GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Task  Force   Report  on  Institutional  Research  Project   September  3,  2013         Background  Information:  The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce     In  2011,  the  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce,  chaired  by  Cheryl  Middleton  at   Oregon  State  University  was  formed  by  the  GWLA  Board  of  directors.    The  taskforce  was   charged  to  investigate  local  practices  at  GWLA  Libraries,  share  the  data  collected,  and   inform  a  research  project  that  would  communicate  evidence  of  the  impact  that  academic   libraries  have  on  student  learning  at  the  institutions.    Membership  on  the  committee  from   across  GWLA  included:  Jeff  Bullington  formerly  of  University  of  Colorado-­‐Boulder,  Donna   Ziegenfuss,  Alfred  Mowdood  and  Alison  Regan  of  University  of  Utah;  Allyson  Washburn  of   Brigham  Young  University;  Anne  Armstrong  of  University  of  Illinois,  Chicago;  Annelise   Freeman  of  University  of  Missouri;  Christina  Gola  of  University  of  Houston;  Cynthia  Henry   of  Texas  Tech  University;  Jeanne  Brown,  Jen  Fabbi  and  Patty  Iannuzzi  of  University  of   Nevada,  Las  Vegas;  Lisa  Kammerlocher  of  Arizona  State  University;  Sara  Kearns  of   University  of  Kansas;  Stephen  Borelli  of  Washington  State  University;    Yvonne  Mery   University  of  Arizona;  and  Wendy  Holliday  formerly  of    Utah  State  University.    The   committee  also  received  abundant  assistant  and  support  from  Joni  Blake,  Executive   Director  of  GWLA  and  Anne  McKee,  Program  Officer  for  Resource  Sharing  at  GWLA.         Methodology   In  2012,  an  action  plan  was  developed  to  survey  the  then-­‐32  GWLA  institutions  about  the   SLO  practices  at  each  institution.    In  addition  to  the  survey,  each  survey  respondent  was   asked  to  provide  a  campus  contact  that  was  involved  in  SLO  work  on  his/her  campus  to  be   contacted  at  a  later  date  for  further  interview  follow  up.  Of  the  23  institutions  that   responded  to  the  survey,  follow  up  interviews  were  scheduled  at  20  institutions.       Under  the  leadership  of  Donna  Ziegenfuss  at  the  University  of  Utah,  a  plan  for  collaborative   qualitative  analysis  of  the  interviews  was  established.    The  analysis  was  conducted  by   taskforce  members,  Allyson  Washburn,  Stephen  Borrelli,  Annelise  Freeman,  Lisa   Kammerlocher,  Yvonne  Mery,  and  Jeanne  Brown.     Timeline   • The  survey  was  designed  and  distributed  electronically  in  Spring  2012.   • Follow  up  interviews  began  in  Spring  2012  and  were  completed  in  December  2012.   • Data  analysis  was  ongoing  during  the  interview  process  and  completed  in  Spring  2013.   • An  additional  inventory  was  compiled  on  published  reports  of  assessment  evidence,   practices,  and  innovations,  which  were  gleaned  from  the  20  interview  transcripts.  This   process  was  conducted  in  Spring  2013  through  Summer  2013,  and  this  data  was  used  to   recruit  presenters  for  the  upcoming  November  2013  Symposium  that  will  be  held  at  the   University  of  Nevada,  Las  Vegas.     Survey  Information        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          1    

  An  electronic  survey  was  distributed  to  32  GWLA  member  institutions  during  the  Spring   2012.  Twenty-­‐three  GWLA  libraries  responded  to  the  survey  (72%  of  the  membership).   The  respondents  answered  a  series  of  questions  about  the  presence  and  assessment  of   SLOs  on  their  campuses.  In  addition,  the  survey  participants  were  asked  to  provide  a  SLO   contact  on  their  campuses  for  a  further  telephone  interview.  Three  main  questions  were   asked:     (1)  Does  your  institution  have  SLOs  that  address  information  literacy  (i.e.,  critical   thinking,  evaluation  and  synthesis  of  information)  at  any  of  the  following  levels  -­‐   campus,  college/department,  and/or  library?     (2)  Does  the  library  assess  information  literacy  SLOs  at  any  of  the  following  levels  –   campus-­‐wide,  college/department,  and/or  library  level?  and     (3)  Does  the  library  measure  the  impact  of  its  collaborations  with  classroom  faculty  and   other  academic  partners?       Follow-­‐up  Interview  Process   From  the  23  survey  respondents,  20  people  were  identified  for  additional  interviews.   Throughout  the  spring,  summer  and  fall  of  2012  interviews  of  the  follow-­‐up  contacts  were   conducted  by  telephone  by  teams  of  two  taskforce  members.  The  interviews  were   conducted  by  Jeff  Bullington,  Jen  Fabbi,  Anne  Armstrong,  Patty  Iannuzzi,  Wendy  Holliday,   Sara  Kearns,  Yvonne  Mery  and  Christina  Gola.    From  these  interviews,  written  summaries   were  created,  and  all  interviews  were  recorded  and  the  audio  files  transcribed.  The  written   transcripts  were  then  submitted  to  the  qualitative  analysis  team,  where  sets  of  partners   analyzed  and  triangulated  the  interview  data  and  compiled  the  findings.  Since  not  all   institutions  had  a  qualitative  analysis  package  like  NVivo  or  Atlas.ti  to  conduct  qualitative   analysis,  the  research  team  used  Microsoft  Excel  to  conduct  the  qualitative  data  analysis   and  to  compile  the  results  of  the  survey  and  interviews  into  corresponding  themes  and   topics  for  further  study.  The  transcripts  were  analyzed  using  grounded  theory  qualitative   methodologies  and  open  coding  strategies  (Strauss  &  Corbin,  1998).  Based  on  the  analysis   of  the  first  set  of  four  interviews  and  triangulation  of  findings  by  pairs  of  researchers,  a   preliminary  set  of  17  themes  were  uncovered  and  used  to  define  the  codebook  for  the   research  process.  See  the  descriptions  of  the  17  themes  in  Appendix  A.     Innovative  Practices  Inventory   The  last  phase  of  the  GWLA  SLO  analysis  is  still  in  progress.  Taskforce  members  are   engaged  in  compiling  specific  innovative  or  best  practices  from  the  interview  data.       Findings   Survey  Results   As  might  be  expected,  it  was  reported  in  the  survey  that  articulation  and  presence  of   information  literacy  related  SLOs  on  GWLA  campuses  occurs  at  a  variety  of  levels.  Fourteen   institutions,  or  61%,  reported  they  have  SLOs  at  the  campus-­‐wide  level,  57%  reported  SLOs   are  present  at  the  college  or  department  level,  and  61%  reported  having  SLOs  articulated   at  the  library  level.  Only  2  of  the  23  institutions  reported  they  had  no  information  literacy   SLOs  at  any  level,  and  7  of  the  23  institutions,  or  30%,  reported  they  have  SLOs  at  all  three   levels  (campus-­‐wide,  college/department  level,  and  at  the  library  level).  In  addition,  seven        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          2    

  institutions  reported  they  did  not  know  if  information  literacy  SLOs  were  present  at  the   campus  or  department/college  level.     However,  the  percentage  numbers  for  the  institutions  that  reported  actual  assessment  of   those  information  literacy  SLOs  was  much  lower  than  the  numbers  reported  for  the   presence  of  information  SLOs.  Nine  institutions,  or  39%,  reported  they  do  not  assess   information  literacy  at  any  level.  Assessment  of  information  literacy  SLOs  at  the  library   level  was  reported  by  48%  of  the  institutions,  and  43%  reported  assessment  of  information   literacy  SLOs  for  at  least  one  of  the  three  various  campus  levels.  Of  the  23  institutions,  only   17%  reported  that  information  literacy  SLOs  are  assessed  at  all  three  levels  at  their   institutions  (see  Table  1  below).     When  asked  about  their  assessment  of  the  interaction  of  libraries  with  classroom  faculty   and  other  academic  partners,  61%  or  14  of  the  23  institutions,  reported  that  they  do  assess   these  types  of  collaborations;  35%  reported  they  do  not  assess  these  collaborations  and   one  institution  reported  that  they  do  not  know  if  these  types  of  collaborations  are  assessed   (see  Table  2  below).       Table  1:  Response  Frequencies  for  survey  questions  1  &  2  about  the  presence  of  information   literacy  SLOs  and  assessment  of  SLOs  at  3  different  institutional  levels   N=23   Campus-­‐ College/   Library   At  All  3   Not  at     Wide  SLOs   Department   SLOs   Levels   any   SLOs   Level   Presence  of  SLOs  –   13  (57%)   14  (61%)   15  (65%)   6  (26%)   2  (9%)   Yes   Number  of   institutions   (percentage)   Assessment  of  SLOS   6  (26%)   6  (26%)   11  (48%)   4  (17%)   7  (30%)   –  Yes   Number  of   institutions   (percentage)     Table  2:  Response  Frequencies  for  Question  #3  about  assessing  library  collaboration  with   classroom  faculty  and  other  academic  partners   N=23   Yes   No   I  Don’t  Know   Assessment  of  Library  Collaboration   14  (61%)   8  (35%)   1  (4%)        

