division of library and information science assessment

Division of Library and Information Science

Assessment Report

2016 - 2017

Prepared by: James Vorbach, Director

Submitted: June 13, 2017

Approved: September 5, 2017

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Program Goals and Outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 4

Annual Student Survey .................................................................................................................................. 6

Exit Survey ................................................................................................................................................... 10

New Student Survey .................................................................................................................................... 13

ePortfolio Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 18

Alumni Survey ............................................................................................................................................. 20

Advisory Board Meeting Summary ............................................................................................................. 23

Advisory Board for the Certificate in Management for Information Professionals .................................... 28

Employer Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 29

Course Artifact Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 31

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 34

A. Strategic Priorities 2016 – 2017: Implementation of Action Items .................................................... 34

B. Annual Student Survey - March 2017 ................................................................................................. 39

C. Exit Survey 2016 – 2017 ..................................................................................................................... 42

D. New Student Survey 2016 - 2017 ....................................................................................................... 46

E. Two-Year-Out Alumni Survey – April 2017 ......................................................................................... 49

F. Advisory Board Members* .................................................................................................................. 53

G. DLIS Advisory Board Planning Survey – March 2017 .......................................................................... 54

H. MS LIS Mission Statement .................................................................................................................. 55

I. Minutes of Advisory Board Planning Meeting ..................................................................................... 56

J. Enrollment Summary Statistics 2012 - 2016 ........................................................................................ 58

K. Geographic Distribution of Students 2012 - 2016 ............................................................................. 60

L. Employer Survey – May 2017 .............................................................................................................. 61

M. Course Artifact Assessment Form (revised 2/11/2017) .................................................................... 64

3

Executive Summary

Purpose. The purpose of this document is to report on the 2016 – 2017 assessments and advisory board

meetings (Table 1). The assessments and advisory board meetings engaged all constituents of the

Master of Science in Library and Information Science (MS LIS) program - students, faculty, alumni, and

employers - in the process of ongoing improvement of the American Library Association (ALA)-

accredited MS LIS program.

Background. DLIS monitors continuously the quality of the MS LIS program consistent with the

Standards for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library and Information Studies1. DLIS prepares a

comprehensive report at the end of each academic year, which proposes next year’s strategic priorities

and action items based on the analyses of the previous academic year’s assessments, advisory meetings,

and action item results. The employer survey was administered in May 2017, completing the

implementation of the DLIS assessment plan, approved in March 2015. The plan will be reviewed at the

start of the next accreditation cycle, Spring 2019. The complete list of measures and advisory boards

appears in Table 1.

Measure Date of Event/Administration Constituency

Alumni Two-Year-Out Survey April 2017 Alumni, 2015 graduates

Annual Student Survey March 2017 Students

Advisory Board May 12, 2017 Alumni, employers, faculty, and students

Certificate in Management for Information Professionals Advisory Board

Jan 24, 2017 Alumni and faculty

Course Artifact Assessment Jan 2017, June 2017 Faculty

Exit Survey Jan 2017; May 2017 Graduating students

E-Portfolio Reviews Aug 2016, Dec 2016, May 2017 Graduating students

Employer Survey May 2017 Employers

New Student Survey Sept 2016; Jan 2017 Students entering the program

Table 1. Assessment Measures and Advisory Boards

1 Source:

http://www.ala.org/accreditedprograms/sites/ala.org.accreditedprograms/files/content/standards/Standards_2015_adopted_02-02-15.pdf



4

Program Goals and Outcomes

Since 2009, DLIS has based its program goals and outcomes on the ALA’s eight core competencies of

librarianship2. The program goals are reviewed annually to ensure they continue to serve the MS LIS

program effectively in light of the program’s evolution. In addition, specializations within the MS LIS

program supplement the program goals with that of related professional organizations.

Goal 1. Develop an Understanding of the Foundations of the Profession

A. Demonstrate knowledge of the ethics, values, and foundational principles and the role of library

and information professionals in the promotion of democratic and legal principles and

intellectual freedom.

B. Understand the history of human communication and its impact on libraries, and the

importance of effective verbal and written advocacy for libraries, librarians, other library

workers and library services.

C. Demonstrate knowledge of historical and present-day libraries and librarianship as well as

significant national and international policies and trends within the library and information

profession.

D. Demonstrate effective communication techniques (verbal and written) used to analyze complex

problems and create appropriate solutions.

E. Fulfilling certification and/or licensure requirements of specialized areas of the profession.

Goal 2. Develop an Understanding of Information Resources

A. Understand the concepts and issues related to the lifecycle of recorded knowledge and

information, from creation through various stages of use to disposition.

B. Understand the concepts, issues, and methods related to the acquisition and disposition of

resources, and the management, preservation and maintenance of collections.

Goal 3. Demonstrate Ability to Organize Recorded Knowledge and Information

A. Understand the principles involved and the developmental, descriptive, and evaluative skills

needed in the organization, representation and retrieval of recorded knowledge and

information resources.

B. Demonstrate ability to organize recorded knowledge and information using the systems of

cataloging, metadata, indexing, and classification standards and methods.

Goal 4. Apply Technological Knowledge and Skills to Practice

A. Acquire, apply, analyze and assess information, communication, assistive, and other

technological skills related to resources, service delivery, professionalism, efficacy, and cost-

efficiency of current technologies and relevant technological improvements.

2 ALA Core Competencies

http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/careers/corecomp/c

orecompetences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf

http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/careers/corecomp/corecompetences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf


5

Goal 5. Apply Reference and User Services

A. Demonstrate knowledge and usage of the concepts, principles, and techniques of reference and

user services, as well as retrieval techniques and evaluation methods, that provide access to

relevant and accurate recorded knowledge and information from diverse sources to all patrons.

B. Understand and demonstrate ability to interact successfully with individuals of all ages and

groups to provide consultation, mediation, and guidance in their use of recorded knowledge and

information, including information literacy techniques and methods.

C. Understand and apply the principles of assessment towards communities, user preferences, and

services and resources, as well as promoting methods of advocacy through development and

services.

Goal 6. Master Research Methods

A. Understand the fundamentals of quantitative and qualitative research methods, including

central research findings and research literature of the field, and the principles and methods

used to assess the actual and potential value of new research.

Goal 7. Experience Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning

A. Continue professional development by maintaining and practicing the purpose and role of

providing quality service for the lifelong learning of patrons and the promotion of library

services.

B. Apply the learning theories, instructional methods, and achievement measures to the teaching

and learning of concepts, processes and skills used in seeking, evaluating, and using recorded

knowledge and information.

Goal 8. Apply Key Concepts of Administration and Management

A. Understanding the principles of planning and budgeting in libraries and other information

agencies, as well as developing effective personnel practices and human resources.

B. Understanding the concepts behind, issues relating to, and methods for the following:

assessment and evaluation of library services and their outcomes, developing partnerships,

collaborations, networks, and other structures, and principled, transformational leadership.

6

Annual Student Survey

The annual student survey has been administered since the Spring 2012 term, and further back using a

slightly modified instrument. The instrument has twelve questions, although this year a thirteenth

question was added to invite student feedback on the MS LIS Mission Statement. The twelve questions

are organized into five categories: program, faculty, administration, field experience, and facilities. Field

experience in this sense refers to both intra-curricular (e.g. internships, field projects in courses) and

related extracurricular experience. The 2017 survey is provided in Appendix B. The notation “Qn” in this

section cites questions in the survey.

Questions Q1 through Q8 are available to all students. Q9 though Q12 are available to students who

have completed at least one semester in the program (Q8).

