Currently, several strands of evidence are gathered to continually improve the program:
The instruments for AY 12/13 can be viewed 2 boxes below.
We are also designing a rubrics asssessment of student papers to be implemented in Fall 13.
Session leaders tender online evaluations at the end of each session. The coordinator runs reports as soon as possible, and sends a pdf to the session leaders (librarians or LibRATs). This bolsters instructional confidence and allows session leaders to tweak their presentations. In AY 12/13 we began running a pre-test that included basic vocabulary and some content-questions related to traits of peer reviewed journals. The post-test/evaluation has some identical questions to the pre-test, but also evaluative questions relating to the manner/style of the session leader and to session content. At the end of fall term (the busiest) another questionnaire is sent to instructional faculty for their feedback. The instruments for AY 2012/13 can be viewed in the box below.
Faculty Evaluations of Student-Led Instruction Fall 2011 and Fall 2012 Return Rate: 2011 (11/24) .458% 2012 (19/35) .542% |
|||
Likert Scale Assessments. 5 point Scale. 5= Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1= Strongly Disagree |
Avg. Fall 2011 |
Avg. Fall 2012 |
Differential |
S1.The sessions introduced my students to library resources in an engaging way. |
4.2 |
4.4 |
+.2 |
S2. The session(s) helped my students learn how to identify and locate books. |
4.5 |
4.7 |
+.2 |
S3. The session(s) helped my students learn how to find articles/information in databases. |
4.5 |
4.5 |
|
S4. The session(s) introduced the notion of “peer-reviewed” articles and journals. |
4.1 |
4.3 |
+.2 |
S5. The session(s) introduced online help and tools in databases to help my students cite sources. |
4.3 |
4.4 |
+.1 |
S6. The session(s) helped my students find higher quality sources for their papers. |
4.5 |
4.6 |
+.1 |
S7. The session(s) improved the quality of my students’ papers. |
4.1 |
4.2 |
+.1 |
S8. My students responded well to the student session leader(s). |
3.6 |
4.4 |
+.8 |
S9. The student session leader(s) did a very good job. |
3.9 |
4.5 |
+.6 |
S10. I would recommend these sessions to my peers. |
4.7 |
4.7 |
|
Binary YES/NO Question: “From your perspective, would you recommend that all Cal Poly students attend library instruction sessions? |
90.1% (10 Yes/1 No) |
100% (19 Yes/0 No) |
+.9% |
Assessment Averages of Student-Led Sessions in First Five Quarters of Student-Led Instruction |
|||||
Likert Scale Affective Assessments. 5 Point Scale. 5= Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1= Strongly Disagree 0= NA |
Spring 2011 |
Fall 2011 |
Winter 2012 |
Spring 2012 |
Fall 2012 |
84 Resp. |
559 Resp. |
425 Resp. |
232 Resp.
|
910 Resp.
|
|
S1. The session gave me solid understanding of the material presented. |
4.35 |
4.4 |
4.6 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
S2. The resources described in this session are relevant to my assignment or research. |
4.5 |
4.6 |
4.7 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
S3. The session leader presented information in a way that I could understand. |
4.45 |
4.5 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
S4. The session leader encouraged and responded to questions. |
4.35 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
Binary Yes/No Question: “From your perspective, would you recommend that all Cal Poly students attend library instruction sessions? |
YES: 92.86% |
YES: 97.4% |
YES: 95% |
YES: 97.85% |
YES: 96.6% |
Fall 2013 |
Avg. LibRAT |
Avg. Librarian |
Combined Avg. |
The session gave me solid understanding of the material presented |
4.4 |
4.4 |
4.4 |
The resources described in this session are relevant to my assignment or research |
4.5 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
The session leader presented information in a way I could understand |
4.5 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
The session leader encouraged and responded to questions |
4.5 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
YES/No Question: “From your perspective, would you recommend that all Cal Poly Students Attend Library Sessions? |
YES: 96.3% (480) NO:18 |
YES: 98.7% (458) NO: 6 |
AVG: 97.5% (934) NO: 24 |