Chapter 1 – Standard I:  Mission, Goals and Objectives

Introduction

The Queens College, Graduate School of Library and Information Studies (GSLIS) Master of Library Science (MLS) program has been continuously accredited by the American Library Association since 1970. However, in its January 2012 re-accreditation decision, the Committee on Accreditation voted to grant the GSLIS conditional accreditation status, citing lack of evidence of an “ongoing, broad based systematic planning process that … would involve continuous review of mission, goals and objectives along with student learning outcomes.” Our 2014 Program Presentation (PP) documents the efforts of the GSLIS since that time to come into compliance with this requirement. We demonstrate, in Chapter 1 and throughout the PP, the development and implementation of a continuous, broad based planning process that ensures compliance across all six of the Standards.

The planning process discussed throughout this PP is systematic, ongoing and active, taking place on a regular basis through faculty committee assignments and through indirect and direct data collection activities. It is broad based in that it contains goals and objectives related to compliance with all six of the standards for accreditation. Finally, it revolves around regular input from all of our constituencies.

The faculty committee structure of the GSLIS consists of standing and ad hoc committees. Standing committees as of AY2013/14 are: Admissions, Academic Standing & Student Affairs; Assessment; Curriculum and Educational Technology (CET); Faculty Professional Development; Personnel and Budget; Publications; and Special Events.  Appendix I.14 provides a description of the major responsibilities of faculty committees. Major stakeholders for the GSLIS include: faculty, staff, students, alumni, employers and community members. Appendix 1.8 lists some of the institutions and organizations represented by our advisory boards and stakeholder groups.

Development of a Systematic Planning Process

The Introduction to the 2008 Standards for Accreditation states:

Systematic planning is an ongoing, active, broad-based approach to (a) continuous review and revision of a program’s vision, mission, goals, objectives, and learning outcomes; (b) assessment of attainment of goals, objectives, and learning outcomes; (c) realignment and redesign of core activities in response to the results of assessment; and (d) communication of planning policies, programs, and processes, assessment activities, and results of assessment to program constituents.  Effective broad-based, systematic planning requires engagement of the program’s constituents and thorough and open documentation of those activities that constitute planning.  Many programs achieve their planning processes through development of formal planning documents that incorporate explicit targets or deadlines for achievement of planning processes.

This PP builds upon our 2011 Program Presentation for which we received Conditional accreditation and upon our Plan for the 2014 Program Presentation submitted in October 2013.  Our progress thus far has been informed and guided by the following activities since the decision letter of January 2012. In Spring 2012 we held two retreats, attended by constituents and guided by two different consultants: one focused on assessment and one on planning (See Appendix I.1A: Document of the 2012 March 30 Retreat and Appendix I.1B: Result of the second retreat in 2012 Spring: The SLOAR Report). During the AY2013-14, monthly faculty committee meetings were devoted to topics related to planning and assessment (See Appendix I.2). In Fall 2012, faculty participated in a retreat focused on planning and on the development of our Plan to Remove Conditional Accreditation (See Appendix I.3). In Winter 2013 another faculty retreat focused on assessment and our second Plan to Remove Conditional Accreditation (See Appendix I.4).  A faculty workshop with Queens College administration focused on assessment (See Appendix I.5) was held in early fall 2013.

In fall 2013 GSLIS developed a web based assessment repository (http://programpresentation.qcgslis.info/assessment-repository/ username: qcgslis ; password: 7189973790) to centralize data collection activities. Faculty began working closely with the City University of New York, Queens College Administration as well as the Division of Education (Appendix I.6) to develop additional planning and assessment resources. We have taken advantage of the assessment resources made available by the ALA Office of Accreditation and have reviewed the Program Presentations of institutions that have recently received continuous accreditation by the ALA, looking for guidance on proper interpretation of Standard I.I.

The development of an effective planning framework has necessitated, as a first step, a review of Mission, Goals and Objectives. As shown in Appendix I.7, in early 2014 the GSLIS revised its Mission, Goals and Objectives to better align with those of our parent institution, Queens College (QC) after publication of the new QC Strategic Plan (See Appendix I.12). We now have clearly defined goals and objectives related to both our program of study (Program Goals), which are stated as student learning outcomes, and to the GSLIS qua institution, which supports these program goals (GSLIS Organizational Goals). These organizational goals and objectives are specifically related to the activities of faculty, administration, facilities and services to students, which combine to ensure the success of our program goals. Working together, GSLIS faculty have established measurable objectives for each of these goals along with direct and indirect assessment methods (See Appendix I.9). We have established a planning and assessment implementation schedule that gives routine stock-taking of our progress in meeting our goals (discussed below in this chapter). The result of this effort is a planning and assessment framework that can help to ensure compliance with not only Standard I.1 but with all six of the Standards for Accreditation.