     The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          3    

    Interview  Analysis  Results   To  begin  the  interview  analysis,  pairs  of  researchers  coded  four  interview  transcripts,  one   pair  for  each  interview.  Each  researcher  coded  his/her  interview  independently  first  and   then  member-­‐checked  coding  with  his/her  partner  who  had  also  coded  the  same  interview.   Each  pair  submitted  a  single  set  of  coding  after  they  compiled  their  codes  for  their   interview.  The  coding  from  the  four  interviews  were  then  compiled  and  analyzed  for   themes.  Originally,  71  themes  where  identified  from  the  484  unique  codes.  These  themes   were  analyzed  using  a  recursive  process  of  collapsing  and  combining  codes  and  themes  and   renaming  until  the  resulting  themes  were  deemed  to  be  unique.  From  this  process,   seventeen  unique  core  themes  were  identified.  These  core  themes  were  then  used  to  code   the  remaining  interviews.  No  new  themes  emerged.  Instead  of  the  researchers  using  open   coding  and  freely  labeling  what  they  saw  emerging  from  the  data  for  all  of  the  interviews,   like  they  did  in  the  first  set  of  four  interviews,  the  researchers  used  the  seventeen  themes   to  code  the  remaining  sixteen  interviews.  No  additional  themes  were  identified  from  the   remaining  interviews,  which  indicated  we  had  reached  analysis  saturation  in  the  data.       From  the  survey  data  collected  earlier,  it  was  learned  that  most  institutions  had  worked  on   designing  and  articulating  information  SLOs  and  in  many  cases,  there  were  also   departmental/program  SLOs  as  well  as  institutional  SLOs.  However,  fewer  institutions  said   they  actually  formally  “assessed”  those  SLOs.  Through  the  analysis  of  the  interview  text,   researchers  determined  a  much  richer  description  of  how  unique  institutional  factors  can   hinder  progress  toward  the  next  step  of  SLO  assessment.  After  the  20  interview  transcripts   were  teased  apart  line  by  line,  subjected  to  multiple  rounds  of  recoding  and  analysis,  and   the  data  was  reassembled  by  theme,  new  themes  and  relationships  emerged.       During  the  second  round  of  analysis,  seventeen  themes  were  collapsed  and  refined  into  five   main  themes  (see  Appendix  B).  The  five  themes  were  turned  back  to  the  researchers,  each   researcher  taking  one  or  two  themes  to  reevaluate  and  confirm  that  no  new  themes  were   emerging  from  the  data.  Using  the  five  themes  and  frequency  data,  a  conceptual  framework   or  model  was  constructed  that  could  be  used  to  explain  the  data  themes.  The  framework   was  reviewed  and  refined  by  Patty  Iannuzzi.  The  five  themes  were  again  reviewed  and   analyzed  and  collapsed  to  four  main  themes  informed  by  the  structure  of  the  new   framework:  (1)  SLOs  (including  design  /  implementation  /assessment  /  dissemination);   (2)  Collaboration  and  Relationships;  (3)  Culture  and  Context;  and  (4)  Roles  and   Responsibilities.       The  last  stage  of  the  theme  analysis  involved  aligning  the  themes  and  associated  subthemes   with  the  three  main  divisions  of  the  framework  (see  Table  3  on  the  following  page):     (1) Deconstructing  the  Process  of  SLO  Assessment:  which  included  categories  of   codes  about  SLO  design,  implementation,  assessment  and  dissemination;     (2) Building  Partnerships:  which  included  categories  of  codes  related  to  the   importance  of  building  partnerships  through  collaborative  and  communicative   processes  as  well  as  examination  of  roles  and  responsibilities;  and          The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          4    

  (3) Embracing  Change  and  Opportunities,  which  included  categories  of  codes  related   to  identifying  challenges,  strategies  for  embracing  opportunities,  conducting   research,  and  rethinking  the  scope  of  practice       Table  3:  Conceptual  Framework  for  Designing,  Implementing,  Assessing,  and  Disseminating   SLOs  based  on  Contextual  Factors     Deconstructing  the  Process   Building  Partnerships   Embracing  Change  and   of  SLO  Assessment  into:   through:   Opportunities  by:   55%  of  codes   33%  of  codes   12%  of  codes   Designing  and  articulating   Collaborating  with  faculty,   Identifying  drivers  and   SLOs  (library,  course,   departments,  and   challenges  within  the   program,  institutional  levels)   administrative  groups     cultural  context       Improving  communication   Utilizing  support  from   between  libraries  and   campus  units  (e.g.,  teaching   other  campus  audiences   center,  institutional   research)   Implementing  and  integrating   Developing  relationships   Participating  in   SLOs  at  all  levels   with  campus  and   professional  development   professional  partners  and   to  broaden  scope  of   units   practice  and  understand     the  higher  education   context   Designing  assessments  and   Evaluating  and  leveraging   Jumping  on  opportunities   collecting  results   organizational  culture   and  events  uncovered     (opportunities  and     barriers)  and  areas  for   Conducting  research  to   synergy   measure  progress  (use  the   assessment  cycle  to   document  and  measure)   Distributing  and  disseminating   Articulating  roles  and   Broadening  the  scope  of   SLO  information  and  results   responsibilities     practice     Final  adjustments  to  the  framework  were  made  based  upon  completion  of  the  final  round   of  data  analysis  and  incorporating  feedback  from  additional  task  force  member  checks.  See   Table  3  above  for  the  final  conceptual  framework.  This  framework  provides  libraries  with   specific  topics  and  structures  they  can  use  to  assess  their  contributions  to  campus  efforts   related  to  the  articulation,  embedding,  and  assessing  of  SLOs  related  to  information   literacy.  Each  cell  of  the  matrix  provides  an  opportunity  for  practices  that  can  be  assessed.   The  framework  creates  a  visual  model  for  three  distinct  interrelated  topics  derived  from   the  data  analysis.  Although  most  libraries  are  not  at  the  stage  of  utilizing  best  practices   connected  to  all  of  the  topics  represented  on  the  framework  matrix,  there  are  pockets  of   best  practices  and  innovative  ideas  embedded  in  the  interview  evidence.  This  framework   can  be  used  by  a  variety  of  institutions  at  different  levels  of  assessing  SLOs  for  improving        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          5    

  practice.  For  example,  in  the  UNLV  interview  there  was  discussion  about  how  when  their   Center  for  Teaching  was  dissolved,  the  library  leveraged  this  change  to  broaden  their  scope   of  practice  and  offer  course  design  support  and  workshops  for  instructors.  This  Embracing   Change  and  Opportunities  example  can  assist  other  institutions  that  may  not  have   considered  the  importance  of  developing  an  awareness  of  change  and  taking  action  when   opportunities  occur  at  their  institutions.     Over  half  of  the  codes  identified  in  this  study  (55%)  fall  into  the  first  column  of  the   framework  matrix  and  focus  on  how  institutions  are  designing,  implementing,  collecting   assessment  data,  and  disseminating  their  SLO  results.  This  large  number  of  codes  should   not  be  surprising  since  the  interview  questions  were  specifically  focused  on  uncovering   SLO  practices.  The  second  column  in  the  matrix  includes  coding  about  library  practices   related  to  collaboration,  communication,  and  building  partnerships,  as  well  defining  roles   and  responsibilities,  and  included  33%  of  the  overall  codes.  The  last  column  in  the  matrix   encompasses  only  12%  of  the  coding  related  to  drivers  and  opportunities  for  change,   cultural  and  contextual  barriers  to  change,  as  well  as  any  coding  related  to  needs  for   professional  development  and  the  broadening  of  the  scope  of  library  work.  These  codes   associated  with  the  change,  barriers,  and  opportunities  in  last  frame  of  the  matrix,  although   small  in  number,  may  be  the  critical  or  pivotal  pieces  related  to  successful  SLO   implementation  and  dissemination.  Although  these  codes  occurred  in  less  frequency,  they   were  consistently  present  and  related  to  the  other  themes.  Therefore,  these  categories  of   codes  may  indicate  topics  that  should  be  considered  when  helping  guide  member   institutions  through  an  evaluation  of  their  own  SLO  status.       From  the  interview  data,  it  could  also  be  concluded  that  the  path  libraries  were  taking   toward  assessing  SLOs  is  based  on  a  complex  set  of  contextual  and  institutional  factors  that   vary  across  institutions.  The  themes  of  collaboration,  communication,  and  addressing   challenges  were  evident  across  all  institutions.  Therefore,  the  framework  above,  built  from   the  GWLA  interview  data  and  examples,  could  be  used  to  establish  a  process  for   establishing  priorities  for  institutions  to  make  sure  they  consider  and  reflect  on  their  own   institutional  context  and  therefore  tackle  these  complex  situations  in  a  systematic  way.   Since  each  institution  is  at  a  different  place  related  to  the  articulation  and  implementation   of  SLOs  and  also  operating  under  different  institutional  structures,  policies,  and  cultures,   this  data  can  be  used  to  draw  out  exemplars  to  help  guide  practice  on  designing,   implementing,  and  assessing  SLOs  while  also  considering  culture,  context,  and  institutional   organization.       In  addition  to  the  identification  of  major  themes  and  subthemes,  the  researchers  also  coded   each  item  as  to  whether  or  not  it  was  associated  with  the  campus  or  institutional  level,  the   department  or  college  level,  or  the  library  level.  Many  items  were  coded  at  several  levels   but  only  72  of  the  1776  coded  instances  were  classified  as  relating  to  all  three  areas  of  the   institution.  These  triple-­‐classified  code  instances  may  indicate  important  places  where   institutions  might  pay  particular  attention  as  they  are  planning  and  moving  forward  with   initiatives  for  measuring  library  impact  on  student  learning,  since  these  codes  cross  the   three  different  institutional  levels.  The  Table  4  matrix  on  the  following  page  illustrates  the   differences  of  code  frequencies  and  percentages  for  the  three  main  themes  and  associated        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          6    

