Char Booth, Sara Lowe, and Natalie Tagge presenting.

1. 2 0 1 3 I L R U B R I C E V A L
Booth/Low e/Tagge/Stone/Snyder
Sep t 2013
o f P Z F Y S P A P E R S
LIBRARIANS MATTER:

2. • Librarians rated their Fall 2012 FYS instruction on 2
scales from LOW to HIGH: course collaboration level
and syllabus collaboration level
• 5 Librarians reviewed 99 Pitzer FYS papers with the
CCL IL rubric to determine the impact of librarian
collaboration on student work
• This research design was created by Char and Sara
for the Assessment in Action Project
• Our findings are OFFICIALLY AWESOME.
Project Overview

3. IL Rubric Overview

4. 2011: 6/17 classes
Pitzer FYS/Library Collaboration

5. 2011: 6/17 classes
2012: 13/17 classes
-Matching of librarians/FYS classes
-Participate in FYS faculty retreats
-Collaborate with Barbara Junisbai, FYS coordinator
Pitzer FYS/Library Collaboration

6. Pitzer FYS/Library Collaboration
2011: 6/17 classes
2012: 13/17 classes
-Matching of librarians/FYS classes
-Participate in FYS faculty retreats
-Collaborate with Barbara Junisbai, FYS coordinator
2013: ?/19 classes
-Matching of librarians/FYS classes
-Participate in FYS faculty retreats
-Collaborate with Barbara Junisbai, FYS coordinator
-FYS faculty research workshop

7.
Attribution
Evaluation
Communication
Fall 2011
2.20
2.44
2.47
Fall 2012
2.32
2.60
2.64
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
A"ribu'on
Evalua'on
Communica'on
Fall
2011
Fall
2012

8. Librarian Course Engagement combined
with Syllabus IL/Librarian Assignment
Design Collaboration
Attribution
Evaluation
Communication
Total Scores
2.32
2.60
2.64
4/4
2.64
2.82
2.82
2/1
1.30
2.20
2.30
Level 4 = High (intensive course collaboration - multiple classes, SYR Tutorial/Quiz)
Level 1 = Low (minimal course collaboration ‒ one shot and course guide)
1.3
2.2
2.3
2.64
2.82
2.82
A"ribu'on
Evalua'on
Communica'on
2
|
1
4
|
4

9. Librarian Course
Engagement Level
Attribution
Evaluation
Communication
Total Scores
2.32
2.60
2.64
4
2.56
2.76
2.76
3
2.31
2.54
2.85
2
2.19
2.52
2.52
1
2.10
2.40
2.40
2.1
2.19
2.31
2.56
2.4
2.52
2.54
2.76
2.4
2.52
2.85
2.76
1
2
3
4
A"ribu'on
Evalua'on
Communica'on

10. Engagement/
Collaboration
Level
4
3
2
1
0
Lib
n=34
Syl
n=28
Lib
n=13
Syl
n=14
Lib
n=42
Syl
n=19
Lib
n=10
Syl
n=10
Syl
n=28
Attribution
2.56
2.64
2.31
2.50
2.19
2.21
2.10
1.30
2.36
Evaluation
2.76
2.82
2.54
2.57
2.52
2.53
2.40
2.20
2.57
Communication
2.76
2.82
2.85
2.71
2.52
2.63
2.49
2.30
2.54
NOTE: All 4 Syl were also 4 Lib.
2.1
1.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.9
2.7
2.8
2.8
n=10
n=10
n=42
n=19
n=13
n=14
n=34
n=28
Lib
Syl
Lib
Syl
Lib
Syl
Lib
Syl
1
2
3
4
A9ribu<on
Evalua<on
Communica<on

11. • Student IL performance rises in proportion to the
librarian course collaboration level and syllabus
collaboration level
• Our data strongly confirms the value of library
instruction (that s you!)
• It takes a village: These effects are the combined
result of librarian/faculty professional development, IL
outcomes, collaboration with the Pitzer FYS
coordinator, and a lot of legwork.
• Reminder: our results are OFFICIALLY AWESOME.
In other words...