The South Dakota Regental Information Literacy Exam : A Tool to Document and Assess Information...
-
Upload
gavin-malone -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
Transcript of The South Dakota Regental Information Literacy Exam : A Tool to Document and Assess Information...
The South Dakota Regental Information
Literacy Exam : A Tool to Document and Assess
Information Literacy
Carol A. Leibiger, Ph.D.Head of Public Services and Reference,
Information Literacy Coordinator, I.D. Weeks Library, University of South Dakota
William Schweinle, Ph.D.Assistant Professor of Psychology
Boise State University
Information Literacy and Life-long Learning An information literate person is able to:
determine the extent of the information needed access the needed information effectively and
efficiently evaluate information and its sources critically incorporate selected information into one’s
knowledge base use information effectively to accomplish a
specific purpose understand the economic, legal, and social
issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally
American Library Association/Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000)
Rise of IL Instruction and Assessment Higher education assessment movement
Rise of strategic planning and Total Quality Management (TQM) in higher education
Library instruction movement: change in focus from library skills to IL in academic libraries
General education reform movement
Inclusion of IL in accreditation standardsMeulemans, Y. (2002); Rockman, I. (2002)
Other Documents Supporting IL Reform on Campus (1972, and follow-up reports of the
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher
Education (1989)
SCANS Report (Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, Dept. of Labor, 1991)
Goals 2000: National Educate America Act (1994)
Information Power National School Library IL Standards (1998)
Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College (2002, Association of American Colleges and Universities)
Higher Learning Commission (2003) Criterion 4, “Acquisition, discovery, and application of
knowledge”
4a: The organization demonstrates, through the actions of its board, administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it values a life of learning.
4b: The organization demonstrates that acquisition of a breadth of knowledge and skills and the exercise of intellectual inquiry are integral to its educational programs.
4c: The organization assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society.
4d: The organization provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, evaluate, and apply knowledge responsibly.
Graduate Student IL Assessment
Graduate students… often overestimate their information-finding skills operate on the principle of least effort tend to choose the easiest and most convenient
resources don’t know enough - yet - about their disciplines
to be effective searchers don’t have the critical skills to handle the
information explosion
George, C., Bright, A., Hurlbert, T., Linke, E. C., St. Clair, G., & Stein, J. (2006); Bellard, E.M. (2005); Chu, S. K.-W., & Law, N. (2003), Grant, M. & Bert, M., (2003).
Graduate Student IL Assessment Demographic changes in the graduate
student population average graduate student is female over 35 has been away from education for at least 2
years linguistically, ethnically diverse work and family responsibilities time management issues feelings of inadequacy technology anxiety
Bellard, E.M. (2005); Gordon, C. (2002)
Graduate Student IL Assessment Graduate students can benefit from IL
instruction because they are also: highly- and self-motivated learners cognitively mature understand their own learning styles, apply meta-cognitive strategies to their
information seeking familiar with higher-quality search engines like
Google Scholar an important conduit of IL instruction for
undergraduate students
Graduate Student IL Assessment no systematic IL assessment of advanced
learners isolated suggestions and tools
research paper required of all applicants to graduate programs
IL skills audit or test required of entering graduate students (University of Missouri-Columbia, Boston College, and Australian National University)
Graduate Student IL Assessment SDILE can serve as an entrance
assessment of IL for advanced learners skill set assumed for graduate students is
congruent with that of undergraduate students who are information literate
short yet valid and reliable instrument documenting and assessing IL
allows identification of deficiencies in IL and formulation of appropriate remediation
South Dakota Regental Universities
Black Hills State University
Dakota State University
Northern State University
South Dakota State University
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
University of South Dakota (USD)
South Dakota BOR ITL Requirement
Information Technology Literacy was defined institution-specifically.
All universities except USD defined ITL as IT.
Definition affected how it was taught and assessed.
Only USD taught and assessed it as IL
South Dakota System General Education Requirements (2005) Goal #1: Student will write effectively and responsibly and will understand and interpret the
written expression of others.
Goal #2: Student will communicate effectively and responsibly through listening and speaking.