  subthemes.  Since  the  number  of  coding  instances  vary  across  themes,  both  percentages  and   (actual  frequency  numbers  of  codes)  are  provided.  Communication  and  Collaboration  had   the  highest  frequency  of  codes  across  the  three  different  levels.  The  Communication  and   Collaboration  theme,  at  55%,  was  the  subtheme  with  the  highest  frequency  at  the  campus   or  institutional  level.  At  the  Departmental/College  level,  the  subthemes  with  the  highest   percentage  of  coding  were  the  Designing  and  Implementing  SLOs  themes,  34%  and  35%   respectively.  Sixty-­‐seven  percent  of  the  Roles  and  Responsibilities  codes,  the  highest   number  of  codes  in  this  subtheme  is  found  at  the  library  level.     In  the  72  cases  where  interview  text  was  classified  as  relating  to  all  three  levels  of  the   institution,  the  subthemes  of  Culture,  Context  &  Opportunities  and  Distributing  and   Disseminating  SLOs  had  the  highest  frequencies,  21%  and  17%  respectively.  The  triple-­‐ coded  entries  also  span  a  large  number  of  institutions,  seventeen  of  the  twenty  institutions   are  represented  in  this  group  although  four  institutions  have  significantly  higher  frequency   of  codes  here  than  others.  The  relationship  of  these  two  subthemes  are  particularly   interesting  and  deserve  some  additional  analysis  about  how  culture  might  impact  the   effectiveness  of  distribution  and  dissemination  of  SLOs  on  university  campuses  that  have   the  highest  frequencies.           Table  4:  The  Coding  Frequencies  by  the  3  Institutional  Levels  Matrix  Distributed  by  Main   Themes   Four  Main  Themes   %  (#)  of   %  (#)  of   %  (#)  of   Total  #  of   codes   codes  tagged   codes   tagged   tagged     Departmenta tagged   codes   Campus   l/     Library     Wide   College  Level   Deconstructing  the  Process  of  SLO  Assessment  into:   18%  (52)   34%  (97)   47%  (133)   282   • SLOs:  Designing   15%   ( 53)   35%   ( 122)   50%   ( 176)     351   • SLOs:  Implementing   13%  (60)   26%  (121)   61%  (281)   462   • SLOs:  Assessing   36%   ( 73)   28%   ( 57)   36%   ( 72)   202   • SLOs:  Disseminating   Building  Partnerships  through:   55%  (488)   19%  (169)   26%  (225)   882   • Communication  &   35%  (31)   23%  (20)   42%  (37)   88   Collaboration     16%  (53)   17%  (55)   67%  (215)    323   • Developing  Partnerships   • Roles  and  Responsibilities   Embracing  Change  and  Opportunities  by:   33%  (94)   23%  (65)   44%  (124)   283   • Evaluating  Culture  &   Organizational  Context     In  looking  at  the  different  levels  of  the  institution  and  practices  at  each  of  those  levels  it   was  reported  by  researchers  that  there  are  higher  numbers  for  SLO  accountability  at  the   departmental  and  campus  level,  yet  text  coded  around  the  topic  of  designing  and   implementing  assessment  was  higher  at  the  library  levels.  Most  librarians  do  some  sort  of   assessment  of  student  learning,  but  often  it  is  self-­‐reported  data  rather  than  authentic        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          7    

  assessment.    There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  universal  formal  assessment  mechanism,  often   due  to  the  differences  in  disciplines  at  the  library  and  department  college  level.  Often  due   to  staffing  issues  and  conflicting  roles  and  responsibilities,  some  institutions  reported  there   is  not  much  coordination  or  sharing  among  librarians.  The  data  also  indicate  that  the   planning  process  for  SLOs  is  often  a  top-­‐down  initiative,  resulting  from  accreditation   concerns,  or  an  institutional  focus  on  evidence  or  assessment.    Many  SLO  initiatives  revolve   around  a  redesign  of  general  education  programs,  or  are  connected  to  general  education   courses.  Several  institutions  reported  having  campus  groups  developing  SLOs  or  student   competencies,  and  some  libraries  have  developed  groups  to  design  library  SLOs  or  to  map   instructional  efforts  to  disciplinary  curriculum.  Library-­‐developed  outcomes  are  often  tied   to  the  ACRL  Information  Literacy  Competency  Standards  for  Higher  Education.       Researchers  noted  during  analysis  that  at  both  the  campus  level  and  the  library  levels,   considerable  efforts  are  being  made  to  standardize  assessment  efforts.    Campus-­‐based   efforts  are  frequently  initiated  through  the  Provosts’  offices  and  tied  to  accreditation   concerns.    Across  institutions,  libraries  are  spending  considerable  effort  to  standardize   assessment  practices,  as  presently  there  is  quite  a  bit  of  independent  assessment  that  is   difficult  to  codify  into  a  cohesive  message.    The  target  of  library  assessment  efforts  is   changing  from  a  student  satisfaction  focus,  to  student  learning  and  success.    Libraries  are   investing  in  the  effort,  creating  positions  like  Librarian  for  Assessment  and  Planning,  or   Instruction  and  Assessment  to  focus  efforts  and  provide  accountability.    Most  member   institutions  indicate  that  they  are  in  the  process  of  learning  to  assess.    Often,  the  process  of   curriculum  development  does  not  include  incorporating  assessment.  Instead,  assessment   of  learning  is  considered  something  to  be  addressed  separately,  after  the  curriculum  is   developed.    Libraries  are  applying  many  approaches  and  instruments  in  their  assessments,   using  qualitative  and  quantitative  methods  often  modeled  after  national  tools  like  the   Association  of  Colleges  and  Universities  (AAC&U)  Value  Rubrics.     Limitations  of  the  Research  Process   As  with  any  research  project,  there  are  limitations  to  the  process  and  methodology.  Some   of  the  limitations  related  to  this  study  are:       •

•

Not  all  GWLA  members  participated  in  the  study.  If  only  those  members  with  an   interest  in  assessment  and  already  involved  in  SLO  work  participated  in  the  study,   does  that  mean  those  who  did  not  participate  have  not  yet  begun  work  on  SLOs?   This  would  be  important  to  consider  when  reviewing  the  data  because  that  might   alter  the  percentage  numbers  from  the  survey  and  also  skew  the  coding.     The  people  who  participated  in  the  follow  up  interviews  may  have  different  roles   and  responsibilities  at  their  institution  and  the  information  they  provided  may  be   limited  to  their  personal  perspective  of  what  is  happening  on  their  campus  around   SLOs  or  based  on  their  knowledge  about  their  institution  or  their  own  library  liaison   work.    Gathering  data  from  multiple  perspectives  including  an  academic  department   who  is  a  heavy  collaborator  with  the  library  as  well  as  university  administrative   staff  might  provide  additional  insight  into  the  challenges  and  opportunities   presented.  Another  approach  might  include  identifying  and  reviewing  all  general        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          8  

 

  education  or  all  the  writing/comp  programs  at  GWLA  institutions  and  identify  how   SLOs  are  specifically  designed,  implemented  and  disseminated  from  those  specific   points  and  connect  that  information  back  to  the  institutional  assessment  structure   and  how  the  library  is  involved.     • The  data  analysis  in  this  study  was  done  in  Excel  due  to  the  lack  of  access  to   expensive  qualitative  analysis  software  by  the  participating  researchers.  Using   NVIVO  or  Atlas  would  have  enabled  a  more  comprehensive  way  of  looking  at  the   data  and  drawing  conclusion  about  the  findings.     • In  order  to  understand  the  study  findings,  it  important  to  take  into  account  that  the   qualitative  analysis  part  of  the  study  was  used  to  inform  the  "why"  behind  the  initial   survey  numbers  and  identify  a  possible  topic  or  gap  for  a  future  GWLA  sponsored   research  study.  Since  the  main  impetus  of  the  qualitative  method  was  to  explore  and   identify  issues  and  topics  for  a  follow-­‐up  GWLA  research  project,  each   category/theme  identifies  a  possible  issue  for  further  study  in  the  follow  up  GWLA   study.  None  of  the  categories/themes,  in  this  report,  are  teased  apart  by  isolating   negative  coding  and  positive  coding  separately;  the  categories  were  meant  to   identify  and  articulate  the  main  topics  that  libraries  should  be  aware  of  so  they   might  build  their  own  context-­‐dependent  strategy  for  SLOs  based  on  the  study  data.   Therefore  it  should  be  noted  that  the  negative  and  positive  coding  instances  are   combined  together  under  the  major  categories/themes  to  demonstrate  the  major   topics/issues  libraries  need  to  investigate.   • Finally,  the  research  was  conducted  by  taskforce  researchers  with  a  varying  level  of   qualitative  experience  and  the  research  process  involved  spending  time  on  setting   up  the  process  and  getting  up  to  speed  on  conducting  this  type  of  analysis.  Despite   this  limitation,  the  taskforce  was  able  to  set  up  an  effective  process  for  collaborative   research.  Now  that  the  process  is  defined  it  will  be  easier  to  replicate  this  process   and  use  this  method  as  a  possible  model  for  conducting  additional  GWLA   collaborative  qualitative  research  in  the  future.     Innovative  Practices  Inventory  Findings   This  phase  of  the  project  has  recently  commenced.  Members  of  the  taskforce  are  working   through  the  twenty  interview  transcripts  to  compile  a  list  of  innovative  or  best  practices   from  the  interview  data.  To  date,  the  taskforce  has  done  a  preliminary  analysis  of  four   transcripts.  The  next  step  in  the  process  is  to  map  these  practices  to  the  Conceptual   Framework  for  Designing,  Implementing,  Assessing,  and  Disseminating  SLOs  based  on   Contextual  Factors.    The  final  step  will  be  collecting  the  evidence  of  best  practices  and   making  those  practices  available  to  the  GWLA  membership  in  a  central  repository.    See   Appendix  C  for  examples.             The  GWLA  SLO  Taskforce  Research  Questions:   Five  research  questions  drove  the  research  and  inventory  process.  The  purpose  of  the  data   analysis  (as  outlined  in  the  GWLA  charge)  was  to  discover:     1. How  are  learning  outcomes  for  students  articulated  at  GWLA  institution?          The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          9    