Review by Category

a) Program

When asked to select specializations of interest (Q1), students chose public librarianship more than

any other specialization at 49%. Academic librarianship, archival studies and youth services were

also popular at 37%, 35%, and 37% respectively. Academic increased by 3% from 2016; archival

studies decreased by 4% from 2016, and public and youth services are consistent with the 2016

results. Both law librarianship (14%) and special librarianship (8%) decreased from 2016 when the

results were 20% and 12%respectively.

When asked to select a primary specialization (Q2), archival studies (22%) and youth services (22%)

were chosen more than any other specialization. This represents a drop of 7% for archival studies

and an increase in 7% for youth services from 2016. Public librarianship was next at 20% (same in

2016) followed by academic at 16% (an increase of 4% from 2016). Law librarianship was 4%, a

decrease of 8%; Special librarianship was 2% (0% in 2016), and 12% were undecided (or no primary

specialization) versus 5% undecided in 2016. It is interesting to note that two students selected

school librarianship as their primary specialization, one that is no longer supported in the program.

DLIS is currently working with Long Island University (LIU) to have the students complete their

school librarianship certification at LIU after completing the MS LIS in the youth services

specialization at St. John’s. The agreement with LIU will accommodate future students who decide

on school librarianship midway through their programs of study.

Table 2 shows the comparison between 2016 and 2017 for Q3, Q9, and Q11.

Question Value 2017 2016

Q3: During the new student orientation, we explained that the goal of our program was to not only prepare you to become a library or information professional, but to also prepare you to become a leader who would make a difference in society as well as the profession. In your opinion, how well are we doing?

Excellent or Very Good

92% 80%

7

Q9: In your opinion, how well prepared are you for your career in library and information science?

Very Well-Prepared or Well-Prepared

81% 83%

Q11: After you graduate, would you consider St. John's educational opportunities for future professional development?

Yes/No 84% / 16%

86% / 14%

Table 2. Program Category Closed Questions

The results in 2017 for Q3 (leadership) showed an increase in the “excellent” or “very good” rating

to 92%, the highest in the past six years. For Q9 (career preparedness) and Q11 (future professional

development) the results in 2017 are slightly less than that of 2016.

Q6 and Q7 were open questions asking students what enhanced (Q6) / diminished (Q7) their MS LIS

educational experience. These questions invite students to be specific and identify a related faculty

member, if appropriate. The responses to Q7, when a faculty member is identified are forwarded to

the respective faculty member only. See Appendix B for Q6 and Q7 responses.

Q10 is an open question asking students for their suggestions for improving the program. A review

of the responses yielded the following representative sample.

Offer more practical skills in addition to the academic theory classes

Academic Service-Learning (AS-L) project instructions should be distributed well in advance,

because extra time is needed to make requests to AS-L providers

More courses should require AS-L work and should help to facilitate that by creating

partnerships with various libraries including academic libraries, public libraries, and special

libraries

Streamline the registration process

More opportunities for specialized course study based on individual student interests

More hands-on learning; more field-based projects

More active support for students outside of classes because everyone is isolated; either an

online student community, or a librarian liaison who could answer questions, some point of

contact

Assign students a “101 mentor” within the program besides their adviser. This person could

be a professor or previous student.

b) Faculty

Questions concerning faculty feedback (Q4i) and opportunities for guidance and counseling (Q4ii)

had results similar to those of 2016 – between “very good” and “excellent” (Table 3).

8

Question Ratings 2017 Average

2016 Average

Q4i: Faculty feedback about your work Excellent =1.00 Very Good = 2.00

1.75 1.67

Q4ii: Access to continuing opportunities for guidance and counseling

Excellent =1.00 Very Good = 2.00

1.80 1.73

Table 3. Faculty

c) Administration

The question concerning access to placement assistance (Q4iii), had results similar to those of 2016

(Table 4). Administrative and staff support (Q4iv) improved in 2017, and there was a slight decrease

in the perceived effectiveness of the Director (Q5).

Question Ratings 2017 2016

Q4iii: Access to continuing opportunities for placement assistance

Excellent =1.00 Very Good = 2.00

2.00 1.98

Q4iv: Administrative and staff support Excellent =1.00 Very Good = 2.00

1.66 1.88

Q5: Rate the effectiveness of the DLIS Director as a leader of the Division

Very Effective or Effective

91% 100%

Table 4. Administration

d) Field Experience

Q12 measured the kinds of field experiences in which the students were engaged including outside

work (Table 5).

Field Experience Response Percent

Academic service-learning project 90%

Internship 17%

Graduate assistantship 30%

Part-time employment related to the MS LIS program 53%

Full-time employment related to the MS LIS program 20%

Volunteer work related to the MS LIS program 17%

Table 5. Field Experience

e) Facilities

Q4v asked students to rate the physical facilities for accomplishing the objectives of the MS LIS

program. The 2017 rating average was 1.96 as compared to 1.92 in 2016, where “excellent” = 1.00

and “very good” = 2.00. This question may have more than one interpretation in an online program

and will be revised when the instrument is next reviewed.

9

Summary

Q1 and Q2 identified areas of student interest and program strengths, both of which are important

factors for continued program development and resource allocation. Archival studies and youth services

share the lead as primary intended specializations at 22%. This represents a 7% decrease for archival

studies and a 7% increase for youth services from 2016. Academic librarianship increased 4% to 16% in

2017 and public librarianship remained unchanged at 20%. The decrease in archival studies and the

continued low interest in special librarianship (2%) will be explored more deeply at September’s faculty

meeting.

The significant improvement in Q3 may relate to continued improvements in communications and

program resources. The results of Q4, Q9, and Q11 were consistent with the very positive results of

2016. Of note, the 12% improvement in the rating of administrative and staff support (Q4iv) is evidence

of the positive impact the revised DLIS administrative procedures are having.

Q10 provides input for the faculty discussion on action items within the 2017 – 2018 strategic priorities

in September.

10

Exit Survey

The exit survey was administered to the Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 graduates immediately following

their completion of the degree requirements (Appendix C). The survey asks students to reflect on their

programs of study and answer questions covering five areas: program, interactions, teaching, course

offerings, and resources. The survey questions corresponding to these categories are shown in Table 6.

Of the 25 graduates (Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 combined), 11 responded to the survey, a 44% response

rate. The responses to each question were: “strongly agree”, “agree”, “neutral”, “disagree”, and

“strongly disagree”.

Category Questions Results

Program Q1: Satisfied with the program 100% strongly agree or agree

Q10: Prepared to enter the workforce 100% strongly agree or agree

Q11: Recommend program to others 100% strongly agree or agree

Q12: Choose St. John’s, if decide to continue graduate study

82% strongly agree or agree; 18% neutral

Interactions Q2: Interactions with faculty generally positive

100% strongly agree or agree

Q3: Interactions with fellow students generally positive

91% strongly agree or agree; 9% neutral

Q4: Interactions with office staff generally positive


Q5: Received useful information from faculty advisors


Teaching Q6: Faculty were effective teachers 100% strongly agree or agree

Courses Offered

Q7: Satisfied with the variety of course offerings


Q8: Satisfied with the frequency of course offerings


Resources Q9: Had access to appropriate library resources, software and related technology to support educational needs


Table 6. Closed Questions

Open questions

Q13 through Q16 were open questions which asked students to identify the courses which contributed

the most value (Q13), program strengths (Q14) and weaknesses (Q15), and recommendations to

improve the program (Q16).

