Information Competence Assessment Using First Year and Upper Division Writing Samples

1. Information Competence AssessmentUsing First Year and Upper Division Writing Samples Amy Wallace Interim Dean of the Library California State University, Channel Islands

2. CONTEXT

3. GRANT PROJECT Grant Information • CSU System-wide Information Literacy Grant • $14,100.00 • Fiscal years 2006/2007 & 2007/2008 Grant Goals: • The first year of the grant was to develop a rubric to assess four information literacy outcomes using student products already submitted for composition courses, English 102/103 and 105. • The second year of the grant was to be used to assess the same four information literacy outcomes using student products from the first-year composition courses as well as the additionally to products submitted in courses that meet the upper division writing requirement. Also Hoped To: • Inform us about information competence of incoming and outgoing students • Evaluate the impact of the information competence instruction program • Help identify weaknesses in order to improve

4. DETOUR A Original Grant Outcomes (ACRL IL Competency Standards for Higher Education): • The information literate student synthesizes main ideas to construct new concepts. • The information literate student compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value added, contradictions, and other unique characteristics of information. • The Information literate student applies new and prior information to the planning and creation of a particular product or performance. • The information literate student acknowledges the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance. Added Outcomes (CSUCI GE): • The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently.           • The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically. • The information literate student explains the economic, legal, social, and ethical issues surrounding the use of information.

5. RUBRIC & NORMING  Consistent ratings for: • the information literate student synthesizes main ideas to construct new concepts • the Information literate student applies new and prior information to the planning and creation of a particular product or performance • the information literate student acknowledges the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance  Research papers and group research assignments lent themselves to this type of assessment.  Inconsistent or “Rater can not determine” for: • the information literate student compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value added, contradictions, and other unique characteristics of information • the information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently • the information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically • the information literate student explains the economic, legal, social, and ethical issues surrounding the use of information  Narrative papers were not good for this type of assessment.

6. DETOUR B • New Library • Specialized Annotated Bibliography • Using a larger sample of student products • group projects • individual research • medical reports • otaku • problem/solution essays • argument • autoethnography papers • critical review essays • and much much more

7. Omen Self-Reflection on the Search Process- Where Do You Go from Here? Answer the following reflective questions on the search process: • How did you go about searching for resources? Where did you look? • Was the search process you used adequate to complete your assignment? • Did you find resources that were balanced and expressed all sides of your topic, or were they one-sided? • Did you find a variety of resources, or are they all of one type (ie: all articles, web sites, etc)? • Do you have enough resources to complete the assignment? If not, what resources or types of resources do you still need to complete your assignment? • How might you have done things different to yield more useful/relevant sources or make the search process more efficient? • If the librarian who conducted your library session was a Starbuck’s barista, how much would you tip her if each $1.00 was an hour of time she saved you?

8. YEAR 1B: Results • Group Critical Review Paper, Group Annotated Bibliography on BB Wiki, 2 one hour library sessions and embedded librarian on BB 1. The Information literate student applies new and prior information to the planning and creation of a particular product or performance (Grant Outcome). Mostly Emerging 2. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently (CSUCI GE Outcome). Evenly Spread 3. The Information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically (CSUCI GE Outcome). Mostly Emerging/Proficient - Proficient 4. The information literate student compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value added, contradictions, and other unique characteristics of information (Grant Outcome). Mostly Emerging 5. The information literate student synthesizes main ideas to construct new concepts (Grant Outcome). Evenly Spread 6. The information literate student acknowledges the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance (Grant Outcome). Split Emerging/Proficient & Advanced

9. YEAR 1B: Results • Group Research Paper, Group Paper Annotated Bibliography, No library instruction 1. The Information literate student applies new and prior information to the planning and creation of a particular product or performance (Grant Outcome). Mostly Emerging, Some Proficient 2. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently (CSUCI GE Outcome). Mostly Emerging/Proficient 3. The Information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically (CSUCI GE Outcome). Mostly Emerging/Proficient 4. The information literate student compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value added, contradictions, and other unique characteristics of information (Grant Outcome). Mostly Emerging, Some Proficient 5. The information literate student synthesizes main ideas to construct new concepts (Grant Outcome). Mostly Proficient 6. The information literate student acknowledges the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance (Grant Outcome). Mostly Proficient, Some Advanced

10. YEAR 1B: Results • Otaku Paper, Individual Paper Annotated Bibliography, 2 hour library session from archivist 1. The Information literate student applies new and prior information to the planning and creation of a particular product or performance (Grant Outcome). Split Emerging & Proficient 2. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently (CSUCI GE Outcome). Evenly Spread 3. The Information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically (CSUCI GE Outcome). Mostly Emerging 4. The information literate student compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value added, contradictions, and other unique characteristics of information (Grant Outcome). Mostly Emerging, Some Proficient 5. The information literate student synthesizes main ideas to construct new concepts (Grant Outcome). Split Emerging & Proficient 6. The information literate student acknowledges the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance (Grant Outcome). Mostly Emerging/Proficient, Some Advanced

11. YEAR 1B: The Unexpected Annotated Bibliographies • 6-8 Different • Group • Wiki • Gathering • Scoring Only Librarians Scored • Bad Move Still no results for: • the information literate student explains the economic, legal, social, and ethical issues surrounding the use of information

12. YEAR 2: Change of Plans Will offer UDIGE Faculty Mini-Grants • Workshop to augment rubric, identify product, and modify annotated bibliography. • Collect products and annotated bibliography • Workshop to norm and score products and annotated bibliography. • Share results widely to identify gaps

13. QUESTIONS ?