  There  is  wide  variation  in  approaches,  strategies,  and  contextual  factors  at  the  different   GWLA  institutions  that  impact  how  SLOs  are  designed,  assessed,  and  disseminated  across.   No  one  solution  or  strategy  has  been  identified  as  the  “best  way”  to  articulate,  implement,   assess  and  disseminate  SLOs  on  GWLA  campuses.  In  some  cases,  librarians  serve  on   committees  that  are  involved  in  how  SLOs  are  articulated,  or  librarians  articulate  outcomes   for  their  own  instructional  sessions  either  alone  or  in  collaboration  with  the  teaching   faculty.  The  success  of  articulating  and  implementing  SLOs  was  often  reported  as  being   based  on  the  strength  of  librarian-­‐faculty  collaborations  in  designing  and  assessing   classroom  instruction,  and  the  dissemination  of  SLOs  was  often  related  to  the  unit  or   department  or  college  responsible  for  articulating  the  SLOs  as  well  as  the  overall   communication  channels  and  processes  already  inherent  in  the  institution.     It  was  also  very  clear  from  the  data  that  librarians,  faculty,  and  administrators  have   different  roles  and  responsibilities  in  the  SLO  articulation  and  assessment  process  and   these  roles  also  varied  across  institutions.  Communicating  about  those  roles  and  defining   responsibilities  associated  with  those  roles  may  help  break  down  barriers  that  exist   between  libraries  and  academic  departments.  In  the  data,  there  is  evidence  of  a  lack  of   awareness  about  roles  and  responsibilities  across  the  different  levels  of  the  institutions.   Strategies  of  broadening  of  the  scope  of  librarian  work  and  roles  into  areas  such  as  course   design  and  partners  with  teaching  centers  were  reported  in  this  study     2. What  are  GWLA  libraries  doing  re:  articulation  of  learning  outcomes  for  libraries?   In  this  study,  roles  and  responsibilities  were  an  important  factor  in  defining  how  SLOs  are   designed,  articulated,  and  assessed  at  institutions  that  participated  in  this  study.  Library   information  literacy  (IL)  SLOs  were  articulated  and  owned  by  the  library  in  all  cases,  but   broader  general  education  SLOs  that  sometimes  integrated  IL  SLOs  were  in  most  cases   owned  by  general  education  councils  or  committees.  Findings  in  this  study  also   emphasized  the  importance  of  establishing  partnerships  with  other  campus  entities  such  as   the  teaching  centers,  student  affairs,  and  campus-­‐wide  assessment  offices  for  articulating,   implementing,  and  disseminating  SLOs.  This  could  be  an  area  of  possibility  for  expansion  of   the  role  of  librarians  and  improving  communication  and  awareness  of  what  is  happening   across  campus  related  to  information  literacy  topics.  Another  topic  that  surfaced  often  in   the  interviews  was  how  terminology  varies  across  campuses  related  to  the  term   information  literacy.  Several  campuses  are  using  more  general  “critical  thinking”  or   “inquiry”  terminology  to  articulate  information  literacy  SLOs  when  collaborating  with   faculty  on  teaching.  In  this  study,  it  was  discovered  that  SLO  articulation  and  integration  is   not  just  determined  by  articulating,  implementing,  and  assessing  IL  SLOs,  but  it  is   integrated  with  other  situational  factors  such  as  library  and  institutional  culture,  success  of   campus-­‐library  collaborations  and  partnerships,  and  the  definition  of  roles  and   responsibilities  of  academic  staff  and  librarians.       3. What  assessments  are  campuses  using  to  measure  SLOs?   Libraries  who  participated  in  this  study  reported  using  a  variety  of  methods  for  assessing   SLOs.  Some  institutions  have  adopted  standardized  instruments;  some  are  using  rubrics   developed  by  librarians  or  in  partnership  with  faculty  collaborators.  Other  institutions   have  developed  home-­‐grown  type  tutorials,  guides,  and  instruments,  while  others  are        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          10    

  considering  adoption  of  nationally  distributed  and  standardized  methods.  Most  institutions   reported  on  using  a  variety  of  methods  for  assessing  IL  SLOs  based  on  the  various  needs  of   collaborative  partners  and  departments.  A  considerable  number  of  institutions  discussed   the  importance  of  using  a  more  authentic  approach  to  measuring  information  literacy   progress  by  evaluating  the  final  student  research  products  and  bibliographies.  Campuses   discussed  the  challenges  of  implementing  and  integrating  SLOs  in  cases  when  they  do  not   have  responsibility  for  the  course  assignments  or  when  the  format  of  instruction  such  as   one-­‐shot  sessions  inhibits  the  ability  to  collect  data  about  student  learning.  Institutions   reported  they  ground  their  SLO  assessment  in  the  ACRL  standards  and  use  a  variety  of   assessment  strategies  such  as  authentic  assessment,  pre-­‐post  assessment,  formal  and   informal  self  reports,  and  standardized  commercial  tools  and  methods.  However  most   institutions  reported  the  assessment  varied  across  programs,  departments.  and  levels.   There  was  also  a  concern  expressed  by  several  institutions  about  the  assessment  problems   inherent  in  personal  relationships  between  librarians  and  faculty,  where  it  was  difficult  to   measure  outcomes  not  uniform  across  departments.  Most  institutions  reported  they  are   conducting  library  instruction,  which  is  based  on  information  literacy  SLOs,  but  many  less   actually  reported  on  formally  assessing  the  SLOS  and  disseminating  reports  about  their   assessment  work.     Some  institutions  reported  establishing  relationships  with  campus  partners  (both   academic  departments  and  other  administration  units  such  as  assessment  offices)  so  that   they  can  obtain  access  to  student  work  and  data  for  assessment.  Interest  in  establishing   strategic  partnerships  across  campus  was  also  discussed  in  relation  to  improving   communication  about  SLOs  on  campus  and  dissemination  of  SLOs  from  both  the  library   and  at  the  campus  and  institutional  levels.       4. What  assessments  are  libraries  using?   Often  partnerships  are  established  with  specific  programs,  especially  writing,  composition,   and  English  where  the  subject  matter  may  make  it  easier  to  implement  and  assess  IL  SLOs.     Oregon  State  University  Libraries  and  UT  Austin  Libraries  both  reported  successful   collaborations  with  writing  and  composition  programs.  Academic  faculty  in  these   departments  embraced  the  concept  of  critical  thinking  and  information  literacy  and  could   apply  it  directly  to  their  writing  and  composition  assignments.  Library  and  academic   faculty  at  each  institution  worked  together  to  integrate  IL  SLOs  into  the  course  curriculum,   as  well  as  assessment  tools  such  as  pre-­‐post  tests  and  rubrics  to  measure  how  well  the   students  met  the  learning  outcomes  of  the  course.  In  most  cases,  librarians  reported  that   assessments  are  co-­‐developed  with  faculty  collaborators.  Other  institutions  discussed  the   use  of  SAILS  and  iSkills.  Some  institutions  discussed  successes  in  assessment  of  SLOs   through  efforts  to  reach  out  to  other  campus  units  such  as  Centers  of  Teaching  or  working   with  campus-­‐wide  assessment  offices  to  gain  access  to  student  work  or  share  resources.   The  idea  of  culture,  both  library  and  campus-­‐wide  culture,  was  reported  as  a  very  powerful   factor  in  the  success  of  SLO  implementation  and  assessment.  Campus-­‐wide  culture  can   have  a  very  profound  impact  on  adoption  of  learning  outcomes  and  may  result  in  increased   partnerships  between  Libraries  and  academic  units.  One  GWLA  institution,  reported  that   its  campus  implemented  SLOs  after  receiving  a  report  from  an  accrediting  body  that  the   University  needed  to  increase  assessment  of  student  learning.    This  was  a  prime  motivator        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          11    

