Exploring the Complexity of Student Learning Outcome Assessment Practices Across Multiple Libraries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives – The purpose of this collaborative qualitative research project, initiated by the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA), was to explore how librarians were involved in the designing, implementing, assessing, and disseminating student learning outcomes (SLOs) in GWLA member academic libraries. The original objective of the research was to identify library evaluation/assessment practices at the different libraries to share and discuss by consortia members at a GWLA-sponsored Student Learning Assessment Symposium in 2013. However, findings raised new questions and areas to explore beyond student learning assessment, and additional research was continued by two of the GWLA collaborators after the Symposium. The purpose of this second phase of research was to explore the intersection of library and institutional contexts and academic library assessment practices.
 
 Methods – This qualitative research study involved a survey of librarians at 23 GWLA member libraries, about student learning assessment practices at their institutions. Twenty follow-up interviews were also conducted to further describe and detail the assessment practices identified in the survey. Librarians with expertise in library instruction, assessment, and evaluation, either volunteered or were designated by their Dean or Director, to respond to the survey and participate in the interviews. Interview data were analyzed by seven librarians, across six different GWLA libraries, using constant comparison methods (Strauss & Corbin, 2014). Emerging themes were used to plan a GWLA member Symposium. Based on unexpected findings, after the Symposium, two GWLA researchers continued the analysis using a grounded theory methodology to re-examine the data and uncover categorical relationships and conceptual coding, and to explore data alignment to theoretical possibilities.
 
 Results – Seventeen categories and five themes emerged from the interview data and were used to create a 3-part framework for describing and explaining library SLO assessment practices. The themes were used to plan the GWLA Assessment Symposium. Through additional qualitative grounded theory data analysis, researchers also identified a core variable, and data were re-evaluated to verify an alignment to Engeström’s Activity and Expansion Theories (Engeström, 2001, 2004). 
 
 Conclusions – The findings of this multi-phased qualitative study discovered how contextual, structural, and organizational factors can influence how libraries interact and communicate with college departments, and the larger institution about student learning outcomes and assessment. Viewing library and campus interaction through the activity theory lens can demonstrate how particular factors might influence library collaboration and interaction on campuses. Institutional contexts and cultures, campus-wide academic priorities, leadership at the library level, and changing roles of librarians were all themes that emerged from this study that are important factors to consider when planning the design, implementation, assessment and dissemination of library SLOs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,793 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».