pitzer fys rubric evauation proejct: 2013 slides for all staff meeting

2 0 1 3 I L R U B R I C E V A L

Boo t h /Lowe/Ta g g e /S t o n e /Sny de r Sep t 2 0 1 3

o f P Z F Y S P A P E R S

LIBRARIANS MATTER:

•  Librarians rated their Fall 2012 FYS instruction on 2 scales from LOW to HIGH: course collaboration level and syllabus collaboration level

•  5 Librarians reviewed 99 Pitzer FYS papers with the CCL IL rubric to determine the impact of librarian collaboration on student work

•  This research design was created by Char and Sara for the Assessment in Action Project

•  Our findings are OFFICIALLY AWESOME.

Project Overview

IL Rubric Overview

2011: 6/17 classes

Pitzer FYS/Library Collaboration

2011: 6/17 classes

2012: 13/17 classes

-Matching of librarians/FYS classes

-Participate in FYS faculty retreats

-Collaborate with Barbara Junisbai, FYS coordinator

Pitzer FYS/Library Collaboration

Pitzer FYS/Library Collaboration

2011: 6/17 classes

2012: 13/17 classes

-Matching of librarians/FYS classes

-Participate in FYS faculty retreats

-Collaborate with Barbara Junisbai, FYS coordinator

2013: ?/19 classes

-Matching of librarians/FYS classes

-Participate in FYS faculty retreats

-Collaborate with Barbara Junisbai, FYS coordinator

-FYS faculty research workshop

Attribution Evaluation Communication

Fall 2011 2.20 2.44 2.47

Fall 2012 2.32 2.60 2.64

1  

1.5  

2  

2.5  

3  

3.5  

4  

A"ribu'on   Evalua'on     Communica'on  

Fall  2011  

Fall  2012  

Librarian Course Engagement combined with Syllabus IL/Librarian Assignment Design Collaboration

Attribution Evaluation Communication

Total Scores 2.32 2.60 2.64

4/4 2.64 2.82 2.82

2/1 1.30 2.20 2.30

Level 4 = High (intensive course collaboration - multiple classes, SYR Tutorial/Quiz) Level 1 = Low (minimal course collaboration ‒ one shot and course guide)

1.3  

2.2   2.3  

2.64  2.82   2.82  

A"ribu'on   Evalua'on   Communica'on  

2  |  1   4  |  4  

Librarian Course Engagement Level

Attribution Evaluation Communication

Total Scores 2.32 2.60 2.64

4 2.56 2.76 2.76

3 2.31 2.54 2.85

2 2.19 2.52 2.52

1 2.10 2.40 2.40

2.1  2.19  

2.31  

2.56  

2.4  2.52   2.54  

2.76  

2.4  2.52  

2.85  2.76  

1   2   3   4  

A"ribu'on   Evalua'on   Communica'on  

Engagement/ Collaboration

Level 4 3 2 1 0

Lib n=34

Syl n=28

Lib n=13

Syl n=14

Lib n=42

Syl n=19

Lib n=10

Syl n=10

Syl n=28

Attribution 2.56 2.64 2.31 2.50 2.19 2.21 2.10 1.30 2.36

Evaluation 2.76 2.82 2.54 2.57 2.52 2.53 2.40 2.20 2.57

Communication 2.76 2.82 2.85 2.71 2.52 2.63 2.49 2.30 2.54

NOTE: All 4 Syl were also 4 Lib.

2.1  

1.3  

2.2   2.2   2.3  2.5   2.6   2.6  

2.4  2.2  

2.5   2.5   2.5   2.6  2.8   2.8  

2.5  2.3  

2.5   2.6  2.9  

2.7   2.8   2.8  

n=10   n=10   n=42   n=19   n=13   n=14   n=34   n=28  

Lib   Syl   Lib   Syl   Lib   Syl   Lib   Syl  

1   2   3   4  

A9ribu<on   Evalua<on   Communica<on  

•  Student IL performance rises in proportion to the librarian course collaboration level and syllabus collaboration level

•  Our data strongly confirms the value of library instruction (that’s you!)

•  It takes a village: These effects are the combined result of librarian/faculty professional development, IL outcomes, collaboration with the Pitzer FYS coordinator, and a lot of legwork.

•  Reminder: our results are OFFICIALLY AWESOME.

In other words...