Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Assessing-Assignments--The-Library-As-P 👈

1. Messiah University
Messiah University
Mosaic
Mosaic
Library Staff Presentations & Publications Library
2010
Assessing Assignments: The Library as Partner in Campus-Wide
Assessing Assignments: The Library as Partner in Campus-Wide
Assessment
Assessment
Beth M. Transue
Messiah College, btransue@messiah.edu
Beth Mark
Messiah College, bmark@messiah.edu
www.Messiah.edu One University Ave. | Mechanicsburg PA 17055
Follow this and additional works at: https://mosaic.messiah.edu/libstaff_pub
Part of the Higher Education Commons, and the Library and Information Science Commons
Permanent URL: https://mosaic.messiah.edu/libstaff_pub/7
Recommended Citation
Recommended Citation
Transue, Beth M. and Mark, Beth, "Assessing Assignments: The Library as Partner in Campus-Wide
Assessment" (2010). Library Staff Presentations & Publications. 7.
https://mosaic.messiah.edu/libstaff_pub/7
Sharpening Intellect | Deepening Christian Faith | Inspiring Action
Messiah University is a Christian university of the liberal and applied arts and sciences. Our mission is to educate
men and women toward maturity of intellect, character and Christian faith in preparation for lives of service,
leadership and reconciliation in church and society.

2. Assessing Assignments : The
Library as Partner in Campus-
Wide Assessment
Beth M. Transue
Beth L. Mark
Messiah College
PaLA Conference
October 24, 2010

3. Previous Assessment Efforts
 Library competency test for First year
students (administered yearly)
 Assessment of First Year Seminar papers
(content and bibliographies)
 Assessment of Honors and other
departmental papers (bibliographies)

4. Syllabi Analysis Project
2007-2008

5. Meeting with the Provost
 Provost interested in budget and library
resources usage
 Enthusiastic about the project
 Granted access to syllabi database (only)
 Asked us to extract data of interest to them;
expanded to other campus groups (Writing
Center, Learning Center, Disabilities Office)

6. Syllabi Analysis Overview
 Objectives
 Information literacy
 Collection Development
 Other Offices and Departments
 Methods
 Syllabi in campus database – Data entry
 What we learned

7. Findings

8. Totals
Syllabi by School
15%
20%
20%
22%
15%
8%
Arts
Humanities
Education & Social Sci.
Health & Natural
Sciences
Math, Engineering &
Bus.
General Education
1,401 syllabi

9. Objectives
95.57%
4.14%
Include Course
Objectives:
Do NOT Include Course
Objectives
96% Include Course
Objectives

10. Integrity Policy
Integrity Policy
19%
9%
6%
66%
Includes College
Policy
Includes Class Policy
Refers to College
Policy
Does Not Include
Policy
44% Include Integrity
Policy*

11. ADA/Disabilities Statement
69.24%
30.76%
Includes Disability/ADA
statement
Does not Include
Disability/ADA
statement
69% Include ADA or
Disabilities Statement

12. Grading Scales
Grading Scales
1%
58%
5%
36%
College Grading Scale
Percentage to Letter
Other
Does not Include
Grading Scale
64% Include Some Type
of Grading Scale

13. Course Management Systems
11.85%
88.15%
CMS mentioned
CMS not mentioned
12% mention course
management software
(ie- Blackboard)

14. Writing Center
0.29% 9.21%
90.50%
Writing Center Required
Writing Center
Recommended
Writing Center Not
Mentioned
.2% require
9% recommend

15. Learning Center
0.07%8.42%
91.51%
Learning Center
Required
Learning Center
Recommended
Learning Center Not
Mentioned
.1% require
8% recommend

16. Library – What We Looked For
Mention of:
 Library and Library Instruction
 Information Literacy
 Reserves
 Websites and Databases
 Citation Styles

17. What We Found
Syllabi not adequate for assignment or
collection development information
Solution
 Collect separate assignment information

18. Unplanned Benefits
 Appreciation of Provost
 Request to present data to Academic Council
 Subsequently, presented to two Schools
 Raised visibility of librarians as campus
stakeholders
 Prepared the way for expanded project
(assignment analysis)

19. What We Learned
Begin planning at least a year in advance!

20. Library Assignment Analysis
Project
2009-2010

21. Meeting with the Provost – Take II
 Provost approved the library assignment
collection project
 Asked us to present the proposal to school
deans for their buy-in and for them to be the
communication channel to department chairs

22. Meeting with School Deans, Spring
2009
 Deans agreed with the value of the project
 Recommended time line and changes in
wording of memo draft prepared for faculty
 Agreed to communicate the project, with a
time line, to department chairs

23. Process
 One dean suggested creating a form that
faculty could fill out in lieu of submitting
written assignment directions (librarians
created forms for each department)
 September 2009, Deans asked Department
chairs to send the request for assignment
information to their faculty (for AY 2010)

24. Process continued
 About half of the departments submitted
assignments by spring 2010
 Reminders sent by librarians (sometimes
more than once) resulted in a very good total
return
 Extracted library reserve data by course
 Summer, 2010, data entered by students

25. 842 Assignments Submitted and
Analyzed
7.2%
34.7%
12.7%
36.5%
8.9%
Assignments by School
Arts
Business, Education and
Social Sciences
Health, Engineering and
Natural Sciences
Humanities
General Education

26. 2
25 4 4
71
212
73
310
89
52
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
AssignmentTypes

27. 1.8
3.2
3.6
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
"100 "200 "300 "400
Page Length by Course Level

28. 3
16.2
3.5
5.7
3.1
5
2.3
4.6
2.5
3.75
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Numberof Sources by Assignment
Type

29. 3.1
5.1
4.8 4.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
"100 "200 "300 "400
Numberof Sources by Course Level

30. What we learned
 In cases where forms only were submitted,
some narrative information that would have
benefitted librarians was lost
 However, the forms provided information that
was not included in some written
assignments
 Individual follow up provided opportunities to
raise awareness of faculty regarding
unknown library resources

31. What we Envision
 Data to demonstrate use (or not) of library
resources for class assignments
 Providing liaison librarians with a good
picture of what their department faculty are
assigning – possible opportunity for
discussion of information literacy
 Continuing to be invited to the table as a
campus stakeholder

32. Becoming a Stakeholder – A Snapshot
“[The Provost] was quite taken with your
preliminary report. Is it alright with you if he
shows it to others? He would also like to
invite the two of you to present at a future
Academic Council meeting. … Messiah’s
syllabus policy will be on the agenda this
spring and he thinks your work is highly
relevant to that discussion.”