City College of San Francisco
Department of Library Information Technology
Student Learning Outcomes, History and Development
Summarized 2006-2012
July 13, 2012
Update: 1.08.2013; 6.18.2013; 7.17.2013; 8/20/13; 9/4/13; 11/18/13; 6/17/14; 9/4/14; 5/28/15
May 28, 2015
The department is reorganizing its CTE Advisory Board and should meet once in June 2015. It is also submitting new forms to the Office of Instruction on Certificate/Degree Sequencing for Completion – two semesters for the Certificate, likewise for the degree major (less general education requirements).
All of the courses are evaluating a course level SLO this Spring using the new tool, Curricunet. One Program Level Student Learning Outcome has been evaluated using this tool this semester – a brief copy of that report is appended as a note to the document titled “PSLO.lit.mission.outcomes.6.15” and found under the link “Department SLO Assessment Process.”
An additional Program Outcome (i.e. administrative) will be assessed similarly in the coming days. Results on that will be reported here, and in the above named document.
September 4, 2014
One course ran in the summer, LIBR 58A Legal Resources. The class was very small and thus offered the instructor a unique opportunity for assessment based on direct and personal observation and classroom contact. A decision was made to report assessment for this course along with those for the Fall of 2014.
June 17, 2014
Courses ran in the Spring Semester informed by teaching students about expected learning outcomes, and posting outcomes along with other course objectives and expectations on the course syllabus. Instructors for Library 51, 55A, 55B, and 58C were provided newer, recently completed course outlines, bearing from 3 to five outcomes each. Instructors, who have been a part of their development, were reminded that both the outline and the outcomes posted on it are to be viewed as products of process, thus not fixed, perhaps even somewhat tentative. For this semester, one or at most two of the outcomes were addressed with the object of developing the tools for assessment more so than the assessment itself. This sort of development continues to be problematic in trying to find a mechanism for reporting evidence that fits well with the college’s system of reporting. There continue to be barriers to understanding what the college’s system is asking, exactly, of the reporter, and the sense that there are some redundant and repetitive loops in the scheme. Still, at the end of the day the most important facts are that the faculty are updating their teaching techniques, staying abreast of changes in their discipline, incorporating these changes in their classroom contact. They are regularly measuring student learning outcomes for distinctly different purposes than grade assignment, i.e. to measure the effectiveness of their teaching, the appropriateness of the content, and the quality of the course and its instruction through the vehicle of student learning.
November 18, 2013
All course outlines have been revised with the sole exception of Library 58B, which we intend to complete yet this fall, so that it can be reviewed in the Spring of 2014 and offered in the Fall. Our learning outcomes continue to be gathered for the Fall, with numerous discussions on them rounding out the approach to continuous evaluation and assessment. The department chair will be serving in an administrative capacity during the late Fall and Spring (as Interim Associate Dean for Instructional Support/Library), and thus will be appointing a replacement for departmental operation as well as replacements for instruction. The new instructors are aware that there are many outcomes mentioned on the current course outline, that certainly they cannot evaluate all at once; but that their work too should be in distilling the most important, the “major” outcomes for further course outline revision in the future.
Program Review drafts have been completed for Library Technology, and the key points of achievement noticed on this review are:
o Completion of the LSSC Certification with the ALA-APA
o Utilizing the learning experience from the LSSC and from SLO assessment to build collegiality in the department and to evaluate the program, its place in the college, and its utility for the community
o Completing the task of revising course outlines and eliminating courses no longer supported
o Evaluating the continuing need of instruction for library support staff in light of smaller student populations and changing demographics
In general, the department operates efficiently, but further economies can be realized if necessary without great sacrifice to the community.
September 4, 2013
Preparing course outlines for revision in accord with findings from initial assessements. Have submitted revisions for 51, 53, 55B – which were passed tentatively with stipulations last Spring. Have sent through Libr 58A and 55A for Technical Review, both moved forward; and 58C, 56 and 59 pending. Libr 58B is still under preparation, but will be submitted early in October.
