1. Understanding our First Years Two studies and a comparison

2. Understanding our First Years Linda J. Goff, Head of Instructional Services, California State University, Sacramento Gabriela Sonntag, Coordinator, Information Literacy Program, California State University, San Marcos Lynn Tashiro, Faculty Coordinator, Freshman Programs, California State University, Sacramento Partnerships & Practices, First Years Regional Conference, August 26, 2008, CSU, Sacramento CA

3. Agenda – Part One Overview Definition of iSkills Demographics Similarities and Differences in campus projects

4. Our Two Projects - Similarities Focused on Entering Freshman Each a 2 year project Common Goal – establish baseline under- standing of first-year students’ knowledge of information competence/literacy Used iSkills as pre and post test

5. Sacramento - Differences 132 F’06 & 107 in F’07 (239) did both pre & post test Faculty groups worked on InfoLit lesson plans Intervention lesson was one class session Student incentive of $50 gift certificate Testing at Sacramento

6. San Marcos - Differences Freshman Seminars and Oral Communication 3 weeks IL vs. 1 hour IL Institutional data gathered included analysis of retention factors

7. Agenda – Part Two Data review Test scores ETS reports

8. Sacramento Baseline: Pre/Post-test Scores Fall2006Fall2007

9. Sacramento Scores 2006 Aggregate ETS reports indicate strongest need for instruction in skill areas: Evaluate, Create and Communicate 2007 scores included Honors classes 2007 Aggregate ETS reports therefore slightly higher for 2 nd year.

10. Honors Sac - Comparison of Average Scores EOP – Honors- GE classes

11. San Marcos Pre/Post-test Scores GEL(2006)GEO (2006)

12. San Marcos Scores Lesson plans were not matched to test content All students show considerable improvement. GEO students outperformed GEL Students not needing remediation take GEO in Fall

13. Comparing GEL and non-GEL Fall 2000 EntrantsFall 2001 EntrantsFall 2002 EntrantsFall 2003 EntrantsFall 2004 Entrants Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Cumulative GPA All GEL 101 Students 2.73 (305) 2.70 (307) 2.59 (487) 2.66 (486) 2.73 (344) Non-GEL 101 2.75 (204) 3.14 (176) 2.73 (258) 2.73 (331) 2.73 (317) One Year Continuation Rates All GEL 101 Students 72.0 (321) 69.7 (323) 76.7 (520) 76.2 (509) 71.9 (358) All Freshmen* 60.0 (575) 62.0 (545) 70.7 (837) 71.0 (890) 69.5 (722) Two Year Continuation Rates All GEL 101 Students 65.1 (321) 59.8 (323) 63.5 (520) 66.2 (509)n/a All Freshmen* 51.3 (575) 52.7 (545) 58.4 (837) 60.6 (890)n/a

14. Agenda – Part Three Have you assessed first years? Have you used the i Skills test? What other instruments were used? What were your experiences?

15. Sacramento conclusions

16. iSkills is not fully aligned with ACRL-IL Lesson plan objectives based on ACRL Standards: (5.2.f- plagiarism) and (3.2.a evaluation of bias) Mismatch with iSkills test content – lessons and Standards

17. Correlation with Retention? Office of Institutional Research comparison of iSkill scores with First Year GPA found no correlation. GPA is a strong indicator of retention of First Year students according to Director of Institutional Research.

18. Problem with Data-driven Decisions Initial aggregate data available from ETS only for 100+ users. Modified for 50 users later. Disconnect – course level data not easily available for faculty. Statistical significance vs. practical significance? One lesson intervention isn’t enough.

19. Faculty Feedback “ETS needs to give us a results section that includes students weaknesses and strengths so that we can apply it to the development of lesson plans that will adequately address areas that need remediation.” RG, Sacramento

20. Outcomes (Sacramento) Freshman Programs Director and FS faculty have developed stronger working rapport with librarians and positive influence on information literacy program. Data useful for Freshman Program assessment and re-design

21. San Marcos Conclusions

22. One Year Analysis Sample as a whole scored higher on post-test. GEO students outperformed GEL students but most variance accounted for by the pre-test Only prior difference between groups was HS GPA (not EPT, ELM, or SAT) No difference in college GPA, units completed, units enrolled in or likelihood of enrolling

23. Further Analysis GEL students more likely to –Go to the career center and math lab –Go see a professor during office hours and outside of class GEO students more likely to –Have a job No difference in going to the writing center, visiting with an academic advisor or going to the academic advising web page

24. Our Combined Conclusions

25. Overall Outcomes We have established a baseline measure of freshman ICT/iSkill, but not of InfoLit Our Libraries have developed stronger working relationships with Freshman Programs and grants have had positive influence on information literacy programs Data useful for Freshman Program assessment and re-design

26. Overall Conclusions Programmatic data (not by course) Best used as a diagnostic Advanced iSkills test could be given to Major in upper division Faculty and students have greater awareness of Information Literacy Timing of testing critical Student motivation for assessment is lacking About iSkillsAbout First Years

27. Overall Conclusions More appropriate to test through Assessment Office or Testing Center Multiple measures are needed Recommitted to working with freshmen programs

28. Agenda – Part Four Next steps Your questions

29. Sacramento -- Next Steps Will add new Outreach Librarian position. Will look at what worked at other CSU campuses. Sponsored other CSU’s IL coordinators to attend this conference as a part of our grant.

30. San Marcos -- Next Steps Reviewing our homegrown Computer Competence Requirement exam. Continue to analyze and review multiple sources of data. Continue to revisit our curriculum for FY students throughout GE.