  for  the  entire  institution  to  be  involved  in  developing  learning  outcomes,  and  the  library   plays  a  role  in  working  with  individual  faculty  to  develop  learning  outcomes.  (See  Appendix   C).     5. How  do  GWLA  libraries  contribution  to  University  SLOs?   Participants  in  this  study  often  reported  that  IL  SLOs  are  not  always  necessarily  integrated   with  institution-­‐wide  SLO  assessment,  and  the  reporting  of  differences  in  this  area  is  due  to   variation  in  roles,  departmental  processes,  established  collaboration  practices,  institutional   culture,  and  information  literacy  definition  and  adoption  practices.  Library  and   institutional  leadership  plays  an  important  role  in  effective  implementation,  dissemination,   and  reporting  on  SLOs  at  the  institution  level,  as  well  as  with  the  integration  of  the  library   in  campus-­‐wide  assessment  efforts.  There  is  not  widespread  articulation  of  SLOs  according   to  many  study  participants  and  some  described  cases  where  library  SLOs  are  not   distributed  on  the  institutional  level  as  well  as  departmental  SLOs  not  being  distributed   and  published.  The  dissemination  of  SLOs  appears  to  be  dependent  on  departmental   structure  and  policies,  the  strength  of  individual  librarian-­‐faculty  relationships,  and  the   prominence  of  courses  that  have  a  stronger  information  literacy  component.  Faculty  and   department  culture  can  impact  how  SLOs  are  implemented  in  courses  and  programs  as   well  as  disseminated.  Many  study  participants  discussed  a  lack  of  awareness  of  what  is   going  on  around  campus  regarding  SLOs  and  were  not  aware  of  where  program  and   institutional  SLO  assessment  data  could  be  located  or  where  it  was  reported.  Librarians   discussed  the  challenges  of  “silos”  and  “not  being  at  the  table”  and  therefore  not  being  in   the  loop  about  institution  and  campus  wide  assessment  initiatives.  Librarians  that  reported   being  active  participants  in  committees  and  cross-­‐campus  collaborations  were  more  apt  to   know  about  what  was  happening  on  their  campuses  related  to  assessment.  There  is  also   wide  variation  in  how  SLOs  are  disseminated  and  reported  on  campuses.  Most  participants   discussed  the  posting  of  SLOs  on  websites.     Strong  library  and  administrative  leadership  in  the  area  of  assessment  appears  to  help   create  a  culture  for  reporting  about  assessment  and  sharing  data  on  campuses.  This   leadership  also  helps  establish  a  culture  of  accountability  so  that  SLOs  are  assessed  and   reported  on  a  regular  basis.  Librarians  also  reported  on  the  benefits  of  accreditation  and   campus  accountability  as  factors  that  helped  in  the  assessment  and  dissemination  of  SLOs.   Institutional  culture  that  marginalizes  librarians  hinders  the  ability  of  the  library  to  be  at   the  table  for  decision-­‐making  and  policy-­‐making  in  the  area  of  assessment  and   dissemination  of  SLOs.  Library  culture  where  librarians  work  on  an  individual  basis  with   faculty  was  also  reported  as  hindering  moving  forward  with  broader  and  more   comprehensive  SLO  assessment.  The  culture  and  context  of  the  campus  dynamics  can   provide  a  very  powerful  opportunity  for  moving  SLO  assessment  forward  if  libraries  can   overcome  the  structural  and  climate  challenges  of  marginalization.         Final  Observations  and  Recommendations     The  Conceptual  Framework  for  Designing,  Implementing,  Assessing,  and  Disseminating  SLOs   based  on  Contextual  Factors  (Table  3)  can  be  used  by  a  variety  of  institutions  at  different        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          12    

  levels  of  assessing  SLOs  for  improving  practice.  For  example,  in  the  UNLV  interview,  there   was  discussion  about  how  when  their  Center  for  Teaching  was  dissolved,  the  library   leveraged  this  change  to  broaden  their  scope  of  practice  and  offer  course  design  support   and  workshops  for  instructors.  This  Embracing  Change  and  Opportunities  example  can   assist  other  institutions  that  may  not  have  considered  the  importance  of  developing  an   awareness  of  change  and  acting  when  opportunities  occur  at  their  institutions.     Although  some  exemplar  initiatives  and  innovative  programs  assessing  IL  SLOs  were   identified  through  this  study,  review  of  the  entirety  of  the  data  suggests  that  IL  SLOs  are   being  assessed  in  many  different  ways  and  in  most  cases  the  assessment  was  described   using  more  informal  and  anecdotal  measures  and  not  evidence-­‐based  practice.  The  survey   also  confirms  disconnect  between  the  designing  and  implementing  of  SLOs  and  the   assessing  and  reporting  out  of  findings  on  IL  SLOs.  This  gap  in  the  SLO  process  may  be  a   prime  candidate  for  future  research.  Building  on  the  successful  assessments  of  some   institutions,  it  would  be  helpful  to  collect  additional  data  and  conduct  analysis  around  the   process  of  assessment  to  identify  in  more  detail  what  makes  successful  assessment  work;   that  is,  what  is  the  culture  of  the  institution,  organizational  structure,  campus  policies,   leadership  factors,  and  the  place  of  the  library  on  successful  campuses?  Successful  case   studies  extracted  from  this  study  data  may  be  helpful  in  giving  other  institutions  ideas  of   what  they  can  try  at  their  institutions,  but  more  specific  information  is  needed  on  the   contextual  factors  of  these  successful  institutions  to  inform  future  best  practice  since   institutional  structures  and  library  organizations  vary.        One  small  but  important  finding  gleamed  from  the  interviews  was  that  due  to  staffing   issues  and  conflicting  roles  and  responsibilities  of  librarians  at  several  institutions  there   was  not  much  coordination  or  sharing  among  librarians.    Encouraging  libraries  and   librarians  to  focus  on  internal  sharing  of  instructional  assessments  and  documenting  that   information  in  a  central  location,  for  example  similar  to  Kansas  State  University  Libraries   (Appendix  C)  might  prove  to  be  doable  and  effective.     Another  interesting  aspect  of  the  data  analysis  evolution  centered  on  differentiating   between  collaboration  and  campus-­‐wide  partnerships  and  relationships.  As  the  analysis   progressed  the  researchers  differentiated  text  coded  as  collaborations  as  more  about  the   action  taken  by  individuals  working  together  (teaching  together  with  SLOs,  planning   assignments  together  to  measure  SLOs)  whereas  relationships  were  more  about   developing  alliances  or  working  partnerships  with  other  units  to  help  disseminate  SLOS,   engage  faculty  in  the  SLO  process,  and  to  help  to  market,  analyze  and  promote  SLOs.  These   are  two  very  different  things.    When  looking  at  study  data  across  the  three  levels  of  the   institution,  researchers  commented  that  there  is  evidence  of  almost  equal  numbers  for   collaboration  at  the  departmental  and  library  level,  but  less  at  the  campus  level.  It  appears   from  the  data  that  “relationships”  could  have  a  broader  and  more  powerful  impact  on  the   work  done  in  the  library  when  integrated  with  the  opportunities  of  interaction  of  librarians   at  the  different  levels  of  the  campus..In  contrast,  “collaborations”  were  more  focused  on   impacting  interactions  with  individuals  at  a  more  personal  level  or  at  the  program  level.   Therefore,  one  recommendation  would  be  to  focus  on  developing  relationships,  as  well  as   collaborations  so  that  IL  SLO  work  could  be  integrated  at  a  variety  of  campus  levels.        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          13    

    The  impact  that  an  institutional  culture  has  on  the  ability  of  an  organization  to  come   together  around  SLOs  was  another  interesting  finding  in  our  data.  Some  institutional   efforts  are  bolstered  through  an  institutional  commitment  to  evidence,  while  other   institutions’  reported  that  decentralized  culture  limited  successes  in  developing,  and   implementing  SLOs.  Other  related  limiting  factors  include  academic  freedom,  fear  of   negative  impact  on  the  tenure  and  promotion  process,  and  the  general  lack  of  a  culture  of   assessment.    Many  libraries  reported  that  they  are  actively  building  a  culture  of   assessment,  creating  positions  to  support  the  effort  such  as  Assessment  and  Planning   Librarians.  One  of  the  researchers  recommends  teasing  out  further  the  importance  of   investigating  challenges  related  to  assessment  implementation  and  dissemination  at  all   three  levels  of  the  institution  since  the  data  appears  to  indicate  that  the  departments  and   campuses  are  more  accountable  for  SLOs  than  libraries  (except  for  the  area  of  IL  SLOs).     Additionally,  information  from  the  interviews  suggested  that  “planning  the  process  for   SLOs  is  often  a  top  down  initiative,  resulting  from  accreditation  concerns,  or  an   institutional  focus  on  evidence  or  assessment”.  This  is  an  area  that  might  merit  further   exploration  in  conjunction  with  the  recent  economic  down  turn  and  the  impact  of   legislation  in  higher  education.     In  the  area  of  curriculum  development,  the  data  indicated  an  area  that  might  prove  fruitful   for  more  study.  Data  collected  in  our  study  suggested,  “Often  the  process  of  curriculum   development  does  not  include  incorporating  assessment.    Instead  assessment  of  learning  is   considered  something  to  be  addressed  separately,  after  the  curriculum  is  developed.”    This   practice  seems  to  run  counter  to  the  current  practice  of  “backwards  design”  which  includes   the  steps  of  outcomes,  assessment  and  then  curriculum  development.    There  maybe  some   important  questions  that  to  be  answered  to  help  libraries  tie  assessment  into  curriculum   level.    Are  libraries  incorporating  this  current  pedagogy  into  their  own  curriculum   development  and  in  conversations  with  other  campus  and  department  faculty?    What   principles  or  methods  are  the  curriculum  development  practices  on  at  our  own  institutions   being  based  on?     In  summary,  it  is  difficult  to  report  on  what  all  GWLA  institutions  are  doing  as  related  to   the  designing,  implementing,  assessing,  and  dissemination  SLOs  since  each  institution   reported  on  a  variety  of  methods,  strategies,  and  organizational  approach.  However  there   are  commonalities  in  motivations,  such  as  accreditation  reviews,  program  redesigns,  and  a   desire  to  move  to  a  more  evidence-­‐based  driven  culture.  There  are  many  innovative  and   varied  practices  described  in  the  interviews.  Institutional  contexts  and  cultures,  campus   academic  priorities  and  initiatives,  leadership  at  both  the  institutional  and  library  levels,   and  changing  roles  of  librarians  are  all  impacting  how  libraries  are  measuring  IL  SLOs.            

     The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          14    

      References   Strauss,  A.,  &  Corbin,  J.  (1998).  Basics  of  qualitative  research:  Techniques  and  procedures  for   developing  grounded  theory.  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage.    

