Information Literacy Assessment - 2014SPECIAL THANKS TO JIM WAUGH, OPIE!

Introduction

Information Literacy one of seven general education abilities

Initial assessment occurred in spring 2011

Most recent reiteration administered spring 2014.

Four primary Information Literacy competencies included:

Framing the Research Question

Accessing Sources

Evaluation of Information Resources

Create Original Work

Methodology

Library faculty review and score

Also helped SAAC design an Evaluation Rubric

The individual competencies were assessed using a clearly defined three level scale:

Level 1 / Beginner

Level 2 / Satisfactory

Level 3 / Proficient

Data Collected

Data was collected from 13 courses in 2011 and from 20 courses in 2014 which included:

• MAT102

• NUR251

• NUR271

• PHY101

• PSY290AB (2011, too)

• SOC212 (2011, too)

• AJS101

• CIS105 (2011, too)

• COM225 (2011, too)

• EDU112

• EDU220

• EDU221

• EDU222 (2011, too)

• EDU230

• EDU236

• EED215

• ENG091

• ENG101 (2011, too)

• ENG102 (2011, too)

• ENH285 (2011, too)

Data Collected (continued)

* Five instructors provided assessment data for both 2011 and 2014 assessment cycles

About Assessments: 2011

2014 % Change

Number of Instructors Involved * 14 17 +21%

Number of Sections Involved 24 32 +25%

Number of Students Assessed 346 488 +41%

Data Collected (continued)Assessment of materials from: 2011

(n=346)2014

(n=488)% Change

In-Person courses 71% 77% Up 6%

Internet courses 14% 14% Stable

Hybrid courses 15% 9% Down 6%

Developmental Education courses 0% 11% Up 11%

100-Level courses 62% 34% Down 28%

200-Level courses 38% 55% Up 17%

Freshmen 68% 52% Down 16%

Sophomores 32% 48% Up 16%

2011 and 2014 Comparative Highlights

Five instructors assessed Information Literacy in both 2011 and 2014. Changes in 2014 which may have contributed a positive impact on improving student Information Literacy performance include:

Increased emphasis on instructor and student engagement in the classroom

Increased access to Information Literacy presentations, Library staff and resources in and out of the classroom

Better equipped classrooms (use of Learning Studio vs. non-computer equipped classroom) to better support Information Literacy skills

Framing the Research Question (All Participants)

2011 2014

* Statistically significant difference in means

Level 1 / Beginner: Recognizes the need for information to answer a question

13% (n=45) 3% (n=14)

Level 2 / Satisfactory: Recognizes the information need for the appropriate topic, identifies key concepts & related Terms

59% (n=205)

65% (n=316)

Level 3 / Proficient: Identifies key concepts & related terms and locates quality resources to meet that need

28% (n=96) 32% (n=158)

Total

Mean = 2.15(n=346)

* Mean = 2.30

(n = 488)

Framing the Research Question (Comparing Participants)

Sophomores (mean = 2.39) outperformed freshmen (mean=2.21) in 2014

Sophomores in 2014 (mean=2.39) outperformed 2011 sophomores (mean=2.17)

EMCC students in 2014 (mean=2.30) outperformed 2011 EMCC students (mean=2.15)

Accessing Resources(All Participants)

2011 2014

* Statistically significant difference in means

Level 1 / Beginner: Uses a minimal number and/or types of sources to retrieve Information

34% (n=118)

14% (n=67)

Level 2 / Satisfactory: Used various types of informationsources databases, books newspapers etc.

38% (n=133)

64% (n=310)

Level 3 / Proficient: Uses significant number of sources including primary & secondary

28% (n=95)

22% (n=109)

Total

Mean = 1.93

(n=346)

* Mean = 2.09

(n = 486)

Accessing Resources(Comparing Participants)

Sophomores (mean = 2.17) outperformed freshmen (mean=1.77) in 2014

Freshmen: in 2014 (mean=2.01) outperformed freshmen 2011 (mean=1.88)

EMCC students in 2014 (mean=2.09) outperformed 2011 EMCC students (mean=1.93)

Evaluation of Information Resources(All Participants)

2011 2014

** Not a statistically significant difference in means

Level 1 / Beginner: Uncertain as to whether the original information need has been satisfied

34% (n=117) 14% (n=70)

Level 2 / Satisfactory: Appears information need has been satisfied, uses various sources from differing viewpoints

37% (n=129) 70% (n=336)

Level 3 / Proficient: Meets requirements of Level 2 & uses a variety of peer‐reviewed sources

29% (n=100) 16% (n=77)

Total

Mean = 1.95(n=346)

** Mean = 2.01

(n = 483)

Evaluation of Information Resources(Comparing Participants)

Sophomores (mean = 2.12) outperformed freshmen (mean=1.92) in 2014

EMCC students in 2014 (mean=2.01) scored higher than 2011 EMCC students (mean=1.95) but not at a statistically significant level

Create Original Work(All Participants)

2011 2014

* Statistically significant difference in means

Level 1 / Beginner: Uncertain if cited sources support thesis or informational need of original work

19% (n=65) 10% (n=47)

Level 2 / Satisfactory: Cited sources seemto support original work and investigates differing viewpoints

55% (n=190) 63% (n=307)

Level 3 / Proficient: Meets requirement of Level 2 & uses formal citation format cites a variety of strong sources

26% (n=91) 27% (n=134)

Total

Mean = 2.08(n=346)

* Mean = 2.18(n = 488)

Create Original Work(Comparing Participants)

Sophomores (mean = 2.29) outperformed freshmen (mean=2.07) in 2014

Freshmen: in 2014 (mean=2.29) outperformed 2011 (mean=2.11)

EMCC students in 2014 (mean=2.18) outperformed 2011 EMCC students (mean=2.08)

Take Aways

2014 Faculty participants, sections, and number of students participating significantly increased from 2011

SAAC to encourage faculty to refocus on improving Accessing Resources and Evaluation of Informational Resources

2014 Sophomores outperformed 2014 Freshmen in every category

2014 EMCC students outperformed 2011 EMCC students in three out of four categories (scored higher in the 4th category but not at a statistically significant level)