Kaua‘i community college
Self Evaluation Library
Yüklə 1,69 Mb.
|
Self EvaluationLibraryThe Library has used results from student and faculty surveys, quizzes, a faculty focus group, and recommendations from the Library Advisory Committee to improve library services. Library hours were expanded and signs requesting quiet zones in the upstairs of the Library were created in response to student surveys. The Distance Librarian sent links to sites on citation styles and online tutorials in response to results from distance student surveys. In response to the results of student quizzes, the Acting Instructional Librarian created a PowerPoint presentation to clarify content that students did not understand about evaluating information on the Internet (Library Program Review – Appendix 31 – Goals for Library Research Class). In Fall 2005, the Library began disseminating information about new acquisitions and more information on new resources and online tutorials in response to the results from the faculty focus group by sending regular email announcements of new acquisitions and by attending division meetings. The Library is in the beginning stages of defining and assessing Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) for information literacy skills. The library has defined one SLO for information competency: Students will be able to demonstrate information literacy skills in library research that have been acquired through library instruction. In order to measure information literacy skills of students who had taken at least one class in library research skills, the librarians developed a simple assessment tool. Beginning in Fall 2004 and continuing every semester, a pre-test with ten questions testing knowledge of basic information literacy skills are given to two English 100 classes and a similar pre-test with five questions are given to two English 22 classes just before library instruction. At the end of the semester, these same students take a post-test with similar questions. The results have been mixed but promising; scores improve in the post-test for most questions, but go down for one or two questions each semester. Librarians use the results to change instructional emphasis and teaching strategies. The tests have not been tested for validity or reliability, so these results are not statistically significant, but provide one beginning strategy to assess Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for information literacy skills (Library Program Review – Appendix 32 – Information Literacy). The same ten-question quiz was given to all students who had a library instruction session in fall semester 2004. They were not given a pre-test, but there was a marked difference in scores for students who had had more than one instructional session in library/information literacy skills. Students in Nursing 153, Science 121 and Micro 130 not only had multiple instructional sessions, but also had to complete a research exercise. Their average test scores were considerably higher than other students who had only one session (Library Program Review – Appendix 21). This points to a correlation between higher scores and time spend on learning and using information literacy skills, but again this was not a statistically valid study and the research design needs to be improved. During the Fall 2005 semester, three KCC faculty members incorporated the new LILO tutorial in their courses. Two instructors in the Nursing program and one instructor in English introduced LILO and had students use it to learn how to progress through the research process to find and evaluate information for papers and projects. Statistics showed that KCC had the second highest number of students using the tutorial in the UH System. 414 students in the UH System used LILO with 75 students from our campus using it. 68 percent of the KCC students using LILO agree to the statement: “The LILO tutorial has helped me to improve my researching skills” (Library Program Review – Appendix 26). The UH Libraries Information Literacy Committee (UHLILC) is currently developing a rubric to assess the student journals generated by the LILO tutorial. The skills in the LILO tutorial have been mapped to ACRL Information Literacy Standards and will be used to assess student answers to research questions in the tutorial. The rubric will provide a systemwide tool to measure the impact of LILO and library research instruction on Student Learning Outcomes related to information literacy/competency. The Learning Center The Spring 2005 Faculty Morale Survey was favorable to TLC (Exhibit II-50: Faculty Morale Survey). Faculty members were asked whether TLC and the Library were responsive to their requests. The mean average score of 31 respondents was 4.52 out of a possible 5. The score of 5 was equivalent to “strongly agree.” In fact the mode for the responses was a 5. Both TLC and the library received the highest scores from the faculty in both categories (Learning Center Program Review and the Library Program Review – Appendix 28). Results of a Spring 2003 TLC user evaluation indicate a favorable view of TLC by students. Out of 63 completed surveys, 35 (56 percent) rated the TLC excellent, 25 (40 percent) noted it as good, and 3 (4 percent) gave a fair rating. No one gave TLC a poor rating (Learning Center Program Review). In the retention and classroom performance study “Learning How to Learn” sessions were provided to 10 (Group A) of the 22 surveyed classes and were compared with the retention and classroom performance of students in the remaining 12 classes (Group B). The class retention rate in Group A was 4 percent higher than Group B. Class success rate of Group A was 8.5 percent higher than Group B. TLC loosely assumes that its efforts in teaching students how to learn efficiently and effectively make a difference in the retention and class performance of students. Currently, TLC is being reorganized to integrate the College Success Program and as a result, the future services of these divisions are in development. At this point, it is tentatively planned that the Learning to Learn Program will be replaced by services offered in workshops, individual and group tutoring, the Writing Lab and math/science lab, and interdisciplinary studies curriculum developed by the College Success Program, including its new course, IS 103 (Introduction to College). Although the Spring 2003 TLC user evaluation was positive, some students suggested having more computers and a color printer in the Lab, having more tutors, extending hours, and opening on weekends. TLC has not acted on these suggestions since they require funding that is not available. This evaluation’s result is representative of those in past years. College Success Program The College Success program is still being defined through formal cross-campus conversations. Assessment tools to measure the impact of its services on student learning outcome have not been formally developed. An initial analysis of the impact of the focus groups developed to support students in traditionally challenging courses in the Spring and Fall 2005 semesters shows a positive impact of the labs on student success rates (Exhibit II-22: Focus Labs Summary – Fall 2005, History 151, Spring, 2005, History 152 and Focus Labs Summary – Fall, 2005, Micro 130). Peer Assistant Program The program measures its impact on student learning using student retention rates in the courses it supports. “The average percentage decrease (compared to the previous calendar year, i.e. F04/F05, S04/S05) in student non-completion in classes served by the program (Exhibit II-51: Peer Assistant Program Performance Indicators, Effectiveness Measures, Expected Outcomes). University Center The University Center (UC) used student surveys and grade analysis to evaluate the impact of their services on student success. One measurement of success is whether or not the educational experience met student goals. In an attempt to gauge goal attainment the UC conducted an informal phone survey of 42 graduates out of a pool of 75. Graduates were polled as to whether the education they pursued via the UC met their goals. Thirty-nine of the 42 (93 percent) said that their goals were met. All of the respondents were working, 55 percent found jobs related to their degree and 31 percent of the respondents said that they got a promotion after receiving their degrees (University Center Program Review, Appendix J). Planning Agenda
Yüklə 1,69 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|