Goal #3: Student will understand the organization, potential, and diversity of the human community through study of the social sciences.
Goal #4: Students will understand the diversity and complexity of the human experience through study of the arts and humanities.
Goal #5: Students will understand and apply fundamental mathematical processes and reasoning.
Goal #6: Students will understand the fundamental principles of the natural sciences and apply scientific methods of inquiry to investigate the natural world.
Goal #7: Students will recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, organize, critically evaluate, and effectively use information from a variety of sources with intellectual integrity.
IL Student Learning OutcomesStudents will… determine the extent of information needed; access the needed information effectively and
efficiently; evaluate information and its sources critically; use information effectively to accomplish a
specific purpose; use information in an ethical and legal
manner.(ALA/ACRL IL Competency Standards)
Seeking an IL Assessment: Problems With the ITL Exam Characteristics of the ITL Exam
WebCT 20 questions Multiple-choice questions Passing score 13/20 (65% correct)
Problems Function = documentation of IL No assessment value (KR20 ≈ .30) Privileged students who passed SPCM 101 at
USD
Seeking an IL Assessment: National Standardized Exams
Project SAILS
ETS Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy Assessment
James Madison Information Literacy Test (ILT)
Seeking an IL Assessment
The BOR institutions’ needs:
true assessment of IL (not ITL)
short, yet valid and reliable, instrument
student-level information
IL Subcommittee Co-chaired by BOR assessment expert and a
librarian (IL Coordinator, USD)
5 assessment experts (including one psychometrician, USD’s Director of Assessment)
5 library faculty
2 English instructors
1 Communication Studies instructor
Charged with creating an assessment with special properties
Special Properties Required of
the SD IL Exam (SDILE) Brevity: 25 multiple-choice questions
Online delivery
Content valid vis-à-vis the Association of College &
Research Libraries’ (ACRL) IL Competency
Standards for Higher Education
Discrete cutoff (proficiency threshold)
Continuous (assessment) scores
Both documents and assesses IL
IL Exam Questions The Solution: Two scoring methods
The documentation questions will have low and very similar item “difficulties” (locations in IRT terms).
The assessment questions will be more difficult and be more varied in their “difficulty”.
For each set of 5 questions 3 documentation: documents attainment of minimum
level of Information Literacy, i.e., close to a fixed point 2 assessment: assesses levels of Information Literacy
along a continuum, i.e., along a line.
Proficiency Point
“Difficulty”Documentation Items Assessment Items
SLO 2: Documentation QuestionAccess the needed information effectively and efficiently
Why is Interlibrary Loan so valuable to a student’s research?
a. It allows a student to visit and check out materials from a library that is not his/her local library.
b. It allows a student to request materials from a library that is not his/her local library.
c. It allows a student to access online materials at a library that is not his/her local library.
d. It allows a student to purchase materials not located in his/her local library.
Classical Difficulty = .87
SLO 2: Assessment QuestionAccess the needed information effectively and efficiently
Your instructor has given an assignment that requires the use of primary source materials. Which would you consult?
a. a biography of someone involved in the issue with criticism
b. a diary written by someone who was involved in the issue
c. a textbook article about someone who was involved in the issue
d. a journal articles about someone who was involved in the issue
Classical Difficulty = .63
Analyses
Classical: average item difficulties across ALL item types is around 0.70, giving a pass rate of about 98% with a cut-score of 13/25.
Two IRT analyses for the items relevant to each ACRL Standard (unidimensionality) 2PL (Rasch) to look for location (Θ) and
discrimination (slopes) Nominal (Bock)
2PL (Rasch) Traces for Items
2PL Item Trace Curves for Documentation and Assessment Items
.0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 .0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
q
p(q)
p(Θ|1D2c Correct)
p(Θ|1A1b Correct)
ND(0,1)
“Partial Credit” Traces for SLO2 Documentation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ab
c
d
Ability
Pro
bab
ility
Item Characteristic Curve
Nominal Response Model
Ongoing Test Revision Items are and will be added, revised,
tested and dropped with each IL testing cycle.
Biased (DIF) items will be removed. Gender Ethnicity Location Etc.
