Student Outcomes Discussion
From Curriculum Advisory Committee
A Student Outcomes Discussion was held on Thursday, September 4, 2007, to discuss GSLIS student leaders' understanding of the student learning outcomes. Present at the meeting were Professor Pat Oyler, Em Claire Knowles, Jeremy Shaw-Munderback (ALASC), Stephanie Collins (SCOSA), Melissa Gonzales (SCOSSA), Rebecca Wingfield (CAC), Helen Boos (SIR), and Hanna Sears (LISSA). Rebecca Wingfield took minutes. Dean Cloonan was present at the beginning of the meeting.
Professor Oyler summarized the Faculty’s work on redefining both the mission statement and program outcomes for GSLIS. In April, the Faculty met to work on two objectives:
1) Re-defining program outcomes.
2) Revising the mission statement from which program outcomes should evolve.
Student Outcomes
Focus groups have been held with faculty, staff (in May), and adjunct instructors (in June). These focus groups have been conducted in order to understand what skills and knowledge bases GSLIS graduates should have when they complete the program. Each group was asked:
1) What should GSLIS graduates be able to do?
2) What should GSLIS graduates know?
3) What should GSLIS graduates be able to think about?
Professor Oyler handed out a sheet listing the responses of faculty, staff, and students to the three questions. These same three questions were then put to the representatives from the various GSLIS student groups present at the meeting. Student input was elicited in order to understand what current students in the program perceive as the skills, knowledge expected of them by employers. The results are listed below:
To Do: Digital expertise, project management, communications skills, travel experience, manage and motivate people, plan and think about maintenance, user instruction, build/ manage databases, web-design, be able to use specific databases (for reference)
To Know: Communications skills, how to work with people, how to complete projects/ follow through, be self-starting and be able to take the initiative, how to instruct users, how to evaluate information, how to manage budgets, grant-writing and funding, how to manage people, think critically, concepts related to information retrieval, disaster planning
To Think about: Career planning, the future of information technology, flexibility/ adaptability, the relationship between the librarian and the patron, how to promote libraries and their services, security, the organization of the library, library cultures, budgeting issues
The student responses to the focus group will be added to the list of faculty, staff, and adjunct-instructors’ responses that Professor Oyler circulated at the meeting.
Professor Oyler then offered her thoughts on some of the salient differences that have emerged in the discussion of program outcomes. She noted, for instance, that the Faculty didn’t emphasize technology as much as some of the other constituencies, and hypothesized that this might be because the faculty see technology as so integral to the GSLIS curriculum. She also noted that adjunct instructors tended to stress outcomes that were very particular to the workplace (i.e., communications skills, working with others, etc.).
The results of this discussion, as well as those of the other focus groups conducted with faculty, adjuncts, and staff, will be considered in more detail at the Faculty retreat on Septemeber 26th.
Additional Discussion
Student leaders also raised questions on the following issues:
Revision of the mission statement. Professor Oyler was asked why this was being revisited, and she explained that the Faculty see a need to develop a mission statement that more adequately expresses the general skills and knowledge program fosters. As it stands, the relationship between the mission statement and the program outcomes isn’t as clear and close as it could be.
The distinction between the mission statement and program outcomes. Professor Oyler was asked what the salient distinction was between the GSLIS mission statement and the program outcomes. She explained that the mission statement expressed the broader ideals of the program, while the program outcomes attempted to define specific skills and knowledge bases developed in the program.
Enrolling in GSLIS courses without being enrolled in the MLS program. Professor Oyler asked why people potentially interested in pursuing an MLS weren’t allowed to take a course or two at GSLIS as a way of testing out the program and the profession. Professor Oyler explained that people used to be able to register for GSLIS classes even if they weren’t enrolled in the program. This practice was stopped for several reasons: the Admissions Office wanted this practice dropped because it was hard to monitor, people who took classes without being officially enrolled in the program often wound up with little or no advising structure, and class spaces were needed for increasing numbers of students enrolled in the MLS program. Em Claire noted that this used to be possible, but that this was discontinued in December 2004.
The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted by Rebecca Wingfield. September 8, 2008.