The core courses and electives identified in Q13’s responses will be discussed by the faculty at the

September meeting. A representative sample of the responses to Q14, Q15, and Q16 are given in Table

7. See Appendix C for the complete list.

11

Question Response

Q14: Program strengths Communications; Staff and atmosphere; Faculty and instructors; Flexibility of online program; Exposure to a range of technological platforms Academic Service-Learning projects

Q15: Program weaknesses Difficult to interact with faculty; Lack of community; Course offerings should be more frequent

Q16: Recommendations to improve the program

Instructional period each week for faculty – student virtual meetings; Adopt an ePortfolio platform that permits HTML coding; More field-based projects; Ability to meet/shadow SJU librarians; Increase course offerings in Legal Information Professionals specialization; More technology in Legal Information Professionals specialization especially with regard to new low to no cost options being used in the field.

Table 7. Open Questions

Summary

The 2016 – 2017 results show a marked improvement over the 2015 – 2016 results across all the closed

questions. Table 8 compares the results for the “strongly agree or agree” response.

Category Question Strongly Agree or Agree

2016 – 2017 2015 - 2016

Program Q1: Satisfied with the program 100% 88%

Q10: Prepared to enter the workforce 100% 81%

Q11: Recommend program to others 100% 81%


82%

50%

Interactions Q2: Interactions with faculty generally positive 100% 100%


91%

94%


100% 94%


100% 75%

Teaching Q6: Faculty were effective teachers 100% 94%

12

Category Question Strongly Agree or Agree

2016 – 2017 2015 - 2016

Courses Offered


100% 63%

Q8: Satisfied with the frequency of course offerings

100% 75%


100% 94%

Table 8. Comparison of Results

The improved results may be explained in part by enhancements in program planning (two-year course

cycle, advisement process), communications (DLIS Blog, Libguide, part-time faculty orientation),

increased emphasis on improving online pedagogy, and an increase in webinars by St. John’s Career

Services and by information professionals.

The responses to the open questions will inform faculty discussions at the September meeting on the

strategic priorities and respective action items.

13

New Student Survey

Background

The new student survey (Appendix D) is administered at the start of the Fall and Spring terms. The

survey has been administered since Fall 2015, when it was revised from an earlier version that had not

been administered in several years. Note, students cannot begin the MS LIS program in the Summer

term. The survey gathers information on why students chose St. John’s, student demographics, their

professional goals, and asks students to evaluate the student orientation, which is held in August for the

Fall term and January for the Spring term. This section reports on the results of the September 2016 and

January 2017 surveys. The notation “Qn” refers to survey questions.

There are eleven questions on the survey. The questions are categorized as: 1) Choice of St. John’s, 2)

Student Information, and 3) Student Orientation.

Review by Category

1. Choice of St. John’s

Questions Q1, Q2, and Q3 relate to why students chose the MS LIS program at St. John’s. Table 9

presents the results and compares with those from 2015 – 2016.

Question Value 2016-2017

2015-2016

Q1: How did you find out about the St. John’s MS-LIS program?

St. John's University website 57% 47%

American Library Association website/directory 48% 58%

Recommendation from an Alumni of the program and/or librarian 14% 16%

Career counselors in the college where I earned my previous degree 0% 5%

Other (please explain) 19% 16%

Q2: What were your reasons for choosing to pursue your graduate education at this institution? Check all that apply.

Nature of the program and course offerings 86% 86%

Reputation of the school, department, and/or faculty 62% 43%

Availability of funding/scholarship 48% 43%

Location 43% 43%

Recommendation of colleague or family member 14% 43%

Other (please describe) 14% 14%

14

Q3: What was your primary reason for choosing to pursue your graduate education at this institution? Select only one.

2016-2017

2015-2016

Nature of the program and course offerings 40% 32%

Reputation of the school, department, and/or faculty 35% 16%

Availability of funding/scholarship 20% 21%

Location 5% 11%

Recommendation of colleague or family member 0% 5%


Table 9. Choice of St. Johns

In general, the results over the past two years are similar with some notable exceptions. In Q1, new

students report finding out about the program from St. John’s University web site more than any

other source. In 2015 – 2016 the ALA web site/directory was ranked first. In Q2, the “reputation of

the school, department, and/or faculty” increased almost 20% from the 2015 – 2016 result, though

still second to the “nature of the program and course offerings”. The result is consistent in Q3 where

the “reputation of the school, department, and/or faculty” response increased 19% in the 2016 –

2017 survey. The large “Other” results suggest responses to be added in the next revision of the

instrument. New responses include “online search” in Q1, and “online program” and “Catholic

University” in Q2 and Q3.

2. Student Information

Questions Q5 through Q8 gather information on new students including age group, work/activities

immediately prior to starting the program, and full-time/part-time status. Gender and ethnicity data

are collected on graduate applications. This information is provided to DLIS by the Office of

Institutional Research. Table 10 presents the results for Q5, Q6, and Q7 and compares with those

from 2015 – 2016. For clarity, Q8’s results are listed separately in Table 11.


2015-2016

Q5: To which age group do you belong?

25 years or younger 60% 58%

26-40 years 20% 32%

41-55 years 20% 11%

55 or older 0% 0%

Q6: In which of these activities were you engaged immediately prior to entering this program? Please select ALL that apply.

Employed in a field related to information studies 55% 26%

Employed in a field unrelated to information studies 40% 47%

Undergraduate student 35% 26%

Volunteer/community service 10% 32%

Graduate student 5% 37%

Caring for family 5% 26%


15

Q7: What is your current status? 2016-2017

2015-2016

Full-time (9-12 credits/semester) 55% 42%

Part-time (3-6 credits/semester) 45% 58%

Table 10. Student Information

The number of students entering the program (Q5) soon after completing their undergraduate

programs, 60%, is consistent with the results from 2015 – 2016. There appears to be a shift in the

next two age group, 26 – 40 years and 41 – 55 years. The results in 2016 – 2017 show a 12%

decrease in the 26 – 40 years category and a corresponding 9% increase in the 41 – 55 years

category. Given the relatively small numbers of respondents, 20, this represents a shift of only two

students and will have to be tracked over time to observe its significance.

Students employed in a related field (Q6) showed a marked increase of 29% over the 2015 – 2016

result. It is also noteworthy that students volunteering or doing community service declined by 22%

from the previous year. Students working full-time increased (Q7) which may indicate that students

are under greater financial pressure.

Table 11 lists the top five professional goals (Q8) from the 2016 – 2017 surveys and compares with

the same responses in 2015 – 2016. A complete list of Q8’s results is in Appendix D.


2015-2016

Q8: Which of the following professional goals do you see yourself accomplishing in the future? Please select ALL options that apply. In the future I believe I will:

Enjoy a rewarding career 100% 100%

Be a mentor to new information professionals 80% 68%

Volunteer my professional services 40% 47%

Be a high-level manager or executive 40% 37%

Be an innovator and leader in my field 35% 42%

Table 11. Professional Goals

While “rewarding career” and “be a mentor” occupied the same positions over the past two years,

three more students selected “be a mentor” in 2016 – 2017 accounting for the increase to 80%.

Another difference of note is that “be a high-level manager” never made it to the top five in 2015 –

2016. Instead, “publish articles in professional journals” was in the top five in 2015 – 2016 with 42%.

This same response had only a 25% in 2016 – 2017.

3. Student Orientation

Questions Q4, Q9, Q10, and Q11 requested feedback from new students on the student orientation.

Q4 and Q9 results are in Table 12. Q4 was a new question in 2016 – 2017, and Q9 was added in

Spring 2016. Q10 and Q11 were open questions.

16


Spring 2016

Q4: How did you attend New Student Orientation?

Online (synchronously) 20%

In person 55%

I didn't attend, watched recording 25%

Q9: How useful was the New Student Orientation?

