The South Dakota Regental Information

Literacy Exam : A Tool to Document and Assess

Information Literacy

Carol A. Leibiger, Ph.D.Head of Public Services and Reference,

Information Literacy Coordinator, I.D. Weeks Library, University of South Dakota

William Schweinle, Ph.D.Assistant Professor of Psychology

Boise State University

Information Literacy and Life-long Learning An information literate person is able to:

determine the extent of the information needed access the needed information effectively and

efficiently evaluate information and its sources critically incorporate selected information into one’s

knowledge base use information effectively to accomplish a

specific purpose understand the economic, legal, and social

issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally

American Library Association/Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000)

Rise of IL Instruction and Assessment Higher education assessment movement

Rise of strategic planning and Total Quality Management (TQM) in higher education

Library instruction movement: change in focus from library skills to IL in academic libraries

General education reform movement

Inclusion of IL in accreditation standardsMeulemans, Y. (2002); Rockman, I. (2002)

Other Documents Supporting IL Reform on Campus (1972, and follow-up reports of the

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher

Education (1989)

SCANS Report (Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, Dept. of Labor, 1991)

Goals 2000: National Educate America Act (1994)

Information Power National School Library IL Standards (1998)

Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College (2002, Association of American Colleges and Universities)

Higher Learning Commission (2003) Criterion 4, “Acquisition, discovery, and application of

knowledge”

4a: The organization demonstrates, through the actions of its board, administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it values a life of learning.

4b: The organization demonstrates that acquisition of a breadth of knowledge and skills and the exercise of intellectual inquiry are integral to its educational programs.

4c: The organization assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society.

4d: The organization provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, evaluate, and apply knowledge responsibly.

Graduate Student IL Assessment

Graduate students… often overestimate their information-finding skills operate on the principle of least effort tend to choose the easiest and most convenient

resources don’t know enough - yet - about their disciplines

to be effective searchers don’t have the critical skills to handle the

information explosion

George, C., Bright, A., Hurlbert, T., Linke, E. C., St. Clair, G., & Stein, J. (2006); Bellard, E.M. (2005); Chu, S. K.-W., & Law, N. (2003), Grant, M. & Bert, M., (2003).

Graduate Student IL Assessment Demographic changes in the graduate

student population average graduate student is female over 35 has been away from education for at least 2

years linguistically, ethnically diverse work and family responsibilities time management issues feelings of inadequacy technology anxiety

Bellard, E.M. (2005); Gordon, C. (2002)

Graduate Student IL Assessment Graduate students can benefit from IL

instruction because they are also: highly- and self-motivated learners cognitively mature understand their own learning styles, apply meta-cognitive strategies to their

information seeking familiar with higher-quality search engines like

Google Scholar an important conduit of IL instruction for

undergraduate students

Graduate Student IL Assessment no systematic IL assessment of advanced

learners isolated suggestions and tools

research paper required of all applicants to graduate programs

IL skills audit or test required of entering graduate students (University of Missouri-Columbia, Boston College, and Australian National University)

Graduate Student IL Assessment SDILE can serve as an entrance

assessment of IL for advanced learners skill set assumed for graduate students is

congruent with that of undergraduate students who are information literate

short yet valid and reliable instrument documenting and assessing IL

allows identification of deficiencies in IL and formulation of appropriate remediation

South Dakota Regental Universities

Black Hills State University

Dakota State University

Northern State University

South Dakota State University

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

University of South Dakota (USD)

South Dakota BOR ITL Requirement

Information Technology Literacy was defined institution-specifically.

All universities except USD defined ITL as IT.

Definition affected how it was taught and assessed.

Only USD taught and assessed it as IL

South Dakota System General Education Requirements (2005) Goal #1: Student will write effectively and responsibly and will understand and interpret the

written expression of others.

Goal #2: Student will communicate effectively and responsibly through listening and speaking.

Goal #3: Student will understand the organization, potential, and diversity of the human community through study of the social sciences.

Goal #4: Students will understand the diversity and complexity of the human experience through study of the arts and humanities.