Nominal (Bock) Scores for the SD BOR Institutions
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
SLO1 SLO2 SLO3 SLO4 SLO5
Additional Evidence: Correlations Between Nominal and Classical Scores (n = 2171)
NOM SLO2
NOM SLO3
NOM SLO4
NOM SLO5
# Correct
>12 Correct
NOM SLO1 .11 .08 -.02 -.01 .32 .17
NOM SLO2 .12 .04 .06 .43 .20
NOM SLO3 -.09 .11 .40 .23
NOM SLO4 -.01 -.14 -.04
NOM SLO5 .32 .19
# Correct .53
(Red correlations are not significant at p < .05)
SLO 4: Documentation Question(Old 4D2a)
To best demonstrate the scope of a problem one should use...
a. pictures.b. statistics.c. books.d. articles.
Item Characteristics (Old 4D2a)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
a
b
c d
Ability
Pro
bab
ilit
y
Bock Nominal Response Model
ACRL Student Learning Outcome #4An Information Literate student will use
information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.
Problems: The question lacks a context? This SLO requires higher cognitive processing which is
difficult to test with MC items? This SLO represents the intersection between research
(taught by the library) and argumentation (taught in ENGL and SPCM). Should use of information in argumentation be more effectively taught in gen. ed. courses?
What do you think?
4D2a Revised
The best visual aid for a speech comparing changes in the profits of two or three competing companies over a three-year period is...
a. a spreadsheet.b. a market analysis.c. a line chart.d. a table.
Item Characteristics(New 4D2a)
Benefits of the SDILE A dual-purpose IL Exam
Documentation Assessment
Random item rotation Continuous improvement and
refinement Low cost – WebCT administration
The End of the SDILE: Bureaucratic Blunder Feb. 2005: The IL Exam questions (with answers)
were posted to the BOR web site (www.sdbor.edu)
2006-2007: Conference presentations on the IL Exam actively sought beta-testing partners
April 2007: Acclaimed presentation at ACRL, interest in beta-testing/cooperation from Project SAILS and 9 prestigious colleges and research universities
The End of the SDILE: Bureaucratic Blunder April 2007: Student taking the IL Exam
discovered the questions/answers online at the SD BOR web site (invalidated the pilot)
Investigators discovered that the IL Exam questions had been downloaded 293 times (in-state, in-country, and abroad)
Beta-testing partners were notified to stop the pilot
The End of the SDILE: The Vultures Gather… A member regental university had been a “less
than enthusiastic” participant
Once the IL Exam pilot was invalidated, this university immediately proposed dropping the exam
New BOR academic officer had also problematized the notion of an IL Exam
May 2007: AAC/BOR persuaded to drop the IL Exam as a system IL requirement
The End of the SDILE:USD Drops the IL Exam Spring 2007: USD decides to reconstitute the IL
Exam as an institutional measure
Summer 2007: Will leaves USD for Boise State U.
USD refuses to hire Will as consultant
USD claims IP ownership of the IL Exam
Lessons Learned Avoid unfunded mandates
Get release time or some other tangible benefit, in writing, before beginning
Get buy-in rather than imposing mandates Institutions should genuinely support the
project Members should support the project, even if
their institutions don’t Give creative teams room to work; don’t
oversee or micro-manage
Lessons Learned Choose participants carefully. Members
should… be chosen because of subject know-
ledge and competence be competent to understand all
members’ roles in the project promote the project’s agenda rather
than their own or their institution’s agenda
Lessons Learned Clarify IP issues
Work out IP ownership issues up-front BOR IP Institutions’ IP Individual members’ IP vs. work product
Protect secret information Clear those who handle information Don’t post to unprotected sites Provide consequences for divulging IP
Don’t expect kudos, gratitude, or apologies from administration during or after the project
For further information… On the SDILE
Carol Leibiger, Head of Public Services and Reference, Information Literacy Coordinator, University of South [email protected]
William Schweinle, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Boise State [email protected]
On IRTReise, S. P., Ainsworth, A. T., & Haviland, M. G. (2005). Item Response Theory: Fundamentals, applications, and promise in psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Research, 14, 2, 95-101.