Our Parent Institution - Queens College

Queens College of The City University of New York is located in one of the most ethnically diverse counties in the world (See Appendix I.10) and distinguishes itself by the ethnic, linguistic, and racial diversity of its students. Founded in 1937, the college is often referred to as the crown jewel of the City University of New York (CUNY) system. Queens College is dedicated to the idea that a first-rate education should be accessible to talented people of all backgrounds and financial means, including many first-generation college students. The college’s strong liberal arts curriculum—with over 100 undergraduate and graduate programs—assures students an education for a fulfilling life and career (See Appendix I.11). Queens College was recently ranked number one in New York and number two nationwide by the Washington Monthly in the category of “Best Bang for the Buck.” (See Appendix I.28). The college earned this distinction because of its “contribution to the public good” in the categories of social mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), research (producing cutting-edge research and PhDs), and service (encouraging students to give something back to their country). Queens College is listed in the 2015 Princeton Review guide America’s Best 379 Colleges (See Appendix I.29), and the 2014 U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges named Queens one of the 10 best Public Regional Universities in the north (See Appendix I.30).

The mission of Queens College is to prepare students to become leading citizens of an increasingly global society by offering a rigorous education in the liberal arts and sciences under the guidance of a faculty dedicated to teaching and expanding the frontiers of knowledge. Queens College students represent a vibrant mix of cultures; they hail from 170 different countries and speak more than 90 native languages, providing an extraordinary educational environment. Queens College students graduate with the ability to think critically, address complex problems, explore various cultures, and use modern technologies and information resources (See Appendix I.12 for the QC 2013-2018 Strategic Plan).

The Graduate School of Library and Information Studies, the only publicly funded graduate school of library and information studies in New York City, fully adheres to the culture and mission of its parent institution. Our student body represents the same quality of ethnic, racial, linguistic and socioeconomic diversity as the larger institution. GSLIS faculty are world renowned, have diverse intellectual pursuits and represent the same range of cultural and racial heterogeneity as in the general student body.

The organizational structure of Queens College, illustrated in Appendix I.26), is such that the GSLIS is a department within the Division of Social Sciences as well as a stand alone graduate school. The chief executive officer of GSLIS holds a faculty position that is both department Chair and Director of the school. The Dean of Social Sciences oversees all of the departments within the division, including GSLIS. The administrative structure of the GSLIS within Queens College and CUNY is further discussed in Chapter V.

Standard I.1

Standard I.1

A school's mission and program goals are pursued, and its program objectives achieved, through implementation of an on-going, broad-based, systematic planning process that involves the constituency that a program seeks to serve. Consistent with the values of the parent institution and the culture and mission of the school, program goals and objectives foster quality education.

The GSLIS Mission, Goals and Objectives (MGOs) have been under revision since 2010, initially in preparation for the 2011 PP, and subsequently for this PP. As reported in our Oct. 1, 2012 Plan for Removal of Conditional Accreditation (Appendix I.3), we invited members of our advisory boards to an all day workshop devoted to evaluation of our Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives. The MGOs that arose out of that workshop and were reported in our earlier Plans for Removal were reviewed and revised by the GSLIS faculty in early 2014, with the publication of the 2013-2018 Queens College Strategic Plan. 2013-2018, (Appendix I.12). Since working on the development of this planning process we have come to better appreciate the importance of having measurable objectives for our goals; aligning our MGOs to those of Queens College; continually reviewing the relevance of program goals to our constituents; and establishing mechanisms for routine assessment of our achievement of Program and Organizational Goals and Objectives.

The MGOs presented here have been vetted by the faculty and presented to representatives of the student body. They were presented to the CUNY Council of Chief Librarians in March 2014, to students during the spring 2014 semester, to the Queens College Associate Provost, who has charge over the College’s assessment activities, our divisional Dean, and to the CUNY Dean of Libraries. The MGOs are posted on our website (http://www.qc.cuny.edu/Academics/Degrees/DSS/gslis/
AboutUs/Mission/Pages/default.aspx
), and were discussed with members of our advisory boards in April and May 2014.

Ongoing assessment of the achievement of our objectives and therefore the attainment of our goals is at the core of our planning process. For each of our goals we use multiple methods of measuring objectives, employing a variety of qualitative and quantitative approaches in order to obtain multiple sources of evidence.

For each of the objectives associated with each goal stated below, we describe Achievement Indicators, Responsible Unit, and sample Action Outcomes. This description is for purposes of illustrating the planning and assessment framework that we have established. Fuller descriptions of the implementation of this planning process and links to supporting evidence are given in subsequent chapters corresponding to each of the Standards for Accreditation.

Although the 2008 Standards for Accreditation focus most directly on Program Goals and Objectives, linked to student learning outcomes, in this Program Presentation we also delineate the Organizational Goals and Objectives that support the program of study. The distinction between Organizational and Program goals is also made to give us a planning and assessment framework that has enough depth to cover the requirements of all six Accreditation Standards, as well in response to Standard I.I’s focus on broad based planning for MOGs overall.