     The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          15    

  APPENDIX    A:  Description  of  the  original  Seventeen  Themes     Strategies  for  Planning,  Implementing  &  Integrating  SLOs  (98  instances)   Originally,  this  theme  was  divided  into  several  subthemes  (planning,  implementing,   integration  and  evaluation)  but  due  to  the  overlap  of  these  codes,  the  themes  were   recombined.  Although  there  is  a  clear  definition  between  planning,  implementing,  and   integrating  SLOs,  at  this  phase  of  the  analysis  the  themes  relating  to  the  actual  designing   and  implementing  of  SLOs  should  remain  together.  In  many  cases  the  coding  of  these   subthemes  are  so  integrated  it  was  difficult  to  separate  out  the  theme  sub-­‐groups.     Roles/Responsibilities  for  Assessment/SLOs  (57  instances)   The  number  of  instances  of  codes  here  was  the  most  surprising  theme.  There  was  much   discussion  about  what  roles  librarians  are  playing,  such  as  course  designer,  assessment   experts,  planners,  teachers,  instructional  designers,  collaborators,  leaders,  and  advocates   for  information  literacy.  Included  in  this  theme  are  also  instances  relating  to  workload   issues,  committee  work,  library  organizational  structure,  etc.  This  theme  is  important  and   unique  because  of  how  the  variations  in  the  roles  and  responsibilities  of  librarians  and   faculty  can  impact  the  success  of  assessment  initiatives.     Collaboration    (51  instances)   The  collaboration  theme  had  one  of  the  highest  numbers  of  incidences.  This  theme  was   assigned  to  coding  instances  related  to  the  discussion  of  the  collaborative  efforts  of   librarians  with  faculty,  the  librarians  with  departments,  and  librarians  with  support  units.   This  collaboration  theme  was  also  prevalent  at  different  levels  involving  sharing  of   assessment  strategies  in  the  library,  at  the  department  level  in  the  discussion  of   collaboration,  and  common  departments  that  collaborate  such  as  writing  and  composition   and  first  year  programs.  This  theme  can  also  be  used  to  define  the  coding  instances  that   discussed  different  types  of  collaboration  such  as  teaching  responsibilities,  assignment   design,  SLO  design  and  development,  etc.  The  collaboration  code  instances  at  the   institutional  level  were  far  less  in  number  than  at  the  library  and  department/college  level.   Often  the  collaboration  happening  at  the  institutional  level  took  on  broader  and  different   attributes  and  those  were  coded  under  the  theme  of  departmental  relationships  (see  that   theme  below).     Communication  Issue  (38  instances)   The  way  the  library  plans  how  it  communicates  and  how  it  communicates  with   collaborators  and  partners  on  campus  can  impact  the  effectiveness  of  collaborations  and   relationship  building  on  campus.  Communication  codes  included  in  this  theme  incorporate   terminology  such  as,  who  is  “at  the  table”  for  planning  and  discussions,  and  how  there  was   little  awareness  of  what  departments  and  units  are  doing  with  assessment.  There  was  also   discussion  about  whether  assessment  should  be  made  “private”  or  “public”.   Communication  codes  were  also  associated  with  text  related  to  developing  an  awareness  of   how  people  find  out  about  what  is  happening  on  campus  or  how  SLOs  and  assessment  are   communicated  around  campus.     Tools-­‐Instruments-­‐Resources  for  SLOs  (38  incidences)        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          16    

  This  theme  was  used  to  tag  and  code  instances  related  to  any  type  of  tools  or  instruments   used  to  assess  information  literacy  or  measure  SLOs  (such  as  iSkills,  Sails,  or  ACT).  It  also   included  any  strategies  for  assessing  student  learning  such  as  surveys,  pre-­‐post  tests,  self   reports,  rubrics,  quizzes,  and  interviews  that  were  used  to  measure  information  literacy  or   document  SLOs.     Accountability  &  Reporting  of  SLOs    (34  instances  in  codes)     This  theme  covers  text  in  interviews  that  discusses  how  SLO  and/or  assessment  of   information  literacy  instruction  are  reported.  Included  in  this  theme  are  codes  about   reporting  up  to  administration,  the  high  stakes  nature  of  assessment,  and  how  the  SLOs   play  into  accreditation,  as  well  as  the  different  types  of  reporting  such  as  posting  on   websites  or  including  statistics  in  reports.  Who  receives  the  reporting  on  SLOs  and   information  literacy  instruction;  how  information  is  compiled  and  reported;  and  what   levels  of  assessment  are  reported  are  some  of  the  topics  discussed  in  the  interviews  that   resulted  in  coding  instances  in  this  theme.       Curriculum  &  Instruction    (30  instances)   This  curriculum  and  planning  theme  was  derived  from  the  collection  of  coding  instances   that  related  directly  to  information  literacy  instruction  or  curriculum.  This  theme  contains   coding  that  was  tagged  as  assignment  design,  specific  courses,  and  the  relationship  of   information  literacy  and  SLOs,  curriculum  in  general  education  or  1st  year  seminars,  or   “signature”  courses.  It  also  includes  coding  related  to  lesson  planning  and  classroom   instructional  strategies.       Departmental  Relationships  (26  instances)   This  theme  was  used  to  classify  instances  of  the  different  types  of  disciplines  and   departments  that  librarians  reported  having  relationships  with.  Unlike  the  Collaboration   theme  above,  which  focused  more  on  one-­‐on-­‐one  or  library/department  relationships   focused  on  instruction,  coding  instances  connected  to  this  theme  are  more  about   developing  partnerships  with  other  units  such  as  centers  for  teaching,  or  assessment   offices,  student  affairs  units,  or  larger  programs  such  as  distance  learning  units,  These   codes  focus  on  integrating  information  literacy  or  improving  assessment  on  a  broader   scale.  These  types  of  relationships  are  focused  on  utilizing  or  leveraging  expertise  or  access   from  other  units  that  might  not  be  traditionally  connected  with  the  library.  Although  the   collaborations  and  departmental  relationships  themes  may  eventually  be  combined,  it  is   important  to  keep  these  two  themes  separate  at  this  time  to  track  what  units,  departments,   and  disciplines  seem  more  amendable  to  adopting  assessment  and  information  literacy   practices  and  see  if  any  patterns  could  be  identified  across  institutions.     Culture  and  Priorities  Issues  (22  instances)   In  the  initial  interviews  several  levels  of  culture  were  evident  and  discussed  such  as  library   culture,  institutional  culture,  and  faculty  culture.  The  culture  and  priorities  of  the   institution  may  dictate  priorities  at  a  lower  level  and  have  an  impact  on  the  roles  and   responsibilities  for  assessment,  collaboration  about  assessment,  and  the  accountability  and   reporting  of  assessment.  Whether  the  institution  is  decentralized  or  centralized,  and  how        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          17    

  the  institution  was  structured  where  coding  instances  common  in  theme  because  these   may  impact  the  culture  and  how  things  work  on  campuses.       Structures,  Policies,  and  Administration  (22  instances)   This  theme  included  coding  instances  related  to  policies,  staffing,  financial  constraints,  and   the  core  values  of  institutions.  Coding  instances  in  this  theme  also  related  to  discussion   about  strategic  planning  and  reporting  structures,  which  can  be  factors  that  influence  SLO   planning  and  implementation.     Professional  Development    (17  instances)   Professional  development  topics  were  discussed  in  several  types  of  context  in  the  study   interviews.  Although  this  theme  contains  a  smaller  percentage  of  coding  instances  than   discussed  previously,  an  important  aspect  of  this  theme  is  that  the  codes  were  distributed   across  several  levels  and  discussed  factors  related  to  developing  faculty,  librarians,  TAs  and   students.  Coding  related  to  support  for  assessment  and  train  the  trainer  models,  as  well  as,   innovative  models  such  as  faculty  institutes  are  covered  within  this  theme.     Challenges  (16  instances  in  codes)   This  theme  emerged  as  a  catch-­‐all  for  the  coding  of  any  text  relating  to  the  challenges  of   assessment  or  measuring  SLOs.  For  example,  some  of  the  challenges  coded  within  this   theme  include  the  complexity  of  assessment;  the  difficulty  of  measuring  student  learning;   the  value  or  lack  of  value  associated  with  a  “smile  survey”  assessment;  about  how  it  is   easier  to  plan  assessments  but  more  difficult  to  carry  out  assessments;  and  about  how   varied  disciplines,  courses  and  assignments  are  and  how  this  affects  the  design  and   implementation  of  assessments.     For  this  first  round  of  coding  there  were  several  themes  of  codes  (see  the  five  themes   below)  with  very  small  numbers  of  codes.  However  often  in  qualitative  coding  the  most   important  code  themes  may  actually  be  those  on  the  periphery  of  the  major  themes.   Therefore  these  smaller  themes  will  be  separated  out  as  independent  themes  until  the   second  round  of  coding.     Leadership  (12  instances)   Leadership  coding  instances,  although  a  small  number  of  instances,  were  separated  out  as  a   separate  theme  because  of  the  perceived  importance  of  this  attribute  as  it  as  discussed  in   the  interview  texts.  Coding  related  to  this  theme  focused  around  persistence,  respect,   active  role  vs.  a  passive  role,  and  vision.  Leadership  coding  instances  were  often  associated   with  change.  There  were  also  negatives  associated  with  the  leadership  theme,  such  as  how   losing  a  head  of  a  department  can  impact  progress  and  effective  of  departments.     Change  Related  (9  instances)   Although  this  is  a  small  number  of  codes  associated  with  this  theme  in  this  round  of  coding,   the  importance  of  change  in  higher  education  today  should  be  an  independent  theme.  This   theme  focused  on  the  process  of  change;  the  slowness  of  change;  as  well  as  how  new   people,  positions,  losing  people,  and  curriculum  revisions  are  all  related  to  change.            The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          18    

  Opportunities    (8  instances)   On  the  flip  side  of  challenges  and  change  are  code  instances  related  to  opportunities.   Coding  in  this  theme  connected  to  opportunities  focused  on  how  people  are  making  things   work  despite  challenges  and  this  might  help  us  become  more  aware  of  opportunities  when   they  emerge  at  our  institution.  In  the  interviews  completed  thus  far,  there  were  codes   about  marketing  opportunities;  opportunities  for  pushing  for  library  inclusion  in   institutional  processes;  and  the  advantages  and  opportunities  of  “getting  in  the  ground   floor”.     General  (SLO  catch-­‐all)    (6  instances)   This  theme  contains  coding  instances  related  to  very  unique  situations  that  did  not  fit  in   the  other  main  themes.  This  theme  contains  coding  instances  about  what  might  be  driving   SLO  assessment;  or  state  involvement  in  campus  assessment,  or  other  institutional  specific   codes.     IL  Topics  (4  instances)   The  purpose  of  this  theme  is  to  isolate  some  specific  information  literacy  topics  that  were   discussed  as  examples  of  instructions  or  needs,  or  departmental  interests.  Some  examples   here  are  copyright  and  plagiarism.  In  the  next  round  of  coding  these  codes  will  be   redistributes  to  other  themes.    