Goal #5: Students will understand and apply fundamental mathematical processes and reasoning.

Goal #6: Students will understand the fundamental principles of the natural sciences and apply scientific methods of inquiry to investigate the natural world.

Goal #7: Students will recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, organize, critically evaluate, and effectively use information from a variety of sources with intellectual integrity.

IL Student Learning OutcomesStudents will… determine the extent of information needed; access the needed information effectively and

efficiently; evaluate information and its sources critically; use information effectively to accomplish a

specific purpose; use information in an ethical and legal

manner.(ALA/ACRL IL Competency Standards)

Seeking an IL Assessment: Problems With the ITL Exam Characteristics of the ITL Exam

WebCT 20 questions Multiple-choice questions Passing score 13/20 (65% correct)

Problems Function = documentation of IL No assessment value (KR20 ≈ .30) Privileged students who passed SPCM 101 at

USD

Seeking an IL Assessment: National Standardized Exams

Project SAILS

ETS Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy Assessment

James Madison Information Literacy Test (ILT)

Seeking an IL Assessment

The BOR institutions’ needs:

true assessment of IL (not ITL)

short, yet valid and reliable, instrument

student-level information

IL Subcommittee Co-chaired by BOR assessment expert and a

librarian (IL Coordinator, USD)

5 assessment experts (including one psychometrician, USD’s Director of Assessment)

5 library faculty

2 English instructors

1 Communication Studies instructor

Charged with creating an assessment with special properties

Special Properties Required of

the SD IL Exam (SDILE) Brevity: 25 multiple-choice questions

Online delivery

Content valid vis-à-vis the Association of College &

Research Libraries’ (ACRL) IL Competency

Standards for Higher Education

Discrete cutoff (proficiency threshold)

Continuous (assessment) scores

Both documents and assesses IL

IL Exam Questions The Solution: Two scoring methods

The documentation questions will have low and very similar item “difficulties” (locations in IRT terms).

The assessment questions will be more difficult and be more varied in their “difficulty”.

For each set of 5 questions 3 documentation: documents attainment of minimum

level of Information Literacy, i.e., close to a fixed point 2 assessment: assesses levels of Information Literacy

along a continuum, i.e., along a line.

Proficiency Point

“Difficulty”Documentation Items Assessment Items

SLO 2: Documentation QuestionAccess the needed information effectively and efficiently

Why is Interlibrary Loan so valuable to a student’s research?

a. It allows a student to visit and check out materials from a library that is not his/her local library.

b. It allows a student to request materials from a library that is not his/her local library.

c. It allows a student to access online materials at a library that is not his/her local library.

d. It allows a student to purchase materials not located in his/her local library.

Classical Difficulty = .87

SLO 2: Assessment QuestionAccess the needed information effectively and efficiently

Your instructor has given an assignment that requires the use of primary source materials. Which would you consult?

a. a biography of someone involved in the issue with criticism

b. a diary written by someone who was involved in the issue

c. a textbook article about someone who was involved in the issue

d. a journal articles about someone who was involved in the issue

Classical Difficulty = .63

Analyses

Classical: average item difficulties across ALL item types is around 0.70, giving a pass rate of about 98% with a cut-score of 13/25.

Two IRT analyses for the items relevant to each ACRL Standard (unidimensionality) 2PL (Rasch) to look for location (Θ) and

discrimination (slopes) Nominal (Bock)

2PL (Rasch) Traces for Items

2PL Item Trace Curves for Documentation and Assessment Items

.0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1.0

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 .0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

q

p(q)

p(Θ|1D2c Correct)

p(Θ|1A1b Correct)

ND(0,1)

“Partial Credit” Traces for SLO2 Documentation

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

ab

c

d

Ability

Pro

bab

ility

Item Characteristic Curve

Nominal Response Model

Ongoing Test Revision Items are and will be added, revised,

tested and dropped with each IL testing cycle.

Biased (DIF) items will be removed. Gender Ethnicity Location Etc.

