1. The Required Library Component: Assessing First-Year Teaching in the Small Academic Library Susan von Daum Tholl, PhD, Director Diane Zydlewski, Head of Reference Anne Hancock, Collection Development Librarian

2. Scope of our discussion Setting the stage—gaining administration approval for a required library component Development of the library curriculum within the FYS; one- on-one faculty collaboration and attendance at FYS faculty meetings Hybrid approach and revision of our online tutorial Continual modifications of assignments and library workshop Data gathering; faculty collaboration Statistical analysis, which is ongoing Use of our results to mold the future....

3. Pre-2005 — Basic info lit session offered in non-credited venues Fall 2005 — First-Year Seminars required Library Component offered in both fall and spring semester 2005-Spring 2007 — Worked 1 on 1 with faculty on assignments 2007-2008 — Piloted customized assignments and pre- and post- testing by individual seminar Fall 2008 — Applied to IRB; approval received January 2009 Fall 2009 — 3-Year Study began; all seminars offered in Fall semester Fall 2011 — Study completed Timeline of Development

4. Stated Goal of FYS “engage first-year students in research and learning the basic elements of conducting research specifically using the resources of the library”

5. Pre-2005 — Basic info lit session offered in non-credited venues Fall 2005 — First-Year Seminars required Library Component offered in both fall and spring semester 2005-Spring 2007 — Worked 1 on 1 with faculty on assignments 2007-2008 — Piloted customized assignments and pre- and post- testing by individual seminar Fall 2008 — Applied to IRB; approval received January 2009 Fall 2009 — 3-Year Study began; all seminars offered in Fall semester Fall 2011 — Study completed Timeline of Development

6. Pre-Test Online Tutorial and Welcome Assignment Workshop & Workshop Assignment – Clickers (Year 3) Evaluation Assignment (Years 1 & 2) Post- Test Substance of the Library Component from fall 2009 to fall 2011

7. Criteria for eligibility of participants: First-Year entering students Age (over 18 years of age at the pre-test) Completion of both pre- and post-test Consent letter explaining the process for opting out Data collected for individual students: Pre- and Post-test scores Assignment grades Number of assignments completed Gender

8. Year Eligible Participants/ Enrollments % students showing positive change pre- to post-test for all participants % increase pre- to pos-test for all participants Average pre- test grade Average post-test grade Fall 2009324/366 (90.00%) 88.89%45.01% MIN=-50.00% MAX=300.00% 10.00 MIN=2.00 MAX=18.00 13.65 MIN=1.00 MAX=18.00 Fall 2010411/542 (75.83%) 88.10%48.65% MIN=-30.00% MAX=550.00% 10.11 MIN=2.00 MAX=17.00 13.82 MIN=6.00 MAX=18.00 Fall 2011443/551 (80.40%) 97.97%54.38% MIN= -28.75% MAX=500.00% 10.18 MIN=2.00 MAX=17.00 14.81 MIN=5.00 MAX=18.00 Rates of Improvement during the Study

9. A Hybrid Approach: Combining a Hands-On Workshop and an Online Tutorial Diane Zydlewski, Head of Reference

10. The Evolving Role of the Tutorial Fall 2003 Online PowerPoint Presentation accompanying a live presentation. Fall 2005 Web-based Tutorial completed independently or in a workshop. Spring 2008 Web-based Tutorial completed during a required workshop. Fall 2008 Combination of the tutorial and hands- on activities in the workshop.