     The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          19    

  Appendix  B  –  Round  2  Coding:  Collapsing  and  Refining  of  Themes  (Aligning  Seventeen   Themes  to  Five  Themes)     NEW  Five  Themes  (containing  1054   codes)  based  on  completion  of   additional  interviews   Collaboration  and  Communications   Issues  (285  code  instances)  

OLD  Seventeen  Original  Themes  (484  codes)  based   on  4  interviews  for  developing  the  coding  catalog  

Collaborations    (51  instances)   Communication  Issues  (38  instances)   • There  was  overlap  in  the  collaboration  and   communication  themes  such  as  collaborations   resulting  because  of  good  communications   Departmental  Relationships  (26  instances)   • Although  this  theme  contains  codes  about   collaborations  or  partnerships  at  a  different   scope  and  level  than  more  personal   collaborations,  this  theme  was  combined  due  to   overlap  of  strategies  and  opportunities  related  to   making  a  conscious  effort  to  collaborate  and   partner  on  projects     Strategies  for  Planning,  Implementing   Strategies  for  Planning,  Implementing  &  Integrating   &  Integrating  SLOs  (262  code   SLOs  (98  instances)   instances)   Culture  and  Priorities  Issues  (22  instances)   • This  theme  contains  all  of  the   • Most  of  the  codes  related  to  assessment  culture,   coding  related  to  the  SLO  design,   institutional  culture,  and  institutional  priorities   implementation,  and  assessment   were  added  here  because  these  are  an  important   as  well  as  the  culture  coding   aspect  to  consider  when  strategizing  and   related  to  how  units  work  together   planning  SLO  implementation  and  integration   at  their  institutions       Curriculum  and  Instruction  (208  code   Curriculum  and  Instruction  (30  Instances  of  codes)   instances)   Tools-­‐Instruments-­‐Resources  for  SLOs  (38   • This  theme  now  contains  all  coding   incidences)   IL  Topics  (4  instances)   focused  on  the  planning  of   curriculum  and  instruction  issues   • Some  of  these  information  literacy  topics  became   around  information  literacy   more  integrated  with  curriculum  and  topics  for   curriculum     Professional  Development    (17  instances)   • Most  of  the  professional  development  codes   related  to  training  librarians  and  faculty  in   assessment  strategies  and  skills  such  as  writing   objectives,  so  this  fits  better  here  with   instruction  and  curriculum     Roles/Responsibilities  for   Roles/Responsibilities  for  Assessment  and  SLOs  (57   Assessment  and  SLOs  (206  code   instances)   instances)   Accountability  &  Reporting  of  SLOs    (34  instances  in   codes)   • This  combined  theme  contains   coding  related  to  roles  and   • When  collapsing  and  reevaluating  the  codes  and   responsibilities  for  not  only  the   themes,  this  accountability  and  reporting  theme  

     The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          20    

  SLO  designing  and  instruction  but   also  the  reporting  and   accountability  of  assessment.     Structures,  Policies,  and   Administration  (  93  code  instances)   • Upon  recoding,  the  leadership   coding  instances  were  more   related  to  the  institutional   structure  and  administration  and   were  therefore  combined  in  the   second  coding  round.  

fit  much  better  with  the  roles  and  responsibilities   theme;  it  was  about  who  was  responsible  for   reporting  about  assessments  and  to  whom   Structures,  Policies,  and  Administration  (22   instances)   Leadership  (12  instances)   • This  leadership  theme  on  reevaluation  and   consolidation  of  coding  was  really  about  leaders   within  the  structure  of  the  institution  and  how   leadership  issues  were  impacting  the   implementation  of  SLOs    

  The  themes  below  with  low  numbers  were  redistributed  into  the  new  five  themes  above.   For  example,  challenges  were  redistributed  to  the  roles  and  responsibilities  theme  and  the   collaboration  and  communication  issues  theme.  The  small  numbers  of  codes  in  these   themes  no  longer  warranted  a  separate  theme:   • Challenges  (16  instances  in  codes)   • Opportunities    (8  instances)   • General  (SLO  catch  all)    (6  instances)   • Change  Related  (9  instances)      

     The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          21    

  Appendix  C  –  (In  Progress)  Innovative  Practices  &  Selected  Evidence  Inventory     Notes:    Analysis  is  incomplete  and  includes  information  from  4  institutions,  additional   analysis  of  sixteen  remaining  transcripts  remains.         Tag(s)   Practice   Assessment   History  students  required  t  write  a  research  paper.    Librarians  use   (Kansas  State   rubric  to  assess  papers  and  give  the  students  feedback  on  the   University)   research  process.    Rubric  is  also  used  to  determine  if  papers  should   go  into  the  institutional  repository  because  of  the  high  quality  of  the   papers.       Library  has  just  begun  initial  stages  of  working  with  a  Research  from   University  of  North  Carolina  to  assess  library  impact  on  instruction.     The  work  already  being  done  in  History  maybe  a  good  place  to  start.     On  a  yearly  basis,  the  assessment  person  gathers  information   literacy  assessment  from  individual  librarians  and  places  the   information  into  an  annual  report  that  is  compiled  for  a  campus   assessment  report.     University  holds  an  annual  assessment  conference  mostly   departments  and  college  assessment  committees  but  it  is  open  to   everyone  to  attend.    Library  assessment  person  attends.     Assessment   Information  Literacy  embedded  in  the  Oregon  Associative  of  Arts   (Oregon  State   Transfer  Degree  and  Oregon  Transfer  Model   University)   AAOT  Writing  Outcomes  (for  transfer  students):     http://www.ous.edu/sites/default/files/state_board/jbac/files/SSR Criteria.pdf   Assessment  (UT   Collaboration  with  rhetoric  and  composition  faculty  member  and   Austin)   program.    Faculty  member  recognizes  that  information  literacy  in   integral  to  writing  well.    At  the  time  of  the  interview  they  had  just   developed  a  pre  and  post-­‐test  that  all  graduate  student  teaching   assistants  (GTAs)  were  required  to  administer  to  their  students  at   the  beginning  of  the  semester.    The  results  of  the  pre-­‐test  were   shared  with  the  GTA’s.    The  information  challenged  GTA   assumptions  about  what  their  students  knew  coming  into  college   writing  and  gave  them  a  better  idea  of  the  level  of  competencies   their  students  start  with.   Assessment   Office  of  Academic  Programs,  Assessment  &  Accreditation:     (Oregon  State   http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/apaa/   University)   Undergraduate  program  learning  outcomes:     http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/apaa/assessment/undergraduate -­‐majors-­‐assessment/undergraduate-­‐program-­‐learning-­‐outcomes   OSU  Libraries:  Undergraduate  Information  Literacy  Competencies:        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          22    

 

Assessment   (university  of  Las   Vegas)  

Assessment   (Oklahoma  State   University)  

Collaboration   *Assessment   (Oregon  State   University)  

http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/library-­‐instruction/information-­‐ competencies     UNLV  has  implemented  programmatic  assessment  of  all   undergraduate  students  through  a  standardized  self-­‐report  survey   “College  Outcomes  Survey”.     UNLV  currently  has  260  programs  posted  on  assessment  website   and  all  of  them  have  learning  outcomes.     Library  keeps  an  inventory  of  all  partnerships  and  then  surveys   partners  to  determine  if  the  libraries  role  in  the  partnerships  is   effective.     ETSI  Skills  Assessment  –  UNLV  libraries  partnered  with  the   academic  success  center  to  worked  to  adapt  this  test  to  gather   information  related  to  information  literacy  skills  of  incoming   students  and  inform  UNLV  information  literacy  teaching  practices   and  library  services.    .     Gateway  freshman  learning  class  students  are  asked  to  assess  the   value  of  what  they  learned  in  the  sessions  we  do  with  them.    It  is  not   a  formalized  assessment.    Students  tell  us  they  learned  a  lot.  They   think  they  learned  how  to  search  a  database.    They  think  they   understand  the  difference  between  scholarly  information  and  non-­‐ scholarly  information.    They  think  they  understand  or  they  highly   value  different  aspects  that  I  know  are  information  literacy,  but  we   don’t  say  that.    We’re  just  basically  getting  feedback,  but  students  are   learning.   Partnership  with  beginning  composition  course  to  information   literacy  in  OSU  Wr.  121  course  required  by  incoming  students.       OSU  library  faculty  teach  in  each  one  of  those  sections,  the  students   do  two  tutorials  and  there  is  a  variety  of  classroom  activities  and  are   incorporated  into  an  information  Literacy  portfolio/tutorial  that   comprises  0%  of  student  course  grade.         Library  faculty  assess  the  information  literacy  tutorial,  the  course   includes  a  pre  and  post  assessment  on  information  literacy.     Classroom  faculty  assesses  information  literacy  using  in-­‐  class  free   writes  and  other  activities.      In  student  final  projects  and  the  second   paper  in  the  course  is  an  information  literacy  focused  paper.     OSU  Library  created  course  content  for  WR  121:   o Tutorial:   :    http://ica.library.oregonstate.edu/tutorials/311-­‐      The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          23  