Nominal (Bock) Scores for the SD BOR Institutions

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

SLO1 SLO2 SLO3 SLO4 SLO5

Additional Evidence: Correlations Between Nominal and Classical Scores (n = 2171)

NOM SLO2

NOM SLO3

NOM SLO4

NOM SLO5

# Correct

>12 Correct

NOM SLO1 .11 .08 -.02 -.01 .32 .17

NOM SLO2 .12 .04 .06 .43 .20

NOM SLO3 -.09 .11 .40 .23

NOM SLO4 -.01 -.14 -.04

NOM SLO5 .32 .19

# Correct .53

(Red correlations are not significant at p < .05)

SLO 4: Documentation Question(Old 4D2a)

To best demonstrate the scope of a problem one should use...

a. pictures.b. statistics.c. books.d. articles.

Item Characteristics (Old 4D2a)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

a

b

c d

Ability

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Bock Nominal Response Model

ACRL Student Learning Outcome #4An Information Literate student will use

information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.

Problems: The question lacks a context? This SLO requires higher cognitive processing which is

difficult to test with MC items? This SLO represents the intersection between research

(taught by the library) and argumentation (taught in ENGL and SPCM). Should use of information in argumentation be more effectively taught in gen. ed. courses?

What do you think?

4D2a Revised

The best visual aid for a speech comparing changes in the profits of two or three competing companies over a three-year period is...

a. a spreadsheet.b. a market analysis.c. a line chart.d. a table.

Item Characteristics(New 4D2a)

Benefits of the SDILE A dual-purpose IL Exam

Documentation Assessment

Random item rotation Continuous improvement and

refinement Low cost – WebCT administration

The End of the SDILE: Bureaucratic Blunder Feb. 2005: The IL Exam questions (with answers)

were posted to the BOR web site (www.sdbor.edu)

2006-2007: Conference presentations on the IL Exam actively sought beta-testing partners

April 2007: Acclaimed presentation at ACRL, interest in beta-testing/cooperation from Project SAILS and 9 prestigious colleges and research universities

The End of the SDILE: Bureaucratic Blunder April 2007: Student taking the IL Exam

discovered the questions/answers online at the SD BOR web site (invalidated the pilot)

Investigators discovered that the IL Exam questions had been downloaded 293 times (in-state, in-country, and abroad)

Beta-testing partners were notified to stop the pilot

The End of the SDILE: The Vultures Gather… A member regental university had been a “less

than enthusiastic” participant

Once the IL Exam pilot was invalidated, this university immediately proposed dropping the exam

New BOR academic officer had also problematized the notion of an IL Exam

May 2007: AAC/BOR persuaded to drop the IL Exam as a system IL requirement

The End of the SDILE:USD Drops the IL Exam Spring 2007: USD decides to reconstitute the IL

Exam as an institutional measure

Summer 2007: Will leaves USD for Boise State U.

USD refuses to hire Will as consultant

USD claims IP ownership of the IL Exam

Lessons Learned Avoid unfunded mandates

Get release time or some other tangible benefit, in writing, before beginning

Get buy-in rather than imposing mandates Institutions should genuinely support the

project Members should support the project, even if

their institutions don’t Give creative teams room to work; don’t

oversee or micro-manage

Lessons Learned Choose participants carefully. Members

should… be chosen because of subject know-

ledge and competence be competent to understand all

members’ roles in the project promote the project’s agenda rather

than their own or their institution’s agenda

Lessons Learned Clarify IP issues

Work out IP ownership issues up-front BOR IP Institutions’ IP Individual members’ IP vs. work product

Protect secret information Clear those who handle information Don’t post to unprotected sites Provide consequences for divulging IP

Don’t expect kudos, gratitude, or apologies from administration during or after the project

For further information… On the SDILE

Carol Leibiger, Head of Public Services and Reference, Information Literacy Coordinator, University of South DakotaC.Leibiger@usd.edu

William Schweinle, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Boise State UniversityWillSchweinle@boisestate.edu

On IRTReise, S. P., Ainsworth, A. T., & Haviland, M. G. (2005). Item Response Theory: Fundamentals, applications, and promise in psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Research, 14, 2, 95-101.