Information Literacy Assessment Committee

Meeting Notes for September 13, 2013

Members in attendance: Elena Ortiz (chair), Bev Bruner, Amanda Chapman, Hershman John, Christine Moore, Pat Novak, Terry Tovar-Novasad, and Andrea Villarreal

Absent: Ann Roselle

Future Meeting dates and times: Second Friday at 12pm (except Oct). Oct 18, Nov 8, Feb 14, Apr 11.

Blueprint

Elena passed around the Blueprint for members to sign. The text remains the same as last year (last year’s signed copy is available on the wiki).

Revisiting Committee Goals

Members generally agreed that our goals are basically the same and the Blueprint reflects that.

Departments Doing Assessment

• English – they are interpreting their results now (having assessed ENG101/102 last year) and will be recommending action

• Counseling – they are designing instrument for assessing one-on-one sessions with students (referrals to social services, for instance). Elena is meeting with counseling faculty the week of Sept. 16 to discuss further.

• Behavioral Science – Andrea will follow up with Marian.

• Biology – Elena will follow up.

• Liberal Arts – they are also interpreting results. Members decided no follow-up at this time.

• Health/Wellness – Elena attended the department’s adjunct meeting. They themselves need to decide how to engage adjuncts. No follow-up at this time.

• Communication, ASL, Education – they are looking at info literacy. CRE courses, though, will only be looking at critical thinking.

The degree of follow-up with various departments is still pending. The main Assessment Committee is also discussion this. Members asked whether we should be proactive – answer is still pending as the college-wide assessment plan goes further in its implementation. Ideally each department will at some point will designate an assessment person who can be a conduit for sharing information.

Sampling Issues in Assessment Data

Jan Binder identified issues that skew the data. Primary among them is faculty offering extra credit. For pre-/post-testing results, an instructor who offers extra credit for the post-test can be more likely to have test participants who are poor students (extra credit motivating possible improvement in final grade). Jan has additional suggestions for avoiding sampling issues.

Assessment Database Changes

Elena demonstrated the new feature in the Assessment Database which will allow for loading rubric results twice a semester (pre- AND post- results) As originally designed, database could only accept one set of rubric scores per section.The modified database is still on a developmental server; the release date for widespread use is yet to be determined.

Campus Assessment Report

Elena received a copy of the Campus Assessment Report from Jan. Each of the general education areas has a section in the report defining outcomes and identifying the measurement scale and benchmark score. NOTE: most scales are 1 through 4. IL had been using a 0 to 3 scale, so Elena will have the scale adjusted in order to parallel other areas (and will also adjust the benchmark score from 2 to 3).