Unit: Information & Computer Science
Program: Library & Information Sciences (MLISC)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Aug 31, 2011 - 2:45:12 pm

1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

In spring 2011, the LIS faculty revised the program’s SLOs based on the most recent edition of Core Competences adopted by the American Library Association. These SLOs define the content of the LIS Curriculum. 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.

Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/lis/program.php?page=mission [this is still current]

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.php?page=descriptions [this is still current]

Other:

3) Below is the link(s) to your program's curriculum map(s). If we do not have your curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2011:

File (03/16/2020)

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.

1-50%

51-80%

81-99%

100%

5) For the period June 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

During this period, we concentrated on examining the current ALA Core Competences, our program’s existing SLOs, and decided that we needed to make major revisions to our stated outcomes. This effort was coordinated by the program’s Curriculum Committee and involved both the tenure track faculty and adjunct faculty members.

6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.

Oral comprehensive exams: The program collected assessment data from the oral comprehensive exam administered at the point of graduation in the fall and spring. This was an hour-long examination with two faculty members presiding. Students received a series of scenarios relating to a broad range of LIS topics and themes, and they were permitted to study in advance for the four scenarios that they elected to address. All scenarios were aligned to relevant SLOs. More details on the exam are available at http://www.hawaii.edu/lis/program.php?page=orals No notes were allowed in the session, and faculty members asked follow-up questions during the exam. For each scenario addressed, the administering faculty members rated students on a 4-point scale (4=exceeds expectations; 3=meets expectations; 2=approaches expectations; and 1=does not meet expectations). If a student scored a 1 or 2 on a particular scenario, he/she waited at least two weeks to retake the scenario. Faculty members examined the data results to identify areas where students were having difficulties and the implications for both the oral comprehensive scenarios as well as the curriculum.

Course assessment portfolios: The LIS Program is in its fifth year of implementing an outcome-based approach to student learning that focuses on clearly stated performance expectations for major course assignments as well as criteria by which performances are assessed. We proceeded incrementally starting with the required core courses and working through all of the elective courses. Both tenure track faculty and adjunct faculty are participating in the process. Sample portfolios are on file in the LIS administration office. The remaining portfolios may be requested directly from the respective instructors.

7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

All tenure track faculty members (8) submitted ratings for the oral comprehensive exams that they helped to administer. All tenure track faculty members (8) also prepared portfolios for the courses that they taught in the last academic year. We also asked adjunct faculty members (6) to participate.

8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)

Faculty committee

Ad hoc faculty group

Department chairperson

Persons or organization outside the university

Faculty advisor

Advisors (in student support services)

Students (graduate or undergraduate)

Dean/Director

Other:

9) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide

Scored exams/tests/quizzes

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)

Other:

10) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #5:
Summarize the actual results.

Achievement of student learning outcomes is most directly addressed in the oral comprehensive exams. Students are scored on a 1-4 scale with 1 being "not meeting expectations" and 4 being "exceeding expectations." To pass the exam, students must score 3s or 4s on all for scenarios that comprise the exam. We were using the old SLOs for the 2010-2011 year. The data revealed that at least 75% of the responses in the oral comp exams met or exceeded expectations on the following ten of the twelve SLOs:

SLO 1: Demonstrate an understanding of the history, philosophy, principles, policies and ethics of library and information science and technology

SLO 2: Demonstrate an understanding of the development, organization, and communication of knowledge

SLO 3: Apply basic competencies and knowledge that are essential for providing, managing, and designing information services and programs in a variety of information environments

SLO 5: Demonstrate theoretical understanding of and basic competencies in evaluating, selecting, and organizing information sources

SLO 6: Demonstrate theoretical understanding of and basic competencies in storage, retrieval, dissemination, utilization, and evaluation of information

SLO 7: Demonstrate an understanding of the principles of administration applicable in libraries, archives, and information centers

SLO 9: Demonstrate an understanding of research techniques and methods of applying new knowledge as it becomes available

SLO 10: Demonstrate the professional attitudes and the interpersonal and interdisciplinary skills needed to communicate and collaborate with colleagues and information users