August 30, 2013
Ran late submitting the program learning outcomes – came in three days before deadline. Had done work in June, but thought had submitted with all the course outcomes at that time. One reason for this is the rather excessively complex, arcane, and reduplicative system set in place for reporting by the college. We understand their haste to build a system which they believe will satisfy the accreditors, and admire the effort and achievement thus far, but such systems will naturally have problems which take time to iron out. How long? This depends on the complexity of the system and the expectations for it. Chou En Lai, when reputedly asked by Kissenger what he thought the outcome of the French Revolution was, replied, “Too soon to tell.”
We are in the midst of revising course outcomes as we revise course outlines. This too leads to very real systemic problems, not least, that the culture of assessment and revision happens at locomotive speed, but the mechanisms are neither rapid, nor forgiving, and thus the refrain, “We can’t approve this course outline because the outcomes don’t match those previously given.” Well, no kidding folks!
Summer 2013
Summer courses are not ordinarily offered by this department. However, the college sought to expand summer offerings, thus the only course in the department which the chair thought educationally productive in the short, six week, term was LIBR 58A, Legal Resources – a one unit class that thus could meet three hours each week for a total of 18 hours. The class met and the instructor considered outcomes which she had developed in the prior year. These will be reported upon in conjunction with the Fall offerings.
Fall offerings will be LIBR 51, 53, 56, 58B and 59. All have had outcomes assessments in the prior academic year – 51 and 59 both in fall and in spring. This fall, LIBR 53 will initiate life as one of the core required courses, as a product of having our curriculum more effectively match the competencies for the Library Support Staff Certificate Program of the ALA-APA.
Spring 2013
Some preliminary assessment work will be conducted along with midterm examination and grading for LIBR 51, 55B and 59. Email went out to instructors for LIBR 55A, 57 and 58c to recommend similar consideration of assessments at this time, and not wait until the end of the semester to consider whether students are learning effectively.
All courses held assessments on one or two Outcomes for the Spring. The Program Assessments were done by two surveys, one on paper and conducted in class; another a first attempt at using Survey Monkey. In the surveys, student self-assessment demonstrated competence with disciplinary and industry vocabulary and concepts, PSLO 1-3. In addition, students in work experience classes asserted skills development which match proposed PSLO 3-5.
For LIBR 51, assessments can be conducted reflecting the fundamental technologies which constitute the first 1/3 of the course. LIBR 55b can be assessed for the conveyance of information on service ethics, service issues and the vocabulary of employment. For LIBR 59, the issues remain effective conduct and qualities of successful employment.
The ALA Support Staff Certification Program was approved effective March 1, 2013. A press release was issued by the ALA-APA, a copy of which resides on the department SLO pages below.
Midterrm assessments are being conducted using surveys for LIBR 51, 55B and 59.
1.Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for each class offered, Fall 2012
2.ALA-APA Library Support Staff Certification Program
1.Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for each class offered, Fall 2012
The department chair was on Sabbatical in Europe during the entire semester, Fall 2012. Nevertheless, the chair continued to monitor developments at City College generally, and in particular communicate with faculty teaching in the department during the Fall 2012 semester.
Communication developed assessment plans for LIBR 51, 53, 56, 57 and 59 with each of the four instructors teaching. It was decided that each would assess three Student Learning Outcomes derived from proposed revisions to Course Outlines which are to be submitted to the college curriculum committee in the Spring of 2013. It was decided that courses taught in the Spring will be similarly assessed at that time.
Assessments were based on a combination of exam questions, final projects and instructor observations. The assessments were to be drafted into a tabular form with the Student Learning Outcome desired in the columns, and numbers representing each student in rows. Instructors were warned that in no way do these assessments impact on student grading. Indeed, these are intended to be assessments of US, not the students, and of our effectiveness in identifying and presenting significant issues for learning. As such, the identities of the students were to remain anonymous, thus, students appear as numbered rows. For the record, instructors did identify each student with initials in their internal documents, however the department chair, in his digest and reconciliation, has stripped all vestiges of student identification from these documents.
