Information Literacy - PowerPoint Presentation

Information Literacy Assessment - 2014 Special 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)EDU112EDU220EDU221 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 *1417+21%Number of Sections Involved 2432+25%Number of Students Assessed346488+41%

Data Collected (continued) Assessment of materials from: 2011 (n=346) 2014 (n=488) % Change In-Person courses 71%77%Up 6%Internet courses14%14% StableHybrid courses15%9%Down 6%Developmental Education courses0%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 need28% (n=96)32% (n=158)TotalMean = 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 & secondary28% (n=95)22% (n=109)TotalMean = 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 viewpoints37% (n=129) 70% (n=336)Level 3 / Proficient: Meets requirements of Level 2 & uses a variety of peer‐reviewed sources29% (n=100)16% (n=77)TotalMean = 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 viewpoints55% (n=190) 63% (n=307)Level 3 / Proficient: Meets requirement of Level 2 & uses formal citation format cites a variety of strong sources26% (n=91)27% (n=134)TotalMean = 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 category2014 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)