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