RESULTS:
In general, it was found that that students do effectively learn what the department sets out to teach, with one significant exception occurring during the fall semester. We considered a 70% pass rate for each outcome a measure of success, however, in LIBR 53, outcome A, concerning an understanding of primary Intellectual Freedom documents, the pass rate was but 60%. Since these documents are fundamental to the practice of librarianship in the United States, and since no library employee should be ignorant of them, it is not the desire to diminish their importance as a result of this outcome. Indeed, and instead, this informs us that the instructor must work more effectively to view, transmit, analyze, and present these documents in a fashion that nearly universal comprehension is the result. We have already begun a departmental dialogue to this end.
The tables reflecting this data can be linked from the department website, and from the website hosting this discussion, in a “bullet point” link below to “Fall 2012 SLO assessment tables”. Tables for all classes will be held here in a single document.
The discussion of this matter will be carried on vis-à-vis departmental email communication.
2.ALA-APA Library Support Staff Certification Program
The department continued in its work to seek approval of its curriculum under the Library Support Staff Certification Program of the American Library Association – Allied Professional Association. As of December a complete portfolio of course mappings were submitted, and as of January 2013 the evaluator has forwarded a recommendation for approval to the ALA-APA. We await final notification of approval. The course mappings can be viewed by returning to the previous web page, then following the link to “ALA-APA Support Staff Certification Documents”.
CKox, Chair, 1/8/13
Student Learning Outcomes Development
The consideration and development of Student Learning Outcomes, and their assessment, has played a major role in departmental direction over the past several years. The reasons for this are obvious:
· To justify disciplinary instruction
· To maintain currency in disciplinary instruction
· To assure outside stakeholders of quality instruction
· To guide students making vocational choices
· To certify ethical standards of teaching and learning
All library work is service oriented. As such, the standards for service are ethical, and relatively timeless even in a vocational environment. One can teach, and assess, the narrow techniques of today – soon obsolete – or one can teach and assess the foundations of a service oriented discipline. Indeed, one of the most succinct, and almost cryptic, statements of philosophy is Ranganathan’s “five laws” first published in 1931. To a large measure, the learning processes for library support staff are those which inculcate a culture of ethics and responsibility, and the standards defining library service – yet always within the community and institutional context. To this end, the primary documents that inform the discipline are:
ALA Code of Ethics
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics
Library Bill of Rights (and Office of Intellectual Freedom)
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom
Library Customer Bill of Rights (a typical example, from Haverhill, MA)
http://www.haverhillpl.org/about/policies/library-customer-bill-of-rights/
United States Constitution and Bill of Rights Amendments (US Archives, typical)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Ranganathan’s Five Laws of Library Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_laws_of_library_science
City College of San Francisco Mission
http://www.ccsf.edu/NEW/en/about-city-college/mission-and-vision.html
The term Library Information Technology has long ante-dated the concept of “information technology” as used today and generally designates the work of library support staff, assistants or paraprofessionals. This, and other terms for library support staff (pages, clerks, associate specialists etc.) are fairly uniform and are understood to mean the application of library practice, process and service rather than developmental or administrative functions. To this end, the structure of the military, with commissioned and non-commissioned officers, serves as the best analogy. Technical assistants are the NCOs of the library world. To choose library assisting is to choose a career, not a job. Often, “techs” have worked their way up through the ranks (having entered with a high-school diploma) and now command a great deal of authority in the trenches. Our long-term expectation is that we are fostering career building, i.e. teaching those who are willing, patient and devoted enough to hold a succession of jobs that lead eventually to the supervisory level. Those who teach and those who study should be reasonably well versed in job titles, tasks and basic qualifications. To this end, there are very good government and organizational resources which describe and summarize tasks, tools, knowledge, skills and the abilities needed and rewarded in the workplace. In the process of outcomes analysis some of the resources we have consulted include O*NET and the Occupational Outlook Handbook (both online from the U.S. Department of Labor), the American Library Association (ALA) Support Staff Resource Center, the ALA-Allied Professional Association web-sites, and the Council on Library/Media Technicians (COLT).