SLO 11: Demonstrate basic competencies in the latest specialized information technologies

SLO 12: Demonstrate an understanding of the above goals within the perspective of prevailing and emerging technologies

On the remaining two SLOs, the percentage of responses meeting or exceeding expectations ranged from 63.7% to 71%. The SLOs were

SLO 4: Demonstrate an understanding of the development and interrelationship of librarianship and information science

SLO 8: Demonstrate basic competencies required for instructional program development in particular information environments

11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

The current assessment results have led the faculty to consider the following essential questions: A) Does the program’s current core adequately meet the needs of our students? B) Does the ICT slate of elective courses adequately reflect the rapidly changing technological landscape? C) Does the current oral examination accurately measure the range of SLOs in our program? D) What actions might we take to effect improvements?

12) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

To address the questions posed in #11, we plan a slate of meetings in the 2011-2012 year to revisit our entire LIS curriculum and consider modifications, additions and deletions to the curriculum. As part of that discussion, we also want to address how the new SLOs are reflected in course assignments and how they are being assessed.

13) Other important information.
Please note: If the program did not engage in assessment, please explain. If the program created an assessment plan for next year, please give an overview.

The LIS Curriculum Committee plans to facilitate critical discussions in 2011-2012 to revisit required courses and electives based on assessment results and the new SLOs. The timetable for this work is noted in the tentative plan outlined below.

2011-2012 Action Plan for LIS Curriculum Committee

The Committee’s plan of action is based on the current LIS Strategic Plan. The Committee focused specifically on

Strategic Goal 1: Providing a curriculum that meets the evolving demands of the job market for library and information science professionals

Objective A: Maintain a continuous review and implementation process for systematic curriculum renewal and enhancement.
Objective B: Expand LIS Program partnerships with UH system units, state agencies, and community organizations.
Objective C: Assess the culminating experience and implement changes as appropriate.

Strategic Goal 2: Serving the needs of a diverse student population

Objective D: Review and improve modes of offering courses via distributed learning.

Strategic Goal 3: Furthering faculty excellence in teaching, research, and service.

Objective A: Maintain a high quality of instruction.

Strategic Goal 4: Provide a quality learning and research environment for students and faculty.

Objective C: Continue to improve physical and intellectual access to information technologies.

*Activities based on strategic objectives*	*Proposed action*	*Lead*
Examine core course requirements in light of revised SLOs and assessment feedback. Decide on possible modifications.	August 2011	Rich Gazan
Examine ICT course requirements in light of revised SLOs and assessment feedback. Decide on possible modifications.	September 2011	Violet Harada
Examine remaining electives in the curriculum in light of revised SLOs and assessment feedback. Decide on possible modifications.	October 2011	Violet Harada
Discuss whether to retain or modify our 42-credit requirement.	November 2011	Peter Jacso
Begin work on UH-1 and UH-2 forms for any new courses or deleted/modified courses.	Remainder of the school year	Assigned faculty
Discuss how LIS courses address the following targets identified by community stakeholders as essential: real world applications advocacy management leadership assessment—collecting and analyzing data, using findings for decision making and program advocacy ethics multicultural/diversity issues nontraditional career trends— consider employers outside traditional library settings	Merge this discussion into work on course additions, deletions, modifications	Assigned faculty
Identify effective teaching strategies used in courses	Merge this discussion into work on course additions, deletions, modifications	Assigned faculty
Continue assessment for student learning in all courses	Ongoing	All course instructors

1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

3) Below is the link(s) to your program's curriculum map(s). If we do not have your curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.

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) For the period June 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.

7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

9) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

10) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #5:Summarize the actual results.

11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

12) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

13) Other important information. Please note: If the program did not engage in assessment, please explain. If the program created an assessment plan for next year, please give an overview.

2011-2012 Action Plan for LIS Curriculum Committee

10) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #5:
Summarize the actual results.

12) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

13) Other important information.
Please note: If the program did not engage in assessment, please explain. If the program created an assessment plan for next year, please give an overview.