Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso educativo Open Access |
| Language: | en |
| Published: |
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED546635 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867181081750405120 |
|---|---|
| author | Harhai, Marilyn K. Krueger, Janice M. |
| author_facet | Harhai, Marilyn K. Krueger, Janice M. Harhai, Marilyn K. Krueger, Janice M. |
| collection | Education Resources Information Center |
| contents | Reinforcing the Cycle of Assessment Harhai, Marilyn K. Krueger, Janice M. Graduate Students Graduate Study Educational Assessment Introductory Courses Measures (Individuals) Masters Degrees Library Science Library Education Student Surveys Statistical Analysis Item Response Theory Pretests Posttests Curriculum Intellectual Freedom Problem Solving Communication Skills Trend Analysis Information Technology Reference Services Users (Information) Lifelong Learning Human Resources Ethics Documentation Budgets Research Design Library Administration Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the Multi-Subject Learning Survey (MSLS) as an assessment instrument for graduate students. Methodology: The MSLS was administered as a pre-test to 124 students enrolled in the introductory course for the Master of Science in Library Science degree at an American Library Association (ALA) accredited program in eastern United States. Responses were analyzed using SPSS and descriptive statistics and item response frequencies were computed. Administration of the MSLS for post-test responses was initiated with the students as they completed the capstone course for future comparison. Results: Results from the eight categories were mixed and inconsistent. Students demonstrated over confidence in their abilities to promote intellectual freedom, contribute to problem-solving, communicate effectively, assess technology trends, provide reference and instruction services, respond to the needs of diverse patrons, recognize and use research literature, acknowledge the importance of life-long learning, and apply human resource policies and procedures for library administration. They felt competent in the selection and deselection of materials and resources, in understanding the organization and structure of information, and in identifying target audiences for programming. They acknowledged no familiarity with the ALA Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics, the inability to apply the fundamentals of national and international bibliographic control standards, the inability to perform outcome-based evaluation of programs, the inability to distinguish between research design methods and apply basic instructional design principles, and lack of ability in developing library budgets. Conclusions: Pre-test result support the continuation of course content emphasizing the Library Bill of Rights and the ALA Code of Ethics; reinforcing research methodologies and interpreting research literature at every opportunity; continuing with the instructional strategies elective; and maintaining the management course content with regard to budgets. Additional indications support the need to maintain instruction on the interpretation of bibliographic standards for organizing and cataloging information; introducing developing areas for bibliographic standards, such as the Resource Description and Access (RDA) framework; continuing with reference and instruction topics, such as interviewing and programming skills; and expanding student knowledge of emerging library technologies through the required technology course. Recommendations: Examination and comparison of the MSLS post-test results is needed to note any significant changes in student responses. An additional avenue for research after the post-test analysis of data is identifying those students currently working in a library and comparing their results to the overall pre/post-test findings. Finally, the inclusion of more standardized measures, such as the iSkills™ Assessment, could further enhance the overall assessment plan. [Contains 9 tables.] |
| format | Recurso educativo Open Access |
| id | eric_ED546635 |
| institution | ERIC Institute of Education Sciences |
| language | en |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| record_format | eric |
| spellingShingle | Reinforcing the Cycle of Assessment Harhai, Marilyn K. Krueger, Janice M. Graduate Students Graduate Study Educational Assessment Introductory Courses Measures (Individuals) Masters Degrees Library Science Library Education Student Surveys Statistical Analysis Item Response Theory Pretests Posttests Curriculum Intellectual Freedom Problem Solving Communication Skills Trend Analysis Information Technology Reference Services Users (Information) Lifelong Learning Human Resources Ethics Documentation Budgets Research Design Library Administration Reinforcing the Cycle of Assessment Harhai, Marilyn K. Krueger, Janice M. Graduate Students Graduate Study Educational Assessment Introductory Courses Measures (Individuals) Masters Degrees Library Science Library Education Student Surveys Statistical Analysis Item Response Theory Pretests Posttests Curriculum Intellectual Freedom Problem Solving Communication Skills Trend Analysis Information Technology Reference Services Users (Information) Lifelong Learning Human Resources Ethics Documentation Budgets Research Design Library Administration Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the Multi-Subject Learning Survey (MSLS) as an assessment instrument for graduate students. Methodology: The MSLS was administered as a pre-test to 124 students enrolled in the introductory course for the Master of Science in Library Science degree at an American Library Association (ALA) accredited program in eastern United States. Responses were analyzed using SPSS and descriptive statistics and item response frequencies were computed. Administration of the MSLS for post-test responses was initiated with the students as they completed the capstone course for future comparison. Results: Results from the eight categories were mixed and inconsistent. Students demonstrated over confidence in their abilities to promote intellectual freedom, contribute to problem-solving, communicate effectively, assess technology trends, provide reference and instruction services, respond to the needs of diverse patrons, recognize and use research literature, acknowledge the importance of life-long learning, and apply human resource policies and procedures for library administration. They felt competent in the selection and deselection of materials and resources, in understanding the organization and structure of information, and in identifying target audiences for programming. They acknowledged no familiarity with the ALA Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics, the inability to apply the fundamentals of national and international bibliographic control standards, the inability to perform outcome-based evaluation of programs, the inability to distinguish between research design methods and apply basic instructional design principles, and lack of ability in developing library budgets. Conclusions: Pre-test result support the continuation of course content emphasizing the Library Bill of Rights and the ALA Code of Ethics; reinforcing research methodologies and interpreting research literature at every opportunity; continuing with the instructional strategies elective; and maintaining the management course content with regard to budgets. Additional indications support the need to maintain instruction on the interpretation of bibliographic standards for organizing and cataloging information; introducing developing areas for bibliographic standards, such as the Resource Description and Access (RDA) framework; continuing with reference and instruction topics, such as interviewing and programming skills; and expanding student knowledge of emerging library technologies through the required technology course. Recommendations: Examination and comparison of the MSLS post-test results is needed to note any significant changes in student responses. An additional avenue for research after the post-test analysis of data is identifying those students currently working in a library and comparing their results to the overall pre/post-test findings. Finally, the inclusion of more standardized measures, such as the iSkills™ Assessment, could further enhance the overall assessment plan. [Contains 9 tables.] |
| title | Reinforcing the Cycle of Assessment |
| topic | Graduate Students Graduate Study Educational Assessment Introductory Courses Measures (Individuals) Masters Degrees Library Science Library Education Student Surveys Statistical Analysis Item Response Theory Pretests Posttests Curriculum Intellectual Freedom Problem Solving Communication Skills Trend Analysis Information Technology Reference Services Users (Information) Lifelong Learning Human Resources Ethics Documentation Budgets Research Design Library Administration |
| url | https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED546635 |