1. Using Concept Inventories to Assess Student Learning in a Core MLS Course
Sarah W. Sutton, Ph.D. & Janet L. Capps, Ph.D.
ssutton3@emporia.edu
Tasks Progress
Overview
All Emporia State University School of Library and
Information Management (SLIM) graduate core
courses are delivered through a hybrid model. Multiple
systems of asynchronous online modules and face-toface instruction are combined to accomplish learning
outcomes through best practices and delivery models
most conducive for particular concepts. However,
this goal leads to questions. What are these core
concepts? To what extent are these identified
concepts supported by academics and practitioners?
jcapps1@emporia.edu
The content is informed by subject matter concepts from:
• textbooks,
• practitioner and scholarly journal articles, and
• LIS course syllabi and learning outcomes.
Developed items are tested with students enrolled in a core MLS course to
measure variability. In a pre-test and a post-test, students were asked to rate
their degree of confidence in understanding each of the concepts using a scale
where 5 is high. The instrument moves into Task 3 with 10 domain categories, e.g., acquisitions, selection,
assessment of print resources. Each domain has a varying numbers of sub-domain items. For example, the
acquisitions domain has 15 sub-domain items such as approval plans and blanket orders.
Objectives
To develop and validate a concept inventory that will:
• Inform iterative course improvement, and
• Supply measureable evidence of student learning.
KEY
Pre-test count
Post-test count
Guiding Framework
This work is guided in part by the following frameworks:
• core competencies (American Library Association),
• concept inventories, and
• Delphi Studies.
Methodology
Concept inventories appear similar to a common
assessment in format; however, the primary goal is to
inform educators of core knowledge levels. The
process consists of six general tasks:
1. define the content,
2. develop and select the instrument items,
3. informal informant sessions,
4. interview sessions with LIS educators and library
practitioners,
5. instrument administration, and
6. evaluation and final refinement.
Figure 1. Student interface of
the instrument during Task 2.
Figure 2. Comparison of pre-test and
post-test results of the students’ answers
to a single sub-domain item: return on
investments in libraries.
Figure 3. Comparison of a pre-test
and post-test domain level item,
assessment of print resources.
Task 3 affords an opportunity to collect feedback prior to moving into the more
formal instrument development tasks.
ASK US ABOUT HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN STEP 4!
Tasks 5 and 6 are iterative activities that are to be repeated as needed to
produce an instrument that reflects reliability in detecting and describing
distributions of the items.
Emporia State University School of Library & Information Management, 1200 Commercial Street, PO Box 4025, Emporia, KS 66801