This PP follows the 2008, Standards for Accreditation, which states in its glossary of terminology that “program” refers to “program of Study”  and program goals are those directly related to the program of study leading to the MLS degree and are measurable by student learning outcomes (http://www.ala.org/accreditedprograms/standards/glossary)

,However, in the 3rd Draft Revised  Standards, released for comment on 8/1/14, there is a change in terminology wherein, “the term “program” refers to an organization of people and educational experiences that comprise the degree. “ If we were to follow this new terminology, the GSLIS Program and Organizational Goals and Objectives would be collapsed together as one set of Program Goals.

Figure I.1 gives an overview of the planning, assessment, evaluation and action processes for GSLIS MOGs. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to detailed explication of Figure I.I.

 

 

Figure I.1 Planning, assessment, evaluation and action processes

Queens College Goals

In its 2013-2018 Strategic Plan (Appendix I.12), Queens College /CUNY listed the following institutional goals:

In harmony with the values of our parent institution, we list the following GSLIS Mission, Goals and Objectives.

GSLIS Mission Statement

The GSLIS serves the general public, students, employers, the university, and other stakeholders through its various programs in library and information studies. 

We prepare and educate students to be creative, reflective and adaptable service-oriented professionals who will contribute to and improve the information-intensive environments of diverse communities while retaining the core values and ethics of librarianship.

(Publicly available at http://www.qc.cuny.edu/Academics/Degrees/DSS/ gslis/AboutUs/Mission/Pages/default.aspx)

GSLIS Program Goals & Objectives

Since 2012 we have focused greatest attention on our program goals and objectives; that is, those directly related to assessment of student learning outcomes and compliance with ALA Accreditation Standard 2 using the ALA’s glossary of accreditation terminology where in program goals are those directly related to the program of study leading to the MLS degree and are measurable by student learning outcomes (SLOs) (http://www.ala.org/accreditedprograms/standards/glossary.)  We expect that every student who graduates from the GSLIS will have achieved the student learning outcomes listed below. Measurement of attainment of these Goals and Objectives is discussed in Chapter 2 of the PP.

GSLIS Program Goals (Consonant with QC Goals II, III and IV)

The GSLIS prepares graduates for employment and service in a diverse, global and rapidly changing information society now and in the future. Graduates of the GSLIS are able to demonstrate appropriate competencies and to articulate ethical values as defined by LIS professional organizations, and other stakeholder communities.

GSLIS maintains a rigorous yet flexible curriculum that reflects the changing needs of its constituency, through ongoing assessment and revision.

These goals and related objectives, listed below, are directly in harmony with the values of Queen College. Our graduates have a global understanding of the LIS profession; they appreciate the importance of research and creative expression; and they have a strong service orientation.

Program Objectives Stated as Student Learning Outcomes

Program and course requirements in the GSLIS are designed to ensure that graduates have met the following Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). These SLOs (A-H) state that graduates of the GSLIS have the ability to:

A.  Assist users in gaining access to information and knowledge, including its creation, acquisition, organization and management, storage and retrieval, by demonstrating that they can:

a.  Identify, acquire, create, organize, process, store and provide access to information in all its forms for libraries, cultural institutions and other information organizations in a global environment.

b.  Identify, retrieve, evaluate and use general and specialized resources to address current and future information needs and provide related services to diverse user communities.

B.   Articulate the role and importance of ethics, values, and advocacy within the legal and historical frameworks underlying the practice of librarianship and the information professions

C. Apply the appropriate practices and policies of established Library and Information Science professional standards in various specializations

D.  Find, analyze, assess, apply, and conduct research in Library and Information Science and other disciplines in response to gaps in knowledge and practice

E.   Contribute to a diverse, global society—including the role of addressing the needs of underserved groups--through exemplary Library and Information Science practice and research 

F.   Identify, evaluate and implement current and emerging technologies and services to meet the evolving information needs of diverse user communities in an increasingly interconnected environment

G. Demonstrate understanding of the importance of continuing professional development in Library and Information Science; articulate and apply principles, theories and measures underlying the role of the library in supporting lifelong learning within the community

H.  Explain and apply principles of effective management and leadership in the library and related information institutions

GSLIS Organizational Goals and Objectives

As previously mentioned, GSLIS has created goals and objectives pertaining to the organization itself. These organizational goals and objectives give us a framework for the assessment of processes and activities related to assessment of faculty, student services, facilities and administrative resources. In the following, for each of our Organizational Goals and associated Objectives, we indicate the Achievement Indicators, the Responsible Units, and the Action Outcomes to date.

Organizational Goal 1 (Consonant with QC Goal V)

QC Goal V is about “Enriching our Local Community”.