11. Pre-Test Online Tutorial and Welcome Assignment Workshop with clickers and Workshop / Evaluation Assignment Post-Test Current Role of the Tutorial within the Library Component of FYS Program

12. Scope of the Tutorial

14. Pop-up alert appears if the wrong answer is selected.

17. Technical and Design Aspects of the tutorial (See also the best practices handout.)

18. Fall 2005 Simulation of Library Web Site.

19. Fall 2011

20. Spring 2007

21. Fall 2011

22. Assignments: A Dynamic Information Literacy Tool Anne Hancock, Collection Development Librarian

23. Welcome Assignment Complete one week before workshop Register for Library Barcode Questions covered: basic library info creating search strings online catalog online databases Workshop Assignment Hand out during Library Workshop Identify research topic Create search string Find book, article, and website Complete outside of class, due 1 week later Evaluate resources found in Workshop for content quality Create citation Done Concept & Design : A “Stepped” Approach Evaluation & Citation Assignment

24. PROBLEMS Too much material Assignment questions unclear Faculty confusion about assignment Students not reading instructions The Welcome Assignment SOLUTIONS Pared down scope Conformed assignment questions to tutorial language and SIMPLIFIED. Reinforced assignment process with faculty Made instructions stand out more (increased spacing and font )

25. PROBLEMS Students did not have enough time!!!! Workshop sessions of different lengths (50 or 75 minutes) Number and types of resources a challenge Search String CONFUSION!!! The Workshop Assignment SOLUTIONS Pared down number of resources we asked students to find. Simplified search string portion of assignment.

26. PROBLEMS Questions open-ended Student answers incomplete Difficult to grade subjective questions in a standardized way Citations Faculty and Student perceptions The Evaluation & Citation Assignment SOLUTIONS Rewrote assignment Used guided evaluation questions Removed open-ended questions Removed formal citation and asked bibliographic questions instead. Eliminated assignment in 2011

27. Prior to IRB study Faculty First 2 years of IRB study Team of Librarians Last year of IRB study One Librarian Grading Methods

28. Data Gathering & Analysis Data Collected: Pre- and Post-test scores and question by question answers Assignment grades Number of assignments completed Gender Data Analysis: Created IBM SPSS database for each year Data entered into IBM SPSS Using IBM SPSS software to run statistical tests

31. Year Eligible Participants/ Enrollments % students showing positive change pre- to post-test for all participants % increase pre- to pos-test for all participants Average pre- test grade Average post-test grade Fall 2009324/366 (90.00%) 88.89%45.01% MIN=-50.00% MAX=300.00% 10.00 MIN=2.00 MAX=18.00 13.65 MIN=1.00 MAX=18.00 Fall 2010411/542 (75.83%) 88.10%48.65% MIN=-30.00% MAX=550.00% 10.11 MIN=2.00 MAX=17.00 13.82 MIN=6.00 MAX=18.00 Fall 2011443/551 (80.40%) 97.97%54.38% MIN= -28.75% MAX=500.00% 10.18 MIN=2.00 MAX=17.00 14.81 MIN=5.00 MAX=18.00 Rates of Improvement during the Study

32. Use of Results to Mold the Future Library Component... Statistical analysis is ongoing. Analyze results of the pre- and post-test question-by- question to identify patterns of item difficulty to indicate what our teaching must address. We are looking at completion rates for the Assignments as they relate to individual student learning outcomes on the post-test.

33. The Future... Rework the pre- and post-tests, clarifying some language and creating distractors to develop a stronger test. Aside from the IRB Study, anonymous “clicker” data on self-efficacy and student satisfaction from the workshops needs to be compiled and analyzed.

34. The Study as a springboard for new initiatives.... Use statistical analysis to help to inform the various levels of our Information Literacy Program Formalize our required Library Workshop in the First- Year Writing Program, whose topic is a more advanced look at evaluation, especially online resources Apply to IRB for a follow-up study of participants in Years 2 and 3 of the FYS Study when they are Seniors Develop focus groups with the Instructional Assistants Fill a new FT position – Instructional Librarian Create a faculty development program

35. Thank you! Our Contact information: Susan von Daum Tholl, PhD tholl@emmanuel.edu Diane Zydlewski zydlewsd@emmanuel.edu Anne Hancock hancoan@emmanuel.edu http://www1.emmanuel.edu/library