INFORMATION COMPETENCE IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Taking a Snapshot of Student Information Competence Skills
For the first time ever, a university system takes a snapshot of student information competence skills, system-wide. The CSU launched in Spring 2000 a five-year assessment of student information competence skills in three distinct phases. This is a condensed report of Phase One, a system-wide survey of 3309 students.
In 1994 the CSU took a stance unique to a large system of higher education and identified information competence as a critical skill for CSU students. Subsequently the CSU Commission on Learning Resources and Instructional Technology (CLRIT) appointed the Information Competence Work Group to recommend basic competence levels on the use of recorded knowledge and information, and to identify processes for assessment of student information competence. The Work Group involved CSU discipline faculty, librarians, and administrators in crafting a definition of information competence, and in identifying core information competencies. Information competence is defined broadly as “the fusing or the integration of library literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, technological literacy, ethics, critical thinking, and communication skills.” Seven core information competencies were identified, and they form the heart of the system-wide survey reported on here. The survey was conducted to gather data on a random sample of students from across the CSU to provide information on their current levels of information competence skills, and to set the stage for the more detailed studies to follow in Phases Two and Three of this Five-Year Assessment Study.
The CSU Information Competence Assessment Task Force, appointed by the Information Competence Work Group, engaged the Social and Behavioral Research Institute (SBRI), San Marcos, to design and conduct the survey, in consultation with Task Force members.
Skill in finding, evaluating, and organizing information is generally assessed by question-based tests. This assessment took a more unique approach based on a non-linear methodology. Students were asked to respond to an information task, defined for the survey as an information competence scenario. A scenario was crafted for six core information competencies. For example, Core Competency One: Formulate and state a research question, problem or issues ... resulted in the following scenario: You are working in a group to study the homeless in your community. Your task is to inform the City Council on the current state of homelessness. What type of information do you need to know? How would you use this information to help describe the state of the homeless?
Responses to the scenarios were quantified by breadth and depth. Breadth of responses quantifies the number of different types of responses to a given scenario by an individual. A respondent might have offered anywhere from zero to a dozen discrete ideas in response to the scenario. Depth of responses quantifies the number of discrete ideas offered to elaborate on the specifics of initial (breadth) responses to the scenarios For each discrete idea offered in response to the scenarios, the respondents were questioned about how they would use the information derived from their initial ideas.
The survey also included demographic questions and questions on topics that can be correlated with information competence skills.
3,309 students were surveyed. These were drawn from a random sample of students from each of 21 CSU campuses. Each campus sample is representative of the class level and race/ethnicity distribution of students at that campus. The response rate for the survey was 77.7%. The average telephone interview was 24.76 minutes in length. Interviews covered a range of topics related to the student's academic background, demographics on income and living arrangements, and the use of information resources on campus and at home. Each respondent was asked to consider two scenarios randomly selected from the set of six scenarios.
• Breadth responses for the scenarios ranged from 0 to 12.
• Depth responses for the scenarios ranged from 0 to 21.
• The average breadth score for the scenarios ranged from 1.46 to 2.45, and students in the lowest quartile [1] averaged breadth scores of .92, compared to an average of 3.21 for those in the highest quartile.
• The average depth score for the scenarios ranged from 1.84 to 2.73, and students in the bottom quartile averaged depth scores of .98 while those in the top quartile averaged depth scores of 3.97.
• Breadth scores on each of the scenarios are related to the breadth scores on each of the other scenarios. That is, a person scoring high on one scenario is likely to score high on the other scenario received, while a person with a low breadth score on one scenario is likely to have a low breadth score on their other scenario. This suggests that breadth scores for the various scenarios are tapping some common dimension.
• Depth scores on each of the scenarios are related to the depth scores on each of the other scenarios. That is, a person with a high depth score on one scenario is likely to score high on the other scenario he or she responded to, and those scoring with a low on one scenario are likely to score low on their other scenario. This implies that the depth scores are indicators of a characteristic being tapped consistently across all the scenarios.
• Depth is related to breadth. The depth of the responses to the scenarios are correlated with the breadth of the scenario responses. That is, people with higher breadth scores also had higher depth scores.
• Freshmen had lower breadth and depth scores than seniors
• Asians lagged behind whites, Hispanic/Latinos, and African Americans with respect to breadth and depth.
• The youngest students under performed the older students with respect to depth and breadth of responses
The survey assessed other aspects of information competence: achievement and aptitude, library use, library problems, computer literacy, media exposure, research process skills, and the presence of home reference materials. Questions were included in the survey relevant to each of these areas in order to construct a scale that could be correlated with the scenario breadth and depth measures. The Achievement and Aptitude Scale was constructed with standardized achievement and aptitude tests, including GPA. These scales were included to provide insight into how information competence as assessed through scenarios relates to other ways of getting at information competence. The pattern of relationships between the scenario breadth and depth measures of information competence and collateral aspects of information competence can help clarify the significance of the information competence scores. Key results from these analyses include the following:
• A slight, positive relationship was found between the achievement and aptitude scale and the breadth score, but not for the depth score.
• The greater the usage of the library resources, the greater the breadth and depth of the students' responses to the scenarios.
• The greater the computer literacy of the student, the greater the breadth of their responses to the scenarios.
• The greater the research process skills, the greater the breadth and depth of responses to the scenarios.
• The presence of reference materials in the home was positively associated with the breadth and depth of the students' responses to the scenarios.
Follow-up: Phases Two and Three
The five-year plan comprises a comprehensive, multi-method study integrating a variety of qualitative and quantitative research strategies to assess information competence skills. The first phase is complete and is described in this report. The next phases of the study are:
• Phase II: an intensive, multi-pronged study of the processes students engage in when completing an information task. The data will tell us how patterns of activities used in accomplishing tasks are related to technological constraints, access to and familiarity with resources, expertise in using specific resources and other variables. The data expand on the survey findings of baseline competence.
• Phase III: a three-year longitudinal study of a sample of Freshmen and transfer students, half of whom receive some specific instruction identified as necessary in Phase I and II, and half of whom serve as a control group. The information competence of both groups of students are then assessed and compared. These students will also be interviewed at regular intervals over the three years.
[1] Quartiles are values that divide data into 4 parts of equal size, each comprising 25% of the observations.