 

  WR-­‐121-­‐Before-­‐You-­‐Come-­‐to-­‐the-­‐Library-­‐   o Tutorial:   http://ica.library.oregonstate.edu/tutorials/286-­‐WR-­‐ 121-­‐Exploring-­‐Your-­‐Topic-­‐   o Sources   quiz:    http://ica.library.oregonstate.edu/module/view /761?type=QuizResource     o Keywords   quiz:    http://ica.library.oregonstate.edu/module/view /766?type=QuizResource  

Collaboration   Assessment   (Kansas  State   University)  

Collaboration   (Oregon  State   University)  

Colllaboration   (University  of   Nevada  –  Las   Vegas)  

  OSU  Library  Faculty  and  First  Year  Composition  Faculty     Article:  “Step  by  Step  through  the  Scholarly  Conversation:  A   collaborative  Library/Writing  Faculty  Project  to  Embed  Information   Literacy  and  Promote  Critical  Thinking  in  First  Year  Composition  at   Oregon    State  University”  by  Deitering  and  Jameson:   http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/7926   College  of  Architecture  has  worked  closely  with  librarians  on  their   regional  planning  and  design  to  emphasis  critical  thinking  in  their   program.     Librarian  working  with  the  History  Department  to  integrate  IL  into   their  history  cornerstone  and  capstone  project.    Librarians  worked   with  History  Department  to  develop  a  rubric  on  critical  thinking   based  on  departmental  student  learning.         OSU  Library  Faculty  and  First  Year  Composition  Faculty       • Article:  “Step  by  Step  through  the  Scholarly  Conversation:  A   collaborative  Library/Writing  Faculty  Project  to  Embed   Information  Literacy  and  Promote  Critical  Thinking  in  First   Year  Composition  at  Oregon    State  University”  by  Deitering   and  Jameson:   http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/7926     Collaborations  around  educational  partnerships  are  an  important   part  of  the  UNLV  Libraries  strategic  plan  and  the  institute  was   designed  to  be  a  campus  initiative  with  libraries  taking  the  lead.    The   partnerships  the  Libraries  participate  in  center  around  the   education  role  that  libraries  play  in  student  learning.    Successful   partnerships  have  included  working  with  academic  affairs,  the  office   of  information  technology  and  the  office  of  academic  assessment.     Partnerships  with  the  academic  success  center  are  particularly   successful  and  have  enabled  the  libraries  to  work  with  a  large   portion  of  the  undergraduate  student  population  that  are  at  risk.          The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          24  

 

  UNLV  Libraries  developed  a  library  Instruction  framework  that   started  with  identify  the  values  related  to  library  teaching  mission.     Those  values  were  mapped  learning  outcomes  and  then  to  the  ACRL   Information  Literacy  Standards.  Then  the  learning  outcomes  were   mapped  to  the  UNLV  curriculum  starting  with  courses  that  library   was  currently  involved  with,  then  moving  to  general  education   courses  and  finally  to  other  strategic  course  within  the  curriculum.     The  Library  Instruction  Framework  translates  UNLV  Student   Learning  Outcomes  into  Libraries  Information  Literacy  Outcomes   and  informs  library  faculty  discussions  with  academic  faculty  and   within  the  course  re-­‐design  process.       Library  took  on  roll  as  course  redesign  experts  because  there  is  no   center  for  teaching  and  learning  at  UNLV.    The  UNLV  Libraries  too   lead  in  developing  the  Institute  on  Course  Design     http://www.library.unlv.edu/faculty/institute/2011/index.html  in   2011  and  again  in  2013.    UNLV  Libraries  was  able  to  get  groups  to   come  together  by  using  terms  such  as  “research”  or  “inquiry”.     Information  literacy  was  not  a  term  that  resonated  with  other   groups  on  campus.    It  is  important  to  find  terminology  that  is   effective  in  the  culture  of  the  institution  the  library  resides  in.       Participants  in  the  institute  redesigned  class  assignments  developed   by  academic  faculty  and  incorporated  critical  thinking  components.   Participants  developed  a  rubric  that  was  general  and  broad  enough   to  measure  how  well  students  did  on  critical  thinking  aspects  of  their   assignments.    The  2013  institute  was  centered  involves  faculty  from   across  all  disciplines  and  is  focused  on  how  to  reach  first  year   students.    Librarians  at  each  table  who  are  trained  to  work  with   academic  faculty  to  identify  opportunities  to  incorporate   information  literacy  into  the  curriculum  and  individual  assignments.     Collaboration/Partn Faculty  Committee  created  to  implement  process  for  proposals  from   ership   faculty  developing  signature  courses  that  all  incoming  and  transfer   (UT  Austin)   students  were  required  to  take.    These  courses  are  interdisciplinary     and  taught  by  distinguished  UTA  faculty.    Librarian  determined  who   was  on  the  committee,  talked  to  members  of  the  committee  about   what  type  of  process  they  were  thinking  of  using  to  implement  or   suggest  these  signature  courses  and  the  importance  of  information   literacy  to  college  student  success.    Librarian  identified  potential   areas  for  incorporating  information  literacy  into  signature  course   and  student  success.    Seed  planting.      Successful  in  raising  awareness   of  librarian  expertise  with  information  literacy  and  writing  student   learning  outcomes.    Cited  an  example  of  working  with  a  philosophy   professor  who  asked  a  library  faculty  member  to  develop  the   information  literacy  outcomes  for  his  signature  course.        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          25    

 

Culture  (University   of  Nevada-­‐Las   Vegas)  

Place  at  the  Table   (University  of   Nevada  –  Las   Vegas)  

Student  Learning   Outcomes   (University  of   Nevada-­‐  Las  Vegas)   Student  Learning   Outcomes  (Oregon   State  University)  

Student  Learning   Outcomes     (UT  Austin)    

Student  Learning  

  Selected  signature  courses  are  larger  format  so  there  are  TA’s   trained  for  leading  discussion  in  these  courses.    In  some  instances   librarians  train  TA’s  in  teaching  information  literacy  into  the  course.     UNLV  Libraries  was  able  to  get  campus  groups  to  come  together  by   using  terms  such  as  “research”  or  “inquiry”.    Information  literacy   was  not  a  term  that  resonated  with  other  groups  on  campus.    It  is   important  to  find  terminology  that  is  effective  in  the  culture  of  the   institution  the  library  resides  in.       Librarians  play  a  leadership  role  on  the  Consortia  for  Faculty   Professional  Opportunities.  The  committee  was  developed  in  lieu  of   a  teaching  and  learning  center.    Membership  the  committee  has   promoted  key  partnerships  with  other  academic  units  and  programs.     UNLV  Libraries  had  a  lead  faculty  member  who  was  very  active  in   the  faculty  senate,  she  kept  abreast  of  the  curriculum  redesign   project  and  served  as  an  advocate  for  project     Library  Dean  instrumental  in  advocacy,  support  and  identifying  and   fostering  potential  relationships.         University  of  Nevada  Las  Vegas  has  developed  University  Learning   Outcomes  -­‐  Student  learning  objectives  have  been  disseminated   across  campus  and  have  been  adopted  through  the  process  of  course   integration.         OSU  Library  Teaching  Faculty  selects  at  least  3  classes  they  teach  per   year  and  rewrite  the  learning  outcomes  for  those  classes.    The   individual  librarian  selects  one  learning  outcomes  (based  on  the  a   set  of  learning  goals  developed  for  undergraduate  students)  out  of  4   to  evaluate  the  along  with  selecting  the  method  that  they  are  going   to  assess  whether  students  were  successful  in  meeting  the  learning   outcomes.   http://osuvalleylibrary.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9zRikmBcaZ27X G4     Related  to  the  signature  courses,  there  is  a  Faculty  Information   Toolkit.  There  are  six  requirements  of  a  signature  course  including   the  information  literacy  requirement.    The  learning  outcomes  are   posted  there  in  the  tool  and  faculty  developing  their  course   proposals  are  asked  to  demonstrate  how  they  will  structure  their   course  to  meet  those  learning  outcomes.     Campus  uses  the  term  critical  thinking.    The  definition  is  “students        The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          26  

 

  Outcomes   /Accreditation   (UT  Austin)     Student  Learning   Outcomes  (Kansas   State  University)  

will  demonstrate  the  ability  to  access  and  interpret  information,   respond  and  adapt  to  changing  situations  and  make  complex   decisions,  solve  problems  and  evaluate  actions”.    Developed  in   response  to  accrediting  body’s  comments  that  there  was  not  a  robust   assessment  for  student  learning  outcomes.     There  are  student-­‐learning  outcomes  for  the  University.  Within  the   colleges  and  department,  student-­‐learning  outcomes  are  managed   individually  but  everyone  is  required  to  report  on  their  student   learning  assessment  at  once  per  year.      

     

     The  GWLA  Student  Learning  Outcomes  Taskforce  Report          27