Very Useful 30% 57%

Useful 70% 43%

Not Useful 0% 0%

Table 12. Student Orientation

Q10 asked for the part of the orientation which students found most helpful and Q11 asked for

suggestions for improving the orientation. The response rate for Q10 was 48% and the areas

identified were:

Meeting the faculty and other students

Learning how online classes are conducted

Exploring the DLIS blog and Libguide

Getting information on the ePortfolio

The response rate for Q11 was 29%. The suggestions for improving the orientation are represented

by:

How to find system information, e.g. accessing St. John’s email account

Improve the sound quality of the recording

Include a visit to the University Library or classrooms

Improve the organization and clarity in the online orientation (LIS 270)

Summary

2016 – 2017 was the second year the new student survey was administered. With the 2015 – 2016

results serving as a benchmark, this year’s results begin to provide valuable information for marketing

the MS LIS program, understanding our students, and improving the orientations.

The St. John’s University’s web site and the ALA web site/directory continue to dominate as the means

prospective students use to find out about the MS LIS program (Q1). This underscores the importance of

continuing to improve the St. John’s web site and DLIS blog. While the nature of the program and course

offerings leads the reasons (Q2) and primary reason (Q3) for choosing St. John’s, the second response

“reputation of the school, department, and/or faculty” increased by 19% in Q2 and Q3 over last year.

This calls attention to DLIS initiatives to exhibit at professional conferences, encourage faculty

conference presentations, and build relationships with our community.

17

The percentage of students entering the program soon after completing their undergraduate programs

(Q5) remains unchanged, but the percentage of older (ages 41-55) students has increased and the in-

between group (ages 26-40) has decreased. The number of students “employed in a field related to

information studies” (Q6) increased by 19% and those working full-time (Q7) increased by 13%. This may

indicate that students are interested in enhancing their current career path.

While 100% of the student responses found the student orientation “useful” or “very useful” (Q9), the

percentage who found it “very useful” decreased significantly and will prompt revisions in the Fall 2017

student orientation. Q10 and Q11 responses will contribute to this effort.

18

ePortfolio Assessment

Background

The ePortfolio replaced the comprehensive exam in Spring 2013 as the end-of-program assessment for

the MS LIS program. The main section in the ePortfolio covers the eight program goals (Appendix N),

which are based on the eight core competencies3 of the American Library Association (ALA). In this

section students provide evidence from their coursework (i.e. assignments and projects) and write

reflections for each goal explaining how their learning from the evidence satisfies the respective

program goal. Each ePortfolio is reviewed independently by two DLIS faculty. The minimum grade to

“pass” the ePortfolio assessment is 80%. If the outcomes (Pass/Fail) from the two reviewers differ, a

third faculty member is assigned by the Director to review the ePortfolio and render a decision. E-

Portfolio reviews coincide with the annual graduation cycle – Summer, Fall, Spring. Digication is the

platform used by the students to create their ePortfolios.

Summary

The results since inception are summarized in Table 13. An academic year in the table consists of all

reviews in that year’s graduation cycle.

The overall pass rate, 97.6%, is close to the target pass rate of 100%, and an improvement over the 2016

overall rate of 96.8% (Table 14). Since 2013, only three students have failed, of the 125 reviews. The

average difference statistic (Ave Diff) measures the consistency of the grading of the two reviewers. A

high Ave Diff statistic may indicate different expectations among the faculty. The overall Ave Diff is 6.27,

which is an improvement over 2016’s 6.68. In addition, the Spring 2017 term had the lowest Ave Diff

statistic, 3.51, since reviews began in 2013. The 2016 – 2017 academic year also had the lowest Ave Diff,

5.0, since 2013. This past year, the reviews and the rubric were discussed at the faculty meeting

immediately following each evaluation. Previously this discussion was done at the September meeting

only. This change and the existing policy listed below contributed towards the ongoing improvement in

the ePortfolio evaluation process and the passing rate.

1) Students are introduced to the e-portfolio in the very beginning of the program, at the new

student orientation.

2) Workshops on the e-portfolio and the technology platform, Digication, are offered each

semester.

3) Assignments in two core courses provide practice in using Digication.

4) The assessment rubric is made available to the students.

3http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/careers/corecomp/corecompe

tences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf



19

2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014 Spring 2013

Total 30 24 31 18 22

Total passed 30 22 31 17 22

Pass rate 100% 92% 100% 94% 100%

Average (all portfolios)

93% 93% 93% 89% 93.1

Average (wo failures)

93% 95% 93% 92% 93.1

Ave Diff 5.0 5.3 7.5 8.5 5.5

Table 13. ePortfolio Summary

2013-2017 2013-2016

Total 12530 95

Total passed 1220 92

Pass rate 97.6% 96.8%

Ave Diff 6.27 6.68

Table 14. Overall Statistics

Feedback from students, faculty, alumni, and information professionals at meetings and conferences

confirm the value of the ePortfolio as a measure of student learning, program assessment, and job

search.

The rubric is reviewed each year and fine-tuned as necessary to improve the clarity for students and

improve the accuracy of grades assigned by the faculty. While no substantive changes have been made

in the rubric since its introduction in 2013, any such change would apply to students entering the term

following the change. Current students would be assessed using the original rubric.

20

Alumni Survey

Background. This is the second year the alumni survey was administered (Appendix E). This survey is

distributed to alumni two years after graduation for their feedback on the quality of the MS LIS program,

the preparation received for their career, and suggestions for improving the program. The design of the

survey closely follows that of the exit survey administered to students upon graduation. The 2017

participants were alumni who graduated in the 2014-2015 academic year (i.e. Summer 2014, Fall 2014,

and May 2015).

The survey asks alumni to reflect on their respective programs of study and answer questions covering

five areas: program, interactions, teaching, courses offered, and resources. The questions corresponding

to these categories are shown in Table 15. Of the 24 alumni to whom the survey was emailed, 13

responded to the survey, a 54% response rate. The responses to each question were: “strongly agree”,

“agree”, “neutral”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”.

Category Questions Results

Program Q1: Satisfied with the program 62% strongly agree or agree; 31% neutral; 8% disagree

Q9: Prepared to enter the workforce 64% strongly agree or agree 9% neutral; 27% disagree or strongly disagree

Q11: Field experience (AS-L, internships, ind studies) contributed towards employment

27% strongly agree or agree 36% neutral; 36% disagree or strongly disagree

Q12: Recommend program to others 64% strongly agree or agree 27% neutral; 9% strongly disagree


36% strongly agree or agree 46% neutral; 18% strongly disagree

Interactions Q2: Interactions with faculty generally positive

92% strongly agree or agree 8% disagree


83% strongly agree or agree 8% neutral; 8% disagree




58% strongly agree or agree; 25% neutral; 17% disagree or strongly disagree

Teaching Q6: Faculty were effective teachers 92% strongly agree or agree 8% disagree

21

Courses Offered


50% strongly agree or agree 25% neutral; 25% disagree or strongly disagree



Table 15. Closed Questions

Open Questions

Q10, Q14, Q15, Q16, and Q17 were open questions and are described here briefly. See Appendix E for a

complete listing of the responses.

Q10 asked respondents to identify skills needed after graduation and how these skills were acquired.

Responses included integrated library systems, outreach skills, cataloging, reader’s advisory, and public

library programming. The ALA, their employer, and job experience were where the skills were acquired.

Q14 asked respondents for the courses which contributed the most value to their program of study. The

core courses, Information Organization, Information Sources and Services and Research Methods, were

identified. Elective courses – Information Literacy, Metadata, Grantsmanship, Archival Representation,

Web Design, Archives and Manuscripts, Collection Development, and Library Services to Children and

Young Adults – were also mentioned. Q14 responses will be monitored as courses in the program are

periodically assessed.

Q15 asked respondents to identify the major strengths of the program. Strengths listed include the

program’s online mode, the laptop program, availability and responsiveness of faculty, and St. John’s

Office of Career Services.