GSLIS strives to be one of the nation’s top urban graduate schools in LIS, offering quality, affordable education. The school achieves academic excellence through the integrated efforts of faculty, students and other stakeholders.

The school is guided in its activities by its Master Plan, and through its Mission, Goals and Objectives. It measures progress in its goals on an ongoing basis, according to policies and procedures set forth in the planning documents developed by the school. Ongoing, broad based and systematic planning form the core activities through which the school achieves its goals. Results of planning and assessment are used to measure success.

Objectives:

1.1.            GSLIS will update its Master Plan for 2014-2018

Achievement indicator: A draft of the Master Plan is completed by the end of fall 2014 semester.

Responsible unit: GSLIS Planning Committee (meets three times per semester)

Action Outcomes: Review of last Master Plan in spring 2014(See Appendix I.13) to create baseline for review.

1.2.  GSLIS evaluates its organizational structure including faculty committee responsibilities.

Achievement indicator: Standing faculty committees (See Appendix I.14) are aligned with GSLIS goals and ALA standards. Ad hoc committees are formed as necessary.

Responsible unit: GSLIS Planning Committee and full faculty.

Action Outcomes: Professional Development Committee created in fall 2013.

1.3.            GSLIS continues to develop means of obtaining stakeholder input.

Achievement indicator:  New methods of obtaining stakeholder feedback are instituted by summer 2014, including online surveys and other web based methods of interaction with stakeholders. Advisory board membership increases by summer 2014.

Responsible unit: Planning and Assessment Committees (each meet three or more times per semester)

Action Outcomes: Online alumni survey launched in April 2014 (See Appendix I.15 and Appendix I.20 for responses summary); new members of Advisory board include current students, recent alumni and practitioners.

Organizational Goal 2 (Consonant with QC Goals I and III)

QC Goal I is about “Weaving Transnational Connections” and QC Goal III is about “Nurturing Inquiry and Creativity”

Faculty contribute to the knowledge base of the field at local, national and global levels. GSLIS aims to increase the national and international visibility of its faculty and the school.

Faculty demonstrate excellence and innovation in teaching, scholarship and creative production.

GSLIS faculty represent diversity in demographic makeup and areas of specialization.

Objectives

2.1.     GSLIS faculty maintain active programs of scholarly and creative production and seek appropriate institutional and external support.

2.2. Faculty, where appropriate, publish their research and present their scholarship/creative productions in venues with transnational reach.

2.3.   Faculty are represented in professional organizations and committees both nationally and internationally.

           

      Achievement indicators: Collectively and individually, faculty CVs assessed annually for indication of:  sustained records of scholarly and professional productivity; presentations and publications of scholarship in national and transnational venues; and, professional memberships in organizations outside of the New York metropolitan area. Increase in faculty applications for external support to fund international activities.

 

            Responsible units: Departmental Personnel and Budget Committee; Director.

 

          Action Outcomes: Number of international presentations among faculty increased in AYs 2012/13 and 2013/14. Increase in Divisional support for international travel.  Achievement target of sustained record of faculty scholarly productivity is not yet been uniformly met.

 

2.4.     GSLIS achieves demographic diversity of its faculty, where appropriate, through faculty recruitment policies.

 

            Achievement indicators: Recruitment plan for new faculty hires developed to reach diverse applicant pool; diverse pool of qualified applicants received in response to new faculty recruitment efforts.

 

            Responsible unit: Faculty Search Committee in consultation with QC Office of Compliance and Diversity Protection.

 

            Action Outcomes: Two new faculty hires in AY 2014/15 with geographical and country of origin diversity.

 

             

2.5.            Faculty are routinely evaluated and advised in areas of scholarship, teaching and professional responsibilities. Adjunct teaching faculty are assessed every semester.

 

            Achievement indicators: Completion of Professional Evaluation Interview every year for all full time faculty below rank of Full Professor; peer teaching evaluations conducted for all faculty members, including adjunct faculty, on annual basis; student course evaluations returned for every course each semester.

 

            Responsible unit: Director; P&B Committee; full faculty, students.

 

            Action Outcomes: Peer observations of classroom teaching have expanded to include Full Professors; greater completion rate of Professional Evaluation Interviews in AY 2013/14. All adjunct teaching faculty have been assessed every semester since AY 2011/2012. Student evaluations have not quite reached 100% per semester.

 

2.6.            GSLIS faculty create teaching and research partnerships across departmental and divisional boundaries.

 

            Achievement indicators: Evidence of cross-departmental collaboration.

 

            Responsible unit: Full faculty

 

            Action Outcomes: in AY2014/15, development of joint MLS/MA in History; participation in Divisional Data Science initiative; development of teaching internship with Baruch College/CUNY.

 

2.7.   GSLIS has a forum for the dissemination of student and faculty creative accomplishments.

 

            Achievement indicators: Increased use of social media and other means of communication to disseminate student/faculty accomplishments.

