is depended on the information need (the use of the source). Students from a selection of classes, across multiple disciplines, completed a pre and post-test, before and after librarian instruction to ascertain their understanding of authority.
Based on assessment results, librarians were able to determine students’ most common misconceptions about evaluating authority and the librarians used that information to adjust their teaching practices, such as the need to better define the quality, type, and credibility found in library databases and the need to use multiple corroborating sources, especially when searching online.
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
1. Students will identify indicators of authority.
2. Students will recognize that the authority of information is dependent on the information need (the use of the source).
Assessment Activity
Pre- and post- tests given before and after library instruction.
Findings
Results report of Janine's preliminary findings from this portion of joint pilot with SFCC and other SCC librarians.
Study conducted between IR and CCS libraries (Mary Nagel, Janine Odlevak, MaryAnne Winniford) to measure effect of library instruction on student success. Fall 2014 - Spring 2016. (This report was sent to librarians Odlevak and Nagel by M. Winniford on November 15, 2016.)
Measurement period: Fall 2014 - Spring 2016
Classroom Feedback
The SFCC Library actively collects student feedback after information literacy instruction sessions, across classes, and discipline areas. The feedback forms ask students to identify if they feel prepared to use the resources presented during the library session, the clarity of instruction, the helpfulness of resources, and the overall value of the instruction session.
Students' feedback overall was positive, including preparedness to do research, librarian clarity, and overall value. Students made note that one-on-one instruction with a librarian was particularly helpful while researching, as well as instruction on the proper use of the database. One area of possible improvement that is highlighted is the need for more scaffolding in library instruction. Library instruction scheduled upon the request of subject faculty and therefore is not, tiered throughout the curriculum. Due to the unpredictable nature of such instruction scheduling, the library is currently working on creating IL outcomes that target specific courses, so IL instruction is more strategically implemented throughout the curriculum.
For a full copy of these results, including student responses please see the report below.
For a full copy of these results, including student responses please see the report below.
Strategic Program Assessment, 2016/17
During the review period, the SFCC Library conducted an extensive assessment through which we studied how faculty use the library collection in their instruction and the collection's strengths and weaknesses in fulfilling faculty needs (SPA 2016-17 Collections: An Analysis of Faculty Perception and Curricular Integration of Library Resources). A collection team of SCC/SFCC librarians was then formed to develop strategies and procedures which address the Collections SPA findings. During 2017-18, the team focused on the following action items and guiding questions:
- Develop a formalized and consistent means of obtaining faculty feedback for collection development/evaluation.
- Revise CCS Libraries' collection development policy and/or procedures in order to establish specific goals and measures regarding collection scope, focus, media types, and budgetary allocations as identified by data.
Guiding questions:
1. What measures are being used to evaluate library collections in terms of purchasing, weeding, and balancing among curricular areas?
Action/Findings: One of the measures utilized to evaluate library collections is guided by the CCS Libraries' collection development policy. The collection team reviewed the current policy and noted that it is consistent with industry standards, and the policies of libraries with similar user populations. However, no procedures or specific metrics were in place regarding decision-making and communication to constituents. Additionally, there were no systems established for acquiring data needed to make meaningful decisions. Without a cohesive way of conveying or measuring what the libraries have, it is difficult to solicit meaningful feedback or make budgetary decisions or goals.
2. How is CCS Libraries communicating information about library collections to faculty and soliciting feedback?
Action/Findings: Although conversations between librarians and the discipline faculty in their liaison areas were taking place, feedback was often informal and inconsistent across all disciplines. A plan for consistent communication with liaison areas is in development through the collection team’s current work. Standardized forms for collecting regular feedback from departments are being developed in order to formalize the evaluation process for trial electronic library resources and existing database subscriptions (e.g., Faculty Database Evaluation Form).
3. How can the library effectively support the accreditation and program review process of academic departments and programs at their respective campuses?
Action/Findings: The collection team created a long-term plan to map the collection to college departments/programs using a controlled vocabulary of abbreviated subject tags. Once in place, this tagging system will enable library faculty to tailor and communicate information regarding the collection in a meaningful way to departments/programs.
Actions and findings from these questions resulted in a proposed system comprised of a five-step process of collection development which accommodates departments and programs and supports program review and accreditation, as well as day-to-day information needs of faculty and students (CCS Library Collection Cycle diagram).
Additional assessments were implemented during the migration of our integrated library system, Alma, to a new platform. Using the analytics tools in Alma, librarians and staff created information dashboards that are continually updated to meet the collection data needs of librarians and administration. Through these efforts, library faculty and library administrators can communicate value, facilitate discussion, and create avenues for collection input and involvement by discipline faculty. Such actions will enable the SFCC Library to make better-informed decisions based on the college's needs.
Decision making about the collection would rely heavily on the collection development librarian’s use of data through Alma analytics, library budgeting procedures, licensing agreements, vendor relations, and current scholarship. Their expertise would be useful for departments/programs undergoing review and accreditation. A collection development librarian would act as the primary point-person for communicating information about the collection to stakeholders across the college.
It is also essential that SFCC Library has an experienced cataloger on staff to provide consistent and timely processing of resources and their records. The cataloger would be crucial in the implementation of the planned mapping system and in ensuring that collection development procedures are consistently followed. Without a qualified cataloger, the accuracy of resource records, accessibility of resources, and their relationship to curriculum/departments/programs is threatened.
SFCC Librarians conducted a survey of the Pullman faculty the Winter Quarter of 2019. The purpose of the survey was to discover how faculty use SFCC and WSU library services and resources. Faculty feedback indicates they are aware of SFCC Library services such as library website, online catalog, and article databases. We recognize that through collaboration with Pullman faculty and administration, more can be done to enhance current library services and to identify other options in providing library instruction.