Q16 asked respondents to identify the major weaknesses of the program. Weaknesses listed include the

lack of engagement with students, lack of preparation for the job market, the online learning

environment, and too much focus on group projects.

Q17 asked respondents for recommendations to improve the program. Improving online learning,

offering a wider range of courses, and improving student engagement were mentioned.

Summary

There are noteworthy differences between the results from last year’s alumni survey (2013-2014

graduates) and this year’s (2014-2015 graduates). With respect to questions related to the program

category, results were down consistently (Table 16).

Questions in the Interactions category and Courses Offered category experienced similar declines. There

were no significant changes in the Teaching category and Resources category. DLIS underwent a major

transition in 2014. The University offered a voluntary separation offer to faculty, administrators, and

staff in June 2014. As a result, the director, assistant director, and secretary of DLIS retired, and one

faculty member retired. The 2014-2015 graduates bridge this difficult transition to a new administrative

22

team and a year when additional adjunct faculty had to be hired to cover courses while the faculty

search was underway. This coupled with a tighter job market may account for the poorer results.

Questions 2014-2015 Graduates 2013-2014 Graduates

Q1: Satisfied with the program 62% strongly agree or agree


Q9: Prepared to enter the workforce 64% strongly agree or agree


Q11: Field experience (AS-L, internships, ind studies) contributed towards employment



Q12: Recommend program to others 64% strongly agree or agree





Table 16. Program Category Comparison

A revised assessment plan was approved by the DLIS faculty in March 2015 which includes new

measures for incorporating feedback from all constituents – students, faculty, alumni, and employers.

Since the Spring 2015 term, the ongoing assessments and reconstituted Advisory Board have led to

changes which relate to the comments / suggestions in the open questions. For example, course

offerings have improved with the new two-year cycle for planning. Online Learning pedagogy is now

introduced in a revised online orientation program for new students. Finally, the new student

organization DLISSA has been the focal point for increasing student engagement outside the curriculum.

This sample is indicative of the effort placed by DLIS on ensuring students have the necessary skills for

the evolving marketplace. DLIS remains committed to monitoring this measure and considering future

results in revisions of the strategic priorities which guide program improvements.

23

Advisory Board Meeting Summary

Date: May 12, 2017

Location: Queens Campus, D’Angelo Activity Center 416C

Prepared by: James Vorbach, Ph. D.

Attendees: Kathryn Baumgartner, Susan Berdinka, Michael Crossfox, Taina Evans, Caroline Fuchs, Shari

Lee, Michelle Levy, Ralph Monaco, Michael Morea, Blythe Roveland-Brenton, Rajesh Singh, Anthony

Todman, James Vorbach (See Appendix F for list of all Board members)

INTRODUCTION

The meeting began with a welcome statement by James Vorbach, DLIS Director, and introductions by

each board member. Dr. Vorbach reviewed the agenda, which consisted of three sessions:

1. Program update

2. Breakout session for small group discussion

3. General discussion with the entire board

The first session focused on the 2016 – 2017 Strategic Priorities and their implementation (Appendix A).

The breakout session discussed four topics in small groups. Three of the four topics came from the

planning survey (Appendix G) completed by board members in advance of the meeting. The fourth topic

asked members for feedback on the program’s mission statement (Appendix H). The general discussion

began with the recorders for each of the four topics summarizing the small-group discussions. A

discussion ensued after each recorder’s summary. The sessions concluded with a brief discussion of

topics on the planning survey which were not selected for the breakout session.

SUMMARY

Program Update

The 2016 – 2017 Strategic Priorities (SP16-17) were developed from the results of the action steps in the

2015 – 2016 Strategic Plan and a review the 2015 – 2016 assessment measures. SP16-17 was approved

by the faculty on August 30, 2016. This session reviewed the implementation of the action steps in SP16-

17 and responded to questions from the Board. The highlights were:

Increased student participation in professional conferences, presentations, and publications

Improved DLIS Student Association (DLISSA) webinar series which had presentations by

information professionals (both alumni and non-alumni), faculty on the Digication (ePortfolio

platform) and study abroad opportunities, and St. John’s Career Services.

New Certificate in Management for Information Professionals, approved by New York State

Education Department (NYSED) in January 2017.

New DLIS recruitment plan, to be completed in Summer 2017.

Appendix A has more detail on the implementation of SP16-17’s action items.

James Vorbach shared with the Board the enrollment (Appendix J) and geographic distribution

(Appendix K) statistics. This information was requested at the 2016 Board Meeting and will be provided

going forward.

24

Breakout Session

The Board planning committee met on March 10th (Appendix I) and decided to invite Board feedback on

topics for the breakout session. A survey consisting of five topics (Appendix G) was distributed to the

Board via email on April 20th. The top three topics were included in the breakout session and are listed

below:

How to best prepare students to be competitive in today’s job market?

How best to teach soft skills (e.g. email protocol, resume writing, cover letters, group discussion,

organizing/chairing a meeting, etc.) to graduate students in the MS LIS program?

Update/redesign of LIS 211 Collection Development and Management of Knowledge Resources

(next offered in Spring 2018).

In addition, a fourth topic was added by DLIS to get feedback from the Board on revising the MS LIS

Mission Statement (Appendix H).

Three members (Kat Baumgartner, Michael Crossfox, and James Vorbach) volunteered as recorders for

the topics and the remaining members divided in three groups. It was decided in advance to have the

revision of LIS 211 discussed by the entire Board. The three groups discussed one of the three remaining

topics for twenty minutes before moving to the next topic. A recorder stayed with each topic taking

notes, permitting subsequent groups to build on earlier comments. After this phase, the Board reformed

and the revision of LIS 211 was discussed. Notes were taken by Michael Crossfox.

General Discussion

The recorders summarized the comments on each of the topics. A discussion followed each respective

summary.

The highlights of the discussion on how to best prepare students to be competitive in today’s job market

were:

1. Be open to change; be flexible; technology will continue to evolve and this opens doors to

improving work processes, if recognized.

2. Learn ‘soft’ skills such as how to write resumes, CVs, cover letters, etc.

3. Understand what the needed skills are for particular careers, e.g. perform a content analysis on

job announcements and related materials.

4. Understand how the skills learned in courses can be applied in the marketplace.

5. Get involved in professional organizations, present at professional conferences, do internships.

6. Practice building effective presentations within the curriculum, for professional meetings.

7. Participate in "mock" job talks, taking both the interviewer and interviewee roles.

8. Leverage student orientations to communicate valued skills for jobs.

9. Engage in self-assessment; how is the audience receiving your presentation.

10. Include market research in communications with students.

25

The highlights of the discussion on how best to teach soft skills were:

1. Define soft skills beyond resume/cover letter/group work: Collegiality, communication,

leadership and management, knowing how to disseminate information to underserved

populations, body language, how to engage people, diplomacy, respect, reference and interview

skills. In sum, what does it mean to be a professional in this field?

2. There is an 18 month leadership cohort run by St. John’s University’s Office of Human Resources

(HR) in which participants learn how to manage people, among other leadership skills. DLIS

could use this idea - possibly with assistance from HR, the Office of Student Life, or an outside

consultant - to host a related web-based discussion.

3. These skills can be embedded in courses requiring group projects, e.g. provide students with

written guidelines on how to facilitate meetings, take minutes, assign roles for group members

to take on, etc. This may help to make connections between theory and practice.

4. A no credit or one credit requirement can be the vehicle to teach these skills.

5. Partnering with St. John’s Office of Career Services and DLIS alumni, a webinar can be designed

to cover “soft skills in the field”. The webinar can provide both general guidelines and library-

specific guidelines. Examples of ‘good’ resumes and cover letters from students in DLIS can be

posted with permission.

