Program: Library & Information Sciences (MLISC)
Date: Thu Oct 08, 2015 - 5:40:47 pm
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
These SLOs define the content of the LIS Curriculum and are reviewed each year by LIS faculty. Each SLO also includes several specific examples of skills (evidence indicators). All course syllabi will include the Student Learning Outcomes being covered by the course.
SLO 1: Understand, apply and articulate the history, philosophy, principles and ethics of library and information science and the related professions.
1a) Apply LIS theory and principles to diverse information contexts
1b) Demonstrate understanding of the historical context of information services and systems
1c) Develop and apply critical thinking skills in preparation for professional practice
1d) Craft and articulate a professional identity
SLO 2: Develop, administrate, assess, and advocate for information services by exercising principled communication, teamwork and leadership skills.
2a) Demonstrate understanding of leadership
2b) Work effectively in teams
2c) Develop, manage, and assess information services for specific users and communities
2d) Create instructional and outreach programs
2e) Demonstrate the ability to advocate effectively for information services
SLO 3: Organize, create, archive, preserve, retrieve, manage, evaluate, and disseminate information resources in a variety of formats.
3a) Demonstrate understanding of the processes by which information is created, evaluated, and disseminated.
3b) Organize, create, archive and manage collections of information resources following professional standards
3c) Search, retrieve and synthesize information from a variety of systems and sources
3d) Demonstrate understanding of issues and techniques of preservation of physical and digital objects
SLO 4: Evaluate and use the latest information technologies, research findings and methods.
4a) Evaluate systems and technologies in terms of quality, functionality, cost-effectiveness and adherence to professional standards
4b) Integrate emerging technologies into professional practice
4c) Apply current research findings to professional practice
SLO 5: Engage in projects and assignments dealing with multicultural communities and representing diverse points of view.
5a) Communicate and collaborate with diverse colleagues, information seekers and community stakeholders
5b) Demonstrate understanding of the social, cultural, political, and economic context of information services and systems
5c) Apply LIS principles to meet the needs of Native Hawaiian and Asia-Pacific communities and to promote cultural sustainability
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://www.hawaii.edu/lis/courses/course-descriptions/
3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?
No (skip to question 16)
6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.
We continued our analysis of student achievement of SLOs at the assignment level. All instructors are asked to submit course performance profiles where they detail how many students exceed, meet, approach and do not meet standards for each SLO in major course assignments. We discussed these process in faculty meetings and in special accreditation meetings as preparation for our 2015 reaccreditation process. We used employer and alumni survey results to decide on our newest faculty hire--her research and teaching span several areas (reference, public libraries, multicultural literature, etc.) that were identified as important for us to maintain and strengthen.
8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)
Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Indirect evidence of student learning
Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Other 1: Oral comprehensive exam scenario responses
Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)
Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Students: 87 (est.)
Faculty: 12 (full-time and adjunct)
10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.
Oral exam scenario outcomes: 46% exceed, 54% meet standards
Data from assignment-level SLO course performance profiles:
SLO 1 Understand, apply and articulate the history, philosophy, principles and ethics of library and information science and the related professions: 70% exceed, 26% meet, 4% approach
SLO 2 Develop, administrate, assess, and advocate for information services by exercising principled communication, teamwork and leadership skills: 66% exceed, 24% meet, 8% approach, 1% do not meet
SLO 3 Organize, create, archive, preserve, retrieve, manage, evaluate, and disseminate information resources in a variety of formats: 67% exceed, 25% meet, 5% approach, 4% do not meet
SLO 4 Evaluate and use the latest information technologies, research findings and methods: 60% exceed, 35% meet, 4% approach, 1% do not meet
SLO 5 Engage in projects and assignments dealing with multicultural communities and representing diverse points of view: 69% exceed, 24% meet, 6% approach, 1% do not meet
13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)
Personnel or resource allocation changes
Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form)
Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)
Celebration of student success!
Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations
Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)
14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
We revised the assessment policy for the oral exam scenarios, making it clear that a student needs to average 5/7 (meets standards) on every scenario response to pass the exam.
We offered more technology courses, as results indicated that some students had difficulty in this area.
15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.
As mentioned previously, the period under review in this report includes most of our ramp-up for reaccreditation by the American Library Association, which happens once every seven years. It is a wide-ranging review that requires us to document our planning and assessment practices, and how the results are used to evolve the program. Having these regular program reports has helped regularize our assessment practices, and we are hopeful that this will be reflected in the accreditation team's positive reaction to our report.