Program: Library & Information Sciences (MLISC)
Date: Thu Oct 24, 2013 - 1:41:12 am
1) Below are your program's 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.
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]
3) Select one option:
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 assessment activities between June 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)
No (skip to question 14)
6) For the period June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
The major assessment questions centered on ongoing concerns of the faculty regarding the adequacy of the core course requirements given the changing nature of information-related services in a digital environment. The SLOs targeted have already been presented in Response to #1.
7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.
Assessment evidence was gathered from two major sources: (1) instructors’ ratings given to course assignments and exercises, and (2) evaluators’ ratings given to oral comprehensive presentations, which is the culminating requirement for students electing Option B for degree completion. Both types of ratings were based on the aforementioned Student Learning Outcomes.
Instructors’ ratings based on course assignments: All the evidence indicators of the 5 SLOs were rated by the instructors based on the assignments and exercises of the LIS courses taught in the Spring 2012 semester. The instructors rated the students’ assignments/exercises on a 4-point scale (4=exceeded, 3=met, 2=approached, 1=did not meet expectations). The results were aggregated at the course level, forming the SLO-profile of the courses. A senior faculty member then aggregated these indicator scores for the set of courses taught in the semester.
Evaluators’ ratings of oral comprehensive presentations: Two faculty evaluators sat with each graduating student for the oral presentation. Students selected four SLO-based scenarios to present. The evaluators each completed a rating sheet that focused on content and delivery of the presentations. A 4-point scale was used for the ratings (4=exceeded, 3=met, 2=approached, 1=did not meet).
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Course ratings were submitted by 10 instructors teaching in the spring 2012 semester. The total number of student evaluations for all the assignments submitted was 164. The oral comprehensive exam ratings were provided by 8 evaluators. The number of students evaluated was 11.
The Summary of Spring 2012 SLO Course Profiles is available on the LIS Program website.
9) 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)
10) 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)
11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.
Please see a summary on our website
(Sorry, but the tables were not able to upload)
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The assessment have led the faculty to consider the following essential questions: A) Does the Program’s current set of core courses appropriately meet the need of our students? B) Does the ICT slate of elective courses reflect the rapidly changing technological landscape? C) Does the current oral comprehensive examination accurately measure the range of SLOs in our Program? D) What actions might we take to effect improvement?
The findings were very encouraging, as across the board 94% of the students either exceeded (67%) or met (27%) the skills defined for the specific SLO in the course assignments. In the oral comprehensive presentations, 33.6% of the students exceeded and 62% met the SLOs. The course assignment assessments provided valuable feedback for the instructors in determining adaptations necessary to help students who had not demonstrated competence at rating levels 3 and 4 for specific skills. The data collected from both the course and oral comprehensive assessments continue to guide our faculty discussions about the quality of our teaching and the foci in our curriculum.
We have involved student representatives at the faculty meetings, and student members at the curriculum meetings. We had presentations and discussion at these meetings about making changes in the syllabi and/or methodology of the 5 required courses to further increase the level of achievement by the students.
Importantly, we agreed to require an additional course: LIS 663 (Basic Database Searching). This is meant to ensure that MLS holding librarians will perform much better in discovering, evaluating and using the appropriate scholarly and professional tools and resources than the average Jane or Joe Searcher in a universe where almost everyone is a practicing or potential searcher.
In addition, the faculty agreed with the modifications to be implemented in LIS 605 (Basic Cataloging), to reflect the significant changes in cataloging and metadata production concepts, practices and rules.
13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.
The answer to question #12 included the conclusions and the changes. We shall continue to assess the curriculum in response to the paradigm shifts in the information world. Our goal is to educate librarians and other information professionals in not only searching for but also finding information efficiently through adequately collected, cataloged and organized and synthesized information collections. By achieving this goal, we support end-users in retrieving the most relevant and also the most pertinent information that matches information needs reflecting their educational and cultural diversity.
14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.