6. A webinar could cover the importance of performing background research on the organization

to which students are applying for a job, and include guidelines for customizing cover letters and

resumes to the open position and organization.

7. Encourage conversations about ’soft’ skills to help make students more aware/conscious of

them; incorporate in existing events or webinars.

8. Incorporate multi-modal discussions (VoiceThread, written, etc.) in courses; incorporate point-

of-use training in which support is provided on new technologies; don't just introduce

technology and then leave students to figure it out.

9. Include ‘how to look for a job and find one’ as a ‘soft’ skill, because the pathways for academic,

public, special librarianship, etc. are all so different.

The content areas which should be included in the redesign of LIS 211 Collection Development and

Management of Knowledge Resources were:

1. Licensing databases and ebooks: the legalities

2. Data-supported and statistics-based collection management

3. Creating accessible collections

4. Creating accession policies for archives

5. Management of media and streaming

6. Collection management software: CollectionHQ and various ILSs

7. Creating collection development policies regarding

o print vs. non-print

o acquisition vs. deacquisition

o items owned vs items “on the clock”

o access rules

o donations/gifts

26

8. Vendor relationship management

9. Vendor-driven vs. user-driven acquisitions

10. Digital Asset Management (DAM)

11. Library-driven content creation

Board members were provided with the MS LIS Mission Statement (Appendix H) to review. The

statement is repeated here to give context for the highlights of the discussion which follow.

MS LIS Mission Statement (revised 2009)

The program’s mission is to serve the people and organizations of the New York Metropolitan area and

the wider community by:

Preparing and enabling outstanding librarians and other information professionals who will lead

the profession forward in providing access to information where, when, and how people need

and require it;

Researching and publishing about issues in the profession; and

Serving, particularly the underserved.

The highlights of the discussion on revising the MS LIS Mission Statement were:

1. Add phrase about ethics

2. Add population "underserved" to geography:

a. First and second bullets are tasks;

b. Third bullet should be skills

3. Add phrases like "information ecosystem," "assess," "determine/discern"

4. First clause should be about students, not NY.

5. Add phrase "addressing changes and challenges of information environment"

6. DLIS is an online program, why reference NYC?

7. Map to SJU mission statement: Vincentian, Catholic (social justice teaching), Global

8. Add phrase "Lifetime of learning”; this is only the beginning

9. Who is this for? Public? Prospective students? Faculty? Alumni?

10. Emphasize participation in field: "advancing publication, professional associations, and

leadership"

11. Needs an attention-grabbing summary/hook

12. Add keywords "knowledge," "forward-thinking," "curiosity/investigation"

13. Ditch "researching/publishing"

14. How do you say "underserved" another way?

15. Instill sense of inclusiveness; service to all "populations”, "communities”, "access", "facilitate"

16. Drop "librarians"; the program has multiple outcomes; the mission should be broader in scope;

librarians are information professionals.

17. Cite the larger institutional mission statement; do not paraphrase the St. John’s mission, e.g.

“serving the underserved”.

18. Add phrase "engaging in the profession".

19. Too much "serving," how about "informing," "educating," "instructing," "guiding".

27

CONCLUSION

DLIS will revise the student orientation on August 23rd, incorporating elements of the job market and

soft skills discussions. The Board’s comments will be discussed at length at the faculty meeting on

September 5th. With regards to revising the Program Mission Statement, the Board members’ feedback

as well as the students’ feedback from the student survey will contribute to that discussion at the

September 5th meeting. In addition, DLIS will request a committee of board members be formed to help

implement the recommendations for the redesign of LIS 211 Collection Development and Management

of Knowledge Resources.

28

Advisory Board for the Certificate in Management for Information Professionals

Date: January 24, 2017, 4:00pm – 5:00pm

Summary. Formerly called the Law Librarianship Advisory Board, this body advises DLIS on the

Certificate in Management for Information Professionals (CMIP). This Board was instrumental in the

development of this advanced certificate. This meeting followed the approval of the advanced

certificate by the New York State Education Department. The agenda for the meeting was threefold:

1) Approving a CMIP course offering cycle

2) Developing a plan for promoting CMIP

3) Recruiting part-time instructors for CMIP courses

The outcomes of the meeting were a course offering cycle and identifying an instructor for LIS 282

Knowledge Management in Spring 2018. A plan for promoting the program is dependent on the

advertising budget in fiscal year 2018 which began June 1st. In light of the new Excelsior Scholarship in

New York State, advertising budgets may be drastically cut. We are formulating ideas for a low cost

backup plan which will be discussed at the next meeting.

Members

Elaine Egan – Shearman and Sterling LLP

Alirio Gomez – Director of Library and Information Science, Milbank Tweed

Ralph Monaco, Executive Director, New York Law Institute (retired) and Adjunct Assistant

Professor, DLIS, St John’s University

Jean O’Grady – Director of Research Services – DlaPiper

Stacy Posillico, Medical Librarian, Northwell Health Systems

Taryn Rucinski, Branch Librarian, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Dr. Rajesh Singh – Assistant Professor, DLIS, St John’s University

Dr. James Vorbach – Director and Associate Professor, DLIS, St John’s University

29

Employer Survey

Background. This was the first year the employer survey was administered. This survey instrument was

designed at the Advisory Board Planning Meeting (March 12, 2017), subsequently revised and

distributed in May. To reach a wide range of employers, the survey was posted on several professional

organization listservs, in addition to being distributed over DLIS’ public library director list. The plan is to

administer the survey every two years. The notation “Qn” is used to refer to survey questions.

Results. The survey focused on three areas: general skills, specialized skills, and for those employing St.

John’s graduates, how they compare with graduates from other LIS Schools. Employers were asked to

provide a job title in Q1 and to use this job as the context for the questions which followed.

Table 17 lists the top 5 general skills (Q2) based on relevance to the job in Q1. The maximum rating

average is 5.00 (where 1=Not at all, 2=Not very, 3=Somewhat, 4=Very, and 5=Extremely). The response

count was 30. See Appendix L for the complete list of responses. Q3 asked employers to comment on

the general skills. These responses included additional ‘skills’ such as: common sense, self-starter, being

flexibility and open minded, and the ability to communicate with patrons who are mentally ill or

developmental disabled.

Answer Options Very Relevant Extremely Relevant Rating Average

Oral/written communication 5 25 4.83

Listening to others 5 25 4.83

Customer Service 6 24 4.80

Teamwork (interpersonal relationships) 4 25 4.80

Understanding of professional ethics 4 24 4.73

Table 17. Top 5 General Skills

Table 18 lists the top 5 specialized skills based on relevance (Q4). The maximum rating average is 5.00

(where 1=Not at all, 2=Not very, 3=Somewhat, 4=Very, and 5=Extremely). The response count was 29.

There were only two responses to Q5, comments on specialized skills. One comment underscored the

importance of time management, project management, and setting and achieving goals. The second was

not within the scope of the question.

When asked whether the respondent was aware of the firm having a St. John’s graduate employed (Q6)

in the job in Q1, 21% answered “yes” and 79% “no” or “not sure”. Those answering “yes” were then

asked to compare St. John’s graduates with those employed from other LIS programs. Table 19 lists the

results. The ratings are 1=Disagree, 2=Neutral, and 3=Agree. The response count was six.

30

Answer Options Somewhat Relevant

Very Relevant

Extremely Relevant

Rating Average

Ability to set goals and manage time to achieve them

1 12 15 4.41

Ability to translate theory into practice 7 8 12 4.03

Project management 10 12 6 3.79

Marketing and advocacy 14 7 6 3.59

Management of resources (budgets, subordinates, etc.)

12 7 5 3.34

Table 18. Top 5 Specialized Skills

Answer Options Disagree Neutral Agree Rating Average

St. John's grads are NOT AS prepared as those from other LIS programs.

