Summary of CSU IC Task Force Meeting, July 27, 2000

Present: Taskforce: Curzon, Dunn, Garrido, Hammett, Perkins, Rockman, Roth, Smith, Whitlatch. SBRI: Serpe, Pulliam, Risley, Large.

Purposes of the meeting: 1) to review and comment on the draft report of the survey;

2) to discuss and make recommendations on SBRI’s follow-up proposal for 2000-2001;

3) to discuss publicizing survey results to various constituencies; 4) to determine next steps for the taskforce. During the time available we made considerable progress on agenda items 1, 2, and 4. Item 3 was not fully addressed.

Presentation of Draft Assessment Results:

Richard Serpe distributed a draft of “CSU Information Competence Survey Report” with the following appendices: Appendix A, CSU Information Competence Questionnaire; Appendix B, Frequencies and Descriptive; Appendix C, CSU Information Competence Scales. 3.309 students were interviewed. The interviews took an average of 24.76 minutes.

Dr. Serpe reviewed the draft with the committee, responding to questions from the group. He requested that we not distribute the draft outside the group. A final report will be issued after written input from task force members. Some of the issues raised during discussion included: final figures on response rate (not yet available) and issues surrounding refusals; purpose of question sets other than the demographics and scenarios; race data; development from the data of a profile of an information competent students in the data; advisability of including correlations tables on breadth and depth, etc.

Scenarios: A few scenario interviews were recorded. We listened to two interviews for each scenario, one showing depth and breadth of response, and one demonstrating little response to the scenario. Linda Pulliam prepared transcripts of the interviews, so we have a written record. The recorded interviews that we listened to were fascinating from many perspectives – the variety of responses, the difference in interviews, etc. The discussion brought out many issues: the specificity in the 6 competencies on which the scenarios were based; the experimental nature of the scenarios and the challenges in developing scenarios 4 and 6; the difficulty in measuring levels of information competence. Some present felt that the data from the assessment as it relates to the scenarios is suggestive and qualitative, perhaps even anecdotal. Richard expressed confidence that we have learned a great deal about information competence from this study that we can build on in 2000-2001.

Overall, Richard said that there were no real surprises from this study. For example, one result of the study was that the greater the research process skills, the greater the breadth and depth of the responses to the scenarios. He noted some disappointments, for example, that many respondents demonstrated little creativity, little competence, and gave two few responses.

Task force members agreed to study the draft report and appendices, and email comments to Richard by August 15. After they receive our comments, SBRI will produce the final report.

Proposal for AY 2000-2001 Information Competence Study Project

Discussed SBRI’s proposed follow-up study which will focus on CSU students, faculty, and librarians. This study proposes to observe a sample of students as they complete specific tasks, followed by afternoon focus groups with students, librarians, and faculty. The group gave approval to the study since it will provide considerable additional detail and will take place in a true-to-life environment. Gordon Smith reports that funding is likely available for the study. The task force will participate along with SBRI members in determining tasks for each group and the campuses on which the study will be conducted. Tasks will be based on the new ACRL standards.

Discussion of Related Issues

1. Adoption of the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. The task force approved replacement of the CSU Information Competencies with the 2000 ACRL Literacy Competency Standards which offer a sharper focus and greater detail, yet relate closely to the competencies previously adopted by the CSU.

2. Discussed publicizing the assessment process and results to a variety of constituents. No decision made on this issue, but several stressed the importance of packaging the results for maximum impact on the campuses to further IC goals. It was noted that there will be a poster session on the assessment at the October CARL conference in Long Beach and a program at ACRL in the Spring.

3. Need to have a definitive response from the data to percent of IC competent students in the CSU

Work for the Task Force

1. Study the draft report and appendices, and email comments to Richard by August 15

2. Participate along with SBRI members in determining tasks for each group based on ACRL Competency standards.

3. Decide in consultation with SBRI the campuses on which to conduct the follow-up study.

4. Recommendations on using the assessment results on the campuses

5. Recommendations to the campuses on IC interventions that work

Next meeting: We will meet within 8 weeks at San Marcos to work with SBRI on details the follow-up study

Kathleen Dunn, Task Force Chair, 7-27-2000