1 / 35

The Required Library Component: Assessing First-Year Teaching in the Small Academic Library

The Required Library Component: Assessing First-Year Teaching in the Small Academic Library Susan von Daum Tholl, PhD, Director Diane Zydlewski, Head of Reference Anne Hancock, Collection Development Librarian. Scope of our discussion

flo
Download Presentation

The Required Library Component: Assessing First-Year Teaching in the Small Academic Library

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Required Library Component: Assessing First-Year Teaching in the Small Academic Library Susan von Daum Tholl, PhD, Director Diane Zydlewski, Head of Reference Anne Hancock, Collection Development Librarian

  2. Scope of our discussion • Setting the stage—gaining administration approval for a required library component • Development of the library curriculum within the FYS; one-on-one faculty collaboration and attendance at FYS faculty meetings • Hybrid approach and revision of our online tutorial • Continual modifications of assignments and library workshop • Data gathering; faculty collaboration • Statistical analysis, which is ongoing • Use of our results to mold the future. . . .

  3. Timeline of Development • Pre-2005 —Basic info lit session offered in non-credited venues • Fall 2005 — First-Year Seminars required Library Component offered in both fall and spring semester • 2005-Spring 2007 —Worked 1 on 1 with faculty on assignments • 2007-2008 —Piloted customized assignments and pre- and post- testing by individual seminar • Fall 2008 — Applied to IRB; approval received January 2009 • Fall 2009 —3-Year Study began; all seminars offered in Fall semester • Fall 2011 —Study completed

  4. Stated Goal of FYS “engage first-year students in research and learning the basic elements of conducting research specifically using the resources of the library”

  5. Timeline of Development • Pre-2005 —Basic info lit session offered in non-credited venues • Fall 2005 — First-Year Seminars required Library Component offered in both fall and spring semester • 2005-Spring 2007 —Worked 1 on 1 with faculty on assignments • 2007-2008 —Piloted customized assignments and pre- and post- testing by individual seminar • Fall 2008 — Applied to IRB; approval received January 2009 • Fall 2009 —3-Year Study began; all seminars offered in Fall semester • Fall 2011 —Study completed

  6. Substance of the Library Component from fall 2009 to fall 2011

  7. Criteria for eligibility of participants: • First-Year entering students • Age (over 18 years of age at the pre-test) • Completion of both pre- and post-test • Consent letter explaining the process for opting • out • Data collected for individual students: • Pre- and Post-test scores • Assignment grades • Number of assignments completed • Gender

  8. Rates of Improvement during the Study

  9. A Hybrid Approach: Combining a Hands-On Workshop and an Online TutorialDiane Zydlewski, Head of Reference

  10. The Evolving Role of the Tutorial

  11. Current Role of the Tutorial within the Library Component of FYS Program

  12. Scope of the Tutorial

  13. Pop-up alert appears if the wrong answer is selected.

  14. Technical and Design Aspectsof the tutorial • (See also the best practices handout.)

  15. Fall 2005 Simulation of Library Web Site.

  16. Fall 2011

  17. Spring 2007

  18. Fall 2011

  19. Assignments: A Dynamic Information Literacy Tool Anne Hancock, Collection Development Librarian

  20. Concept & Design : A “Stepped” Approach Evaluation & Citation Assignment WelcomeAssignment WorkshopAssignment Done • Hand out during Library Workshop • Identify research topic • Create search string • Find book, article, and website • Complete outside of class, due 1 week later • Evaluate resources found in Workshopfor content quality • Create citation • Complete one week before workshop • Register for Library Barcode • Questions covered: • basic library info • creating search strings • online catalog • online databases

  21. The Welcome Assignment • PROBLEMS • Too much material • Assignment questions unclear • Faculty confusion about assignment • Students not reading instructions • SOLUTIONS • Pared down scope • Conformed assignment questions to tutorial language and SIMPLIFIED. • Reinforced assignment process with faculty • Made instructions stand out more (increased spacing and font)

  22. The Workshop Assignment • PROBLEMS • Students did not have enough time!!!! • Workshop sessions of different lengths (50 or 75 minutes) • Number and types of resources a challenge • Search String CONFUSION!!! • SOLUTIONS • Pared down number of resources we asked students to find. • Simplified search string portion of assignment.

  23. The Evaluation & Citation Assignment • PROBLEMS • Questions open-ended • Student answers incomplete • Difficult to grade subjective questions in a standardized way • Citations • Faculty and Student perceptions • SOLUTIONS • Rewrote assignment • Used guided evaluation questions • Removed open-ended questions • Removed formal citation and asked bibliographic questions instead. • Eliminated assignment in 2011

  24. Grading Methods

  25. Data Gathering & Analysis • Data Collected: • Pre- and Post-test scores and question by question answers • Assignment grades • Number of assignments completed • Gender • Data Analysis: • Created IBM SPSS database for each year • Data entered into IBM SPSS • Using IBM SPSS software to run statistical tests

  26. Rates of Improvement during the Study

  27. Use of Results to Mold the Future Library Component. . . • Statistical analysis is ongoing. • Analyze results of the pre- and post-test question-by- • question to identify patterns of item difficulty to • indicate what our teaching must address. • We are looking at completion rates for the • Assignments as they relate to individual student • learning outcomes on the post-test.

  28. The Future . . . • Rework the pre- and post-tests, clarifying some • language and creating distractors to develop a • stronger test. • Aside from the IRB Study, anonymous “clicker” data on • self-efficacy and student satisfaction from the workshops • needs to be compiled and analyzed.

  29. The Study as a springboard for new initiatives . . . . • Use statistical analysis to help to inform the various • levels of our Information Literacy Program • Formalize our required Library Workshop in the First- • Year Writing Program, whose topic is a more advanced look • at evaluation, especially online resources • Apply to IRB for a follow-up study of participants in Years 2 • and 3 of the FYS Study when they are Seniors • Develop focus groups with the Instructional Assistants • Fill a new FT position – Instructional Librarian • Create a faculty development program

  30. Thank you! Our Contact information: Susan von Daum Tholl, PhD tholl@emmanuel.edu Diane Zydlewski zydlewsd@emmanuel.edu Anne Hancock hancoan@emmanuel.edu http://www1.emmanuel.edu/library

More Related