5 1 0 1.17

St. John's grads compare FAVORABLY to those from other LIS programs.

0 1 5 2.83

St. John's grads are BETTER prepared than those from other LIS programs.

0 4 2 2.33

Table 19. Comparison with other LIS Programs

Summary

The general skills show a consensus across the LIS jobs identified in Q1. Seven of twelve skills were rated

“extremely relevant”, four were rated “very relevant”, and only one was rated “somewhat relevant”.

With regards to the specialized skills (Q4), one, “ability to set goals and manage time to achieve them”

was close to an “extremely relevant” average rating at 4.41, three were “very relevant” and five were

“somewhat relevant” or less. The relevance rating of the specialized skills may depend on the job. This

will require further study of the individual responses to the survey to relate job (Q1) and specialized

skills.

The comparison between St. John’s graduates and those from other LIS programs was clearly favorable

(Q7). This provides a useful benchmark for going forward. The three comments made on Q7 identified

another school for comparison, supported the e-portfolio as the end-of-program assessment, and

articulated that St. John’s graduates “are superior to those from other schools”.

31

Course Artifact Assessment

Over a four year period each course in the MS LIS program is assessed to determine how well students

are learning the program goals corresponding to the course. The core courses will be assessed every two

years beginning in 2019. Three years into this assessment measure we have experienced delays due to

the learning curve. This has resulted in DLIS holding off implementing the two-year cycle for the core

courses. We believe by 2019 we will be able to maintain a two-year cycle for the core and a four-year

cycle for the electives.

At the beginning of the term, the courses to be assessed are assigned by the Director. The assignment is

made such that a faculty member has to assess no more than one course. For each course, the

instructor selects one artifact (e.g. assignment, exam, or semester project) as a representative measure

for the course’s related program goals. At the end of the course, the instructor completes a form

describing the class’ performance, reviewing the artifact’s role as a measure, and the resulting changes

planned to improve the course. Sample artifacts with their respective reviews are included as well.

Spring 2015 was the first use of this form of assessment. The form (Appendix M) was revised in February

2017 to include the course description, a description of the artifact, and to require comments. Table 20

indicates the status of course assessment including the schedule for upcoming reviews.

Course Code

Course Name Program Goals & Outcomes

Faculty Reviewed/ Review Scheduled

Next Review

CORE

LIS 203 Organization of Information 3A, 3B Angel Spring 2015 Spring 2019

LIS 204 Introduction to Library and Information Science

1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, 2A, 2B, 3A, 5A, 7A

Rioux Fall 2015 Fall 2019

LIS 205 Introduction to Information Sources and Services

1A, 4A, 5A, 5B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B

Lee Fall 2015 Fall 2019

LIS 239 Research and Evaluation Methods 1A, 1B, 1D, 3A, 6A Singh Fall 2015 Fall 2019

MANAGEMENT

LIS 240 Management of Libraries and Information Centers

1A, 1D, 4A, 5C, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B

Singh Spring 2016 Spring 2020

LIS 243 Law Library Administration 8A, 8B Monaco Fall 2017 Fall 2021

ELECTIVES

LIS 121 Literature & Related Resources for Children

2B, 7A Lee Fall 2016 Fall 2020

LIS 125 Library Materials and Services for Young Children

2B, 4A Lee Spring 2015 Spring 2019

LIS 126 Literature & Related Resources for Young Adults

2B, 7A Lee Fall 2018 Fall 2022

LIS 127 Library Programs & Services for Children and Young Adults

2B, 4A, 7A, 8A, 8B Lee Spring 2016 Spring 2020

32

Course Code



Next Review

LIS 211 Collection Development 1A, 2A, 2B, 3A, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6A, 8A, 8B

Rioux Spring 2018 Spring 2022

LIS 213 Popular Culture and Young Adults 2B, 4A, 8B Lee Summer 2018

2022

LIS 221 Planning and Delivering Information Literacy Programs

5B, 5C, 7A, 7B King Spring 2017 Spring 2021

LIS 222 Materials and Services to Diverse Populations

1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 5B, 5C, 7A, 7B


LIS 230 Introduction to Digital Libraries 1B, 1D, 3A, 3B, 4A, 5B

Angel Fall 2019 Fall 2023

LIS 231 College and University Libraries 8A, 8B Rioux Spring 2016 Spring 2020

LIS 232 Special Libraries and Information Centers

8A, 8B TBA

LIS 233 Public Libraries and Community Information Centers

8A, 8B Rioux Spring 2017 Spring 2021

LIS 237 Metadata for Information Professionals 1A, 1D, 3A, 3B Vorbach Fall 2017 Fall 2021

LIS 238 Web Design for Libraries and Information Centers

4A Vorbach Spring 2015 Spring 2019

LIS 245 Special Collections Librarianship and History of the Book: Principles and Practice

2A, 2B, 3A, 8B Roveland-Brenton

Fall 2016 Fall 2020

LIS 248 Database Modeling and Design 3A, 3B, 4A Vorbach Fall 2016 Fall 2020

LIS 249 Archives and Records Management 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B, 5C, 7B


LIS 253 Oral History 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Szylvian Spring 2018 Spring 2022

LIS 254 Legal Research 6A Monaco Fall 2016 Fall 2020

LIS 255 Advanced Legal Research 6A Monaco Spring 2017 Spring 2021

LIS 257 Archival Representation 1C, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 5A, 5B, 8B


LIS 258 Museum Informatics 3A, 3B, 4A Angel Spring 2017 Spring 2021

LIS 260 Information Use and Users 1B, 1D, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6A, 7B, 8B


LIS 261 Information Sources and Services for Children and Young Adults

2B, 4A, 5A, 5C, 7B Lee/ Seymour

Fall 2017 Fall 2021

LIS 262 Project Management in Information Organizations

1D, 5C, 8A, 8B Singh Fall 2017 Fall 2022

LIS 263 Marketing and Advocacy in Information Organizations

1B, 1D, 5C, 8A, 8B Singh Spring 2018 Spring 2022

LIS 264 Project Leadership for Information Professionals Capstone

1A, 1D, 5C, 7A, 8A, 8B

Singh Summer 2018

2022

LIS 269 Internship (269-3cr; 269A-school adult; 269B-1cr; 269C-school children; 269D-2cr; 269E- 0cr)

7A, 7B all faculty NA NA

LIS 271 Special Topics: Teen Space 1A, 1B, 1C, 4A Lee

33

Course Code



Next Review

LIS 271 Special Topics: Graphic Novels in Libraries

1A, 1B, 2B, 5B, 8B Fuchs Summer 2017

2021

LIS 271 Special Topics: Grantsmanship – Fundraising for Librarians

1A, 1D, 8A, 8B Zabriskie Spring 2017 Spring 2021

LIS 271 Special Topics: Library Design Glasman Summer 2018

2022

LIS 272 Exploring New York Libraries, Archives, and Museums

1A, 7A Adams Summer 2017

LIS 281 Competitive Intelligence 3A, 4A, 6A TBA

LIS 282 Knowledge Management 2A, 2B, 8A, 8B Singh Spring 2018

LIS 283 Social Justice and the Information Profession

1A, 1B, 1D, 2B, 4A, 5B, 5C

Rioux Spring 2019

LIS 302 Genealogical Sources & Services 3A, 4A, 5A, 5B, 5C Earle Summer 2018

Table 20. Curriculum Map to Program Goals & Course Artifact Assessment

Summary

At the end of Summer 2017, 43% of all MS LIS courses will have had course artifacts assessed with

respect to the corresponding program goals and outcomes (Appendix N).

