Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Making the connections: assessment, training, progression and performance. Harrison & Newton

37 views

Published on

Presented at LILAC 2007

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Making the connections: assessment, training, progression and performance. Harrison & Newton

  1. 1. University Library Making the connections: assessment, training, progression and performance Dr A. Harrison: Institute of Psychological Sciences A. Newton: Leeds University Library
  2. 2. Why this project? BSc Psychology (Hons) A progressive and integrated degree programme that encourages students to become more autonomous thinkers and practitioners of Psychology Culminating in an independent, empirical project reporting on a substantial piece of research
  3. 3. Do we need Information Literate students? Quality Assurance Agency Generic Skills Retrieve and organise information effectively:- books, journals, computer and internet sources Handle primary source material critically Become more independent and pragmatic as learners
  4. 4. The story so far Lilac 2005 Second year students are more information literate than first year students First year students have a strong preference for using the internet to source information Second year students use the Library Catalogue as their primary literature searching tool Both groups use the Library Catalogue ineffectively
  5. 5. Current study Aims: • Assess the reliability of the data produced by the information literacy questionnaire • Provide detailed information about the progression of information literacy skills acquisition by students • Assess the relevance of information literacy skills to academic performance
  6. 6. A reliable tool? Comparing results No significant differences between the performance of the two first year groups (2005-06/2006-07): t = 0.909, df = 382 p=0.364 No significant differences between the performance of the two second year groups (2005-06/2006-07): t =1.58, df = 383, p>0.115 Year of entry 2005 2006 First year Students Mean % correct +/- (SED) 48.94 (9.89) 47.96 (11.67) Second Year Students Mean % correct +/- (SED) 61.69 (12.80) 59.63 (13.22)
  7. 7. Tracking progression Second year students do progress in Information Literacy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Within Group Comparison (N=112) Betw een Group Comparison (N=805) Mean%Correct First Year Second Year
  8. 8. Progression Areas of significant progression Search strategies Locating and accessing information Organising and applying information Areas of less progression Recognising an information need Identifying ways to fill an information need Comparing and evaluating information
  9. 9. IL progression Second year students are: Better at keyword searches Better users of Boolean logic Search Strategy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 First Year Second Year Students Mean%ofStudentsAnswering Correctly
  10. 10. IL progression Second year students are far more competent at referencing Neither group have sufficient understanding of copyright Organise and Apply 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 First Year Second Year Students Mean%ofStudentsAnswering Correctly
  11. 11. IL progression Both groups fail to use search facilities effectively More second year students understand the usefulness of a bibliography in a printed book Locate And Access 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 First Year Second Year Students Mean%ofStudentsAnswering Correctly
  12. 12. Less progression Good performance by both groups: Very good at acknowledging gaps in their information Appropriate strategies for dealing with information overload Room for improvement: Lack skepticism First year students use of online encyclopedias Recognise Need 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 First Year Second Year Students Mean%ofStudentsAnswering Correctly
  13. 13. Less progression Good performance in both groups: Understand purpose of journal article abstracts Over ½ correctly identified differences between websites and peer reviewed journal articles Understand peer review process Compare and Evaluate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 First Year Second Year Students Mean%ofStudentsAnswering Correctly
  14. 14. Less progression Poor performance by both groups: First year students source most information from internet search engines Second year students are more discerning Second year students look to the internet for recent academic information Review articles: both groups unaware of appropriate use Identify Ways to Fill Need 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 First Year Second Year Students
  15. 15. Academic performance First year Students In general, Information Literacy ability of students entering Higher Education is strongly related to their academic performance in year one semester one at University Mean Academic Performance: (r =0.349, n =130, p<0.001) HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT Multiple choice examination performance: (r = 0.326, n=130, P<0.001) HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT Practical report writing performance: (r = 0.208, n = 130, p<0.05) SIGNIFICANT Essay writing performance: (r = 0.152, n = 130, P=0.084) NOT SIGNIFICANT
  16. 16. Academic performance Second year students After some initial Information Literacy training in Higher Education the strong relationship between IL ability and academic performance is enhanced Mean Academic Performance: (r =0.355, n =118, p<0.001) HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT Multiple choice examination performance: (r = 0.290, n=118, P=0.001) HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT Practical report writing performance: (r = 0.269, n = 118, p=0.03) SIGNIFICANT Essay writing performance: (r = 0.181, n = 118, P<0.05) SIGNIFICANT
  17. 17. Summary Reliability Data produced by the questionnaire is reliable across different cohorts of students and the LILAC 2005 data suggesting a progression of IL ability from year 1 to year 2 has been replicated Progression The Questionnaire now provides detailed information about student abilities including areas of substantial or no progression Academic performance Information Literacy is strongly related to academic performance
  18. 18. Newton-Harrison 7 pillars of evidence based IL training Pre-training Recognisein ofyourstude Identifyways needsofyou Constructat programme Deliveryoftra Compare&ev studentabilit progression Analysestud performance Synthesised evidence-bas Post-training Pre-training
  19. 19. Future plans 3rd year student data to be obtained Re-examine IL in the Psychology curriculum Further investigation into academic performance: A-level subjects Dissertation results (3rd year students) Final degree results

×