 

            Responsible unit: Publications Committee; CET; Assessment Committee.

 

            Action Outcomes: Creation of a page on GSLIS web site for alumni and student accomplishments (http://alumni.qcgslis.info/student-and-alumni-accomplishments/). Achievement target of disseminating faculty accomplishments is not yet met.

 

Assessment of Organizational Goal 2 is further discussed in Chapter 3, Standard III.

Organizational Goal 3 (Consonant with QC Goal V)

QC Goal V is about “Enriching our Local Community”.

GSLIS maintains supportive relationships with local populations including libraries and cultural heritage institutions in order to understand and respond to their diverse situations

GSLIS graduates serve the needs of employers in libraries and information environments within CUNY and across the New York metro area. They serve the lifelong educational needs of the people they employ.

Objectives

3.1.      GSLIS faculty offer courses and workshops that target the continuing education needs of the diverse information professionals in Greater New York City.

3.2.     GSLIS expands its educational outreach through online and hybrid course opportunities beginning in summer 2014. The School aims to offer its core course sequence totally online by fall 2015.

3.3.     GSLIS maintains mutual understandings between constituencies and the School through regular and ongoing channels of communication.

Achievement indicators: Development of plans for providing continuing education, to serve stakeholder needs, and to expand the GSLIS; development of fully online courses and expansion of hybrid offerings; use of social media to create more varied channels of communication; establishment of more frequent interaction with constituents.

Responsible unit: CET; Assessment Comittee.

Action Outcomes: Our faculties have been conducting professional workshops for the METRO (Metropolitan New York Library Council, the largest reference and research resources library council in New York State * ) for or many years (See Appendix I.27 for an example of a workshop conducted by our faculty for the METRO, username: qcgslis ; password: 7189973790.) Objective 3.1 is addressed by faculty participation in METRO workshops. Progress is being made on Objective 3.2 with the first online course being offered in summer 2014 (See Appendix I.16) and first steps have been taken to join the WISE consortium. Interactions with CUNY Council of Chief Librarians became regular in spring 2014 (See Appendix I.17). Full achievement of objective 3.3 is not met, as interactions with other constituents has not increased.

 

Organizational Goal 4 (Consonant with QC Goals II and IV)

QC Goal II is about “Launching Graduates into the Global Future” and Goal IV is about “Building a Campus Community”

GSLIS has a diverse study body reflective of the communities it serves.

Student services ensure effective guidance and academic support. Students are able to construct individual programs of study within the guidelines of the curriculum.

Students have exposure to scholarship and creative activity within the LIS communities and opportunities to pursue their research and creative interests under faculty direction.

The school strives to cultivate a sense of community among its student body and to give voice to its multiple points of view. Students have representation and voice on faculty committees and serve as an important constituent body in GSLIS policy and planning processes.

Objectives

4.1.      GSLIS  has effective policies for diversity recruitment and support services for diverse student needs.

 

       Achievement indicators: Recruitment activities in diverse student communities; identification of diverse special needs and implementation of appropriate services.

 

            Responsible Unit: Admissions, Academic Standing and Student Affairs

 

            Action Outcomes: Participation in The Knowledge Alliance recruitment initiative, held at Brooklyn Public Library in May 2014 (http://knowledgealliance.org/info). To date, no support services other than those provided by QC to students with identified special needs.

 

4.2.            GSLIS provides guidance to students for academic planning.

 

            Achievement indicators: Student program planning systematically carried out; course rotation schedule designed and implemented.

 

            Responsible unit: CET

 

            Action Outcomes: Program planning forms are now completed for all new students and revised each semester during advisement for registration. Two-year course rotation schedule developed (subject to course enrollments).

 

4.3.            Students receive support for travel to professional meetings, to present research and creative production.

4.4.            Support is given to student associations and their functions.

 

            Achievement indicators: Policies established for funding student travel and association functions.

 

            Responsible unit: Personnel & Budget; Special Events; Dean of Social Sciences

 

            Action Outcomes: Funding for student travel and student functions now awarded on an ad hoc basis. Formal policy on funding has not been established.

 

4.5.            Student representation on faculty committees and advisory boards is increased.

           

            Achievement indicator: Where appropriate, student representation on all faculty committees except Personnel and Budget; student participation in development of new GSLIS Master Plan; establishment of a student advisory board.

 

            Responsible unit: Full faculty in consultation with the GSLIS student association QCLISSA.

 

            Action Outcomes: QCLISSA representatives attend full faculty meetings. Other achievement indicators for objective 4.5 not yet met.

 

Further discussion of Organizational Goal 4 appears in Chapter 4, Standard IV.

Organizational Goal 5

The GSLIS strives to ensure a sustainable institutional environment. The school is proactive in securing appropriate institutional and administrative resources to adequately support its needs.