34

Appendix

A. Strategic Priorities 2016 – 2017: Implementation of Action Items

1. Develop and promote activities which engage students both professionally and socially.

Action Items

a) Develop lectures, forums, and workshops which will engage students on a regular basis with

particular consideration for the online student. Involve the DLIS Student Association

(DLISSA) in the planning of such events. One suggestion in the student survey was a

workshop on ‘hard’ skills such as the Dewey Decimal System. Another suggestion from the

advisory board was to include negotiating skills, contracts, and vendor relations.

b) Encourage students to participate in professional conferences by presenting papers,

posters, and by serving on committees. This past year students attended the ALA Annual

conference, presented at the SUNYLA and LI PopCon conferences, and attended the SLA

Annual conference. In addition, the NYLA, ACRL/NY, and METRO will be promoted.

c) Increase effort to inform students of financial support available for conference travel.

Steps Taken

a) In coordination with DLIS, DLISSA organized a series of webinars featuring presentations by

alumni and career services. One faculty member, Dr. Shari Lee, presented one webinar on a

study abroad opportunity. Dr. Christine Angel and Michael Crossfox presented the

ePortfolio-Digication webinar each term. DLISSA also organized the 2nd Annual LIS Student

Symposium (Apr 22, 2017) on St. John’s Manhattan campus.

b) The 2nd Annual Brother Corry Social Justice lecture (Nov 16, 2016) was given by alumna Kate

Angell. The talk was entitled Teaching Students to Critique and Question Authority: A Social

Justice Approach to Library Instruction. In a review at the following faculty meeting, the

decision was made to change the format to that of a roundtable to facilitate more

participant engagement and discussion.

c) The William A. Gillard Lecture (March 28, 2017) was given by alumna Jean O’Grady. The

lecture filled the venue D’Angelo 416A. The talk was entitled Has the Librarian-Ship Sailed? –

Redefining the Profession in a Post-Google World.

d) Table 21 list the students who presented at professional conferences or had papers

accepted for publication.

Name Conference/Prof Organization

Participation SJC Travel Award

Sara Alcorn, Laura Dellova

IASSIST 2017 (5/23-26/2017)

Pecha Kucha presentation No

Lindsay Jankovitz, Rajesh Singh

Advances in Library Administration & Organization (ALAO)

Chapter proposal accepted for publication in Project Management volume

Maddy Vericker

ACRL-NY 2016 (12/2/2016

Poster presentation Yes

Name Conference/Prof Participation SJC Travel

35

Organization Award

Melissa Aaronberg

Conf on Inclusion and

Diversity in Lib &

Information Science

(10/21/2016)

Paper presentation Yes

Michael Bartolomeo, Ariana Kaleta

SUNYLA 2017 (6/14-16/2017)

Conference presentation Yes

Pam Griffin-Hansen

SCLA 2016 (11/9-11/2016)

Poster presentation Yes

Sara Alcorn NYLA 2016 (11/2-5/2016)

Pecha Kucha presentation Yes

Table 21. Student Professional Conference Presentations or Publications

e) Table 22 lists the students who assisted/will assist at the DLIS exhibit table at professional

conferences.

Name Conference

Michael Bartolomeo, Megan Smead, and Maddy Vericker

New York Library Association Annual Conference (NYLA 2016), November 2-5, 2016

Kathryn Baumgartner, Ariana Kaleta

Connecticut Library Association Annual Conference (CLA 2017), May 4-5, 2017

Kathryn Baumgartner, Sarah West

American Library Association Annual Conference (ALA 2017), June 22-27, 2017

Table 22. Students Assisting DLIS at Professional Conferences

2. Increase participation of alumni in DLIS programs and events to strengthen the relationship

between alumni and DLIS students and faculty.

Action Items

a) Encourage participation in the mentorship program which DLIS started last year.

b) Facilitate the creation of a DLIS Alumni Executive Board to plan and implement professional

activities, and manage the Alumni online presence.

Steps Taken

a) Student requests for a mentor are few. DLIS will emphasize this opportunity more at student

orientations at the start of each term.

b) Alumni presentations via DLISSA webinars this past year were very encouraging.

c) DLIS continues to promote events to alumni via the dlis-alumni weekly email digest. The

attendance at the 2017 Gillard Lecture exceeded expectations.

36

3. Develop a marketing and recruitment plan.

Action Item

a) Develop a comprehensive marketing and recruitment plan which will guide efforts to

promote the MS LIS program, and organize communications to prospective and accepted

students. Continue to improve the web site, blog, and promotional emails, as part of a

comprehensive plan that will serve as a framework for developing new approaches and

assessing progress.

Steps Taken

a) DLIS drafted a recruitment plan which organizes tactics adopted since the Fall 2014 term.

The purpose of the plan is to construct a strategic framework to promote the Master of

Science in Library and Information Science (MS LIS) to the local, regional, and national

community.

b) DLIS communications employ six platforms: St. John’s web site, DLIS blog, Libguide,

newsletter, weekly email digest, and social media. A communications strategy describing

each platform should be completed by September 1, 2017.

4. Strengthen the curriculum by creating new programs and refine existing programs informed by

the information needs of the evolving marketplace.

Action Items

a) Complete the development of the five courses in the Certificate in Management for

Information Professionals (CMIP) program.

b) Submit a proposal for a new Certificate in Digital Curation and Stewardship program in

collaboration with the Department of History and the Department of Art and Design.

c) Reconceptualize LIS 211 Collection Development to reflect the current trends in the

information professions.

Steps Taken

a) The Certificate in Management for Information Professionals (CMIP) program was approved

by NYSED in January 2017. Funds for promoting the new certificate should be available June

1, the start of FY18. The goal is to have an enrollment of ten for the Spring 2018 term.

b) A preliminary proposal for the new Certificate in Digital Curation and Stewardship was

approved by the Dean’s Council. A market analysis still needs to be performed. The goal is to

complete the program development in the 2017-2018 academic year.

c) LIS 211 will be redesigned to reflect the current state of collection management in the field.

The plan is to have the new design completed by Spring 2018, the next time the course will

be offered.

37

5. Prepare students to be competitive in today’s job market.

Action Items

a) Provide innovative field experiences and high-impact practices in the curriculum, such as

academic service-learning (AS-L), internships, independent study courses, applied projects,

study abroad, and capstone courses.

b) Prepare students for launching their careers by utilizing St. John’s Career Services, DLIS’

Alumni network, and DLISSA to prepare students for the job search.

c) Revise the student and host supervisor internship evaluations.

Steps Taken

a) Increased emphasis on field experiences at student orientations and in the weekly digest.

New DLISSA webinar on the study abroad opportunity in Jamaica. Leadership capstone

course culminates the new 15 credit online certificate program CMIP.

b) Three DLISSA webinars focused on the job market. The webinar presenters were St. John’s

Career Services staff, a DLIS Alumni panel, and a panel of library professionals.

c) The student and host supervisor evaluation forms have been redesigned in Survey Monkey.

This will enable annual statistical reporting and allow DLIS to more easily track internship

experiences over time.

6. Engage faculty in a departmental initiative to improve online teaching.

Action Items

a) Create guidelines for instructors teaching online, in collaboration with the Office of Online

Learning and Services, to improve consistency among courses.

b) Establish a dialog with part-time faculty with the goal of improving the effectiveness of

online learning.

c) Provide ongoing support and training for faculty.

Steps Taken

a) DLIS and the Office of Online Learning and Services are developing a guideline for instructors

teaching courses in the online MS LIS program. The guideline will include protocols for

ongoing support and training. The goal is to complete this document by September 1, 2017.

b) Part-time faculty meetings have been established each term on the day of the student

orientation. All part-time faculty are invited though the attendance reflects primarily those

teaching in the coming term. In