The school regularly takes stock of its immediate and long range needs in the areas of personnel, physical infrastructure and technology, in order to better advocate for institutional resources.

Objectives

5.1.            GSLIS has voice on college wide budgetary, political and administrative matters.

 

            Achievement indicators: Members of the GSLIS faculty serve on appropriate campus committees.

 

            Responsible unit: Full faculty

 

            Action Outcomes: Faculty serve as members of  QC Graduate Curriculum Committee; Executive Committee of the College Personnel and Budget Committee; and, as Chairperson of the Academic Senate.

 

5.2.            GSLIS needs for facility upgrades, IT support and IT capability are assessed on an annual basis.

5.3.            QC and CUNY administration understand and support the administrative, faculty, student and physical resource needs of the school and devote sufficient funds for its ongoing maintenance.

 

            Achievement indicators: Annual inventory of faculty computer needs and evaluation of lab spaces; assignment of dedicated IT support personnel to the GSLIS; assessment and improvement of GSLIS student and office facilities; increased support for faculty travel and administrative services.

 

            Responsible unit: Director and full faculty.

 

            Action Outcomes: Faculty computer upgrades and teaching lab redesign in 2014; half-time IT manager dedicated to GSLIS as of spring 2014; physical space improvements to main office; travel support for international travel increased 2012-2014; increase in number of non-teaching adjunct personnel to assist with administrative functions.

Standard I.2

In discussing how the GSLIS meets Standard I.2, we first outline which of our Program Goals and Objectives address each of the elements of the Standard (i.e. I.2.x), and then present how achievement of each of the Objectives is (or has been) assessed. We adopt this structure because of the substantial overlap of the GSLIS Program Goals and Objectives across the Standard I.2 elements.

Standard I.2 

Program objectives are stated in terms of student learning outcomes to be achieved and reflect:

Standard I.2.1    the essential character of the field of library and information studies; that is, recordable information and knowledge, and the services and technologies to facilitate their management and use, encompassing information and knowledge creation, communication, identification, selection, acquisition, organization and description, storage and retrieval, preservation, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, synthesis, dissemination, and management:

Standard I.2.1 is addressed by GSLIS SLOs Aa; C; D; H; Graduates will have the ability to

A.      Assist users in gaining access to information and knowledge, including its creation, acquisition, organization and management, storage and retrieval, by demonstrating that they can:

a.   Identify, acquire, create, organize, process, store and provide access to information in all its forms for libraries, cultural institutions and other information organizations in a global environment.

C.   Apply the appropriate practices and policies of established Library and Information Science professional standards in various specializations.

D.   Contribute to a diverse, global society—including the role of addressing the needs of underserved groups--through exemplary Library and Information Science practice and research.

H.   Explain and apply principles of effective management and leadership in the library and related information institutions.

 


Standard I.2.2     … the philosophy, principles, and ethics of the field

Standard I.2.2 is addressed by GSLIS SLOs B; C; H

B.   Articulate the role and importance of ethics, values, and advocacy within the legal and historical frameworks underlying the practice of librarianship and the information professions.

C.   Apply the appropriate practices and policies of established Library and Information Science professional standards in various specializations.

H.   Explain and apply principles of effective management and leadership in the library and related information institutions.

 

Standard I.2.3    … appropriate principles of specialization identified in applicable policy statements and documents of relevant professional organizations

StandardI.2.3 is addressed by GSLIS SLO C

C.   Apply the appropriate practices and policies of established Library and Information Science.

 

Standard I.2.4    the value of teaching and service to the advancement of the field

Standard I.2.4 is addressed by GSLIS SLOs Ab; C; E

A.   Assist users in gaining access to information and knowledge, including its creation, acquisition, organization and management, storage and retrieval, by demonstrating that they can:

b.   Identify, retrieve, evaluate and use general and specialized resources to address current and future information needs and provide related services to diverse user communities.

C. Apply the appropriate practices and policies of established Library and Information Science professional standards in various specializations

E. Contribute to a diverse, global society—including the role of addressing the needs of underserved groups--through exemplary Library and Information Science practice and research 

 

Standard I.2.5    … the importance of research to the advancement of the field's knowledge base

Standard I.2.5 is addressed by GSLIS SLOs D; E

D.   Find, analyze, assess, apply, and conduct research in Library and Information Science and other disciplines in response to gaps in knowledge and practice

E.   Contribute to a diverse, global society—including the role of addressing the needs of underserved groups--through exemplary Library and Information Science practice and research 

Standard I.2.6    … the importance of contributions of library and information studies to other fields of knowledge

Standard I.2.6 is addressed by GSLIS SLOs C; D; E

C.   Apply the appropriate practices and policies of established Library and Information Science professional standards in various specializations

D.   Find, analyze, assess, apply, and conduct research in Library and Information Science and other disciplines in response to gaps in knowledge and practice

E.   Contribute to a diverse, global society—including the role of addressing the needs of underserved groups--through exemplary Library and Information Science practice and research 

 

 


Standard I.2.7    the importance of contributions of other fields of knowledge to library and information studies

Standard I.2.7 is addressed by GSLIS SLO D

D.   Find, analyze, assess, apply, and conduct research in Library and Information Science and other disciplines in response to gaps in knowledge and practice

 

Standard I.2.8    the role of library and information services in a diverse global society, including the role of serving the needs of underserved groups

Standard I.2.8 is addressed by GSLIS SLO E

E.   Contribute to a diverse, global society—including the role of addressing the needs of underserved groups--through exemplary Library and Information Science practice and research 

Standard I.2.9    the role of library and information services in a rapidly changing technological society

Standard I.2.9 is addressed by GSLIS SLO F

F.   Identify, evaluate and implement current and emerging technologies and services to meet the evolving information needs of diverse user communities in an increasingly interconnected environment

 

Standard I.2.10    the needs of the constituencies that a program seeks to serve.

Standard I.2.10 is addressed by GSLIS SLOs Ab; E; F; G

A.   Assist users in gaining access to information and knowledge, including its creation, acquisition, organization and management, storage and retrieval, by demonstrating that they can:

b.   Identify, retrieve, evaluate and use general and specialized resources to address current and future information needs and provide related services to diverse user communities.

E.   Contribute to a diverse, global society—including the role of addressing the needs of underserved groups--through exemplary Library and Information Science practice and research 

F.   Identify, evaluate and implement current and emerging technologies and services to meet the evolving information needs of diverse user communities in an increasingly interconnected environment

G.   Demonstrate understanding of the importance of continuing professional development in LIS; articulate and apply principles, theories and measures underlying the role of the library in supporting lifelong learning within the community

We see here that all of the elements of Standard I.2 are addressed by at least one of the GSLIS Student Learning Outcomes; however, they are not uniformly covered by these SLOs. Four of the elements are covered by only one SLO (I.2.3, I.2.7-I.2.9); element I.2.5 is addressed by only two SLOs, while the rest are addressed by three or more of our student learning outcomes. A closer look at those elements which are addressed by only one SLO, using our syllabi matrix  (Appendix I.22), reveals that SLOs C, D, E and F each are covered by assignments in at least two of the core courses, as well as a number of electives (discussed further in Chapter 2). We conclude that the GSLIS Program Objectives meet Standard I.2.

Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes A-H

Assessment of our SLOs takes place at multiple levels of analysis.

At the curricular level, we ask: How well do our existing courses address the SLOs, as a whole and in terms of individual SLOs; in other words, where is there overlap and where are there gaps?

At the individual level, we ask: to what extent do students achieve the SLOs, or how do we know that graduates of the GSLIS are demonstrating the abilities specified in the SLOs? 

In combination, these data provide indicators of program strengths and weaknesses, and suggest needed improvements/actions to be taken in planning, process, implementation, curriculum, methods of assessment, professional development and required infrastructure/resources.

Achievement Indicators:  All SLOs addressed in the four core courses (LBSCI 700, 701, 702, 703); All core courses address at least one SLO.

Responsible Unit:  GSLIS Assessment and CET Committees.

Method(s) used:  Collection and review of syllabi matrices for core courses (Appendix I.22)

Action outcomes:  Consultation and recommendations for revisions in course syllabi and/or SLOs, as needed.

Course-based Embedded Assessment of Assignments/Exams

Achievement indicator: Demonstration of at least one artifact in ePortfolio that represents achievement of each SLO.

Responsible Unit: CET Committee; full faculty

Method(s) used:  Select faculty members with expertise in areas covered by the SLOs will assess each student’s artifacts for achievement of the SLO.

Assessment cycle: Pilot test in spring/summer 2014 (Appendix I.23)

Action outcomes: Determination of feasibility of using this method for future assessment.

This method uses student performance data that students already deposit in their ePortfolios (Appendix I.24).  It takes a second look at artifacts deposited in course matrices to determine the extent to which students have met specified student learning outcomes.  The method will not be applied to every course offered each semester. Rather, it will be applied to specific sets of courses—e.g. core courses; selected technology courses; certificate required courses - (Appendix I.23).

Assessment of Program Goals Related to Online and Hybrid Learning

Achievement Indicators: Target achievement is the introduction of at least one online and/or hybrid course annually.  Participation in the WISE Consortium.  Student satisfaction with the availability of alternate course delivery options.

Responsible unit: Assessment; CET

Action Outcomes: Development of online version of LBSCI 729 Metadata for Digital Resources in Spring 2014; LBSCI 729 delivered in online mode in Summer and Fall 2014 (Appendix I.16). LBSCI 790.3 Knowledge Management offered in online mode fall 2014. Application to WISE completed in August 2014.

Standard I.3

Within the context of these Standards each program is judged on the degree to which it attains its objectives. In accord with the mission of the school, clearly defined, publicly stated, and regularly reviewed program goals and objectives form the essential frame of reference for meaningful external and internal evaluation. The evaluation of program goals and objectives involves those served: students, faculty, employers, alumni, and other constituents

In keeping with Standard I.3 we have developed measurable Program and Organizational Objectives to use as indicators of our success in achieving GSLIS Mission and Goals. (Appendix I.9)

In evaluating our success at attaining program goals we ask: “How do we know if our students are graduating with the abilities we express as student learning outcomes?”; and, “To what extent are our program goals, as measured by our student learning outcomes, relevant to our constituencies?” To address these questions we utilize multiple methods to directly and indirectly assess SLOs, including regular feedback from constituencies that comes to us through established channels of communication.

Through ongoing assessment of SLOs and regular feedback from constituencies we are able to identify areas of strength and weakness in our program; as well as weaknesses in our assessment methods themselves. Through continuous program assessment we have developed our understanding of how and when to use various assessment methods and we continue to test methods that could have greater validity and reliability.

For example, we now understand that course grades alone are not a useful indicator of achievement of our program goals and that core course evaluative exams are not reliable indicators of student performance (Appendix I.25). We have developed other indicators, described below and in Chapter 2, which document our planning, assessment and implementation processes; assessment strategies and methods; assessment analysis plans; and the implementation cycle that we are using to evaluate and enhance student learning.

The process of assessment and evaluation of Program goals is overseen by the GSLIS CET, in cooperation with the Planning and Assessment Committees and in consultation with the faculty as a whole.

We have found it useful to employ a time honored model for continuous program evaluation and improvement, the Deming cycle (Figure 1.2), in which the key elements are identified as:

Plan:     This stage identifies the goals and objectives to be assessed; the faculty committees responsible for assessment, the appropriate assessment methods to be used and the sources from which data will be collected.

Do:         This is the stage for collection of data to be used in assessment.

Check:  This is the stage for evaluation of data to see how well goals and objectives are being met.

Act:        In this stage recommendations for action, including follow up assessments, are made.

Figure I.2. Deming planning and assessment cycle.. From Deming, W. Edwards (1986). Out of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced engineering Studies. 

Following this model, program assessment in the GSLIS is handled in the following way. During the “Plan” stage, program goals and objectives are established. This has been discussed in the previous sections of this chapter. Having established goals and objectives, methods for assessment are decided upon and responsibilities for the collection of assessment data are determined. The GSLIS Curriculum and Educational Technology Committee (CET) and the Assessment Committee have major roles in the assessment of program goals with participation from full faculty, course coordinators and Certificate coordinators. Full faculty, the P&B committee and the Director have major roles in assessment of Organizational goals, as discussed above. Results of assessment are discussed with full faculty, the Dean, where appropriate, and relevant constituents in the determination of appropriate actions. As an iterative process, this cycle repeats again with new plans for assessment.

The two primary assessment tools that have been recently developed for direct assessment of GSLIS SLOs are the Syllabus Matrix Analyses, and ePortfolio analysis for end of program evaluation.  Both of these are discussed in detail in Chapter 2, under Standard II.7. Indirect assessment of our SLOs is accomplished through student exit interviews (Appendix I.18), employer surveys (Appendix I.19), alumni surveys (Appendix I.15), student feedback and other methods, also described fully in Chapter 2, Standard II.7. In addition, we have consulted with colleagues in other QC departments within our division and we are developing other ways to assess student learning outcomes. We have been guided by the Queens College work on Middle States accreditation and the Middle States requirements for outcomes assessment (Appendix I.21).

Summary

Chapter 1 describes the ongoing development and implementation of a planning framework that is iterative, broad based and involves participation from all of the program’s constituents. This planning process supports continuous self-evaluation of progress towards attainment of our program goals and objectives. This self study has given us an opportunity to specify target goals and measurable objectives for the evaluation of faculty, facilities, administrative support and services to students in order to describe our compliance with ALA Standards in each of these areas as well.

The specification of goals and measurable objectives has revealed areas of strength as well as weakness. GSLIS faculty believe that our overall MGOs and the assessment methods we have described above, are in compliance with ALA Standard I.1 We further believe that GSLIS Program Goals and Objectives, stated as student learning outcomes, are firmly compliant with ALA Standard I.2. At the same time, we see that not all of our Organizational Goals and Objectives are being met at this time. This is a topic we discuss in greater detail in Chapters 3-6. Finally, we realize that our methods for assessment of student learning outcomes are only partially complete at this time. The use of ePortfolio data to assess student achievement needs further pilot testing, as well as future thought about what point in a student’s program this type assessment might be most useful. These issues are discussed in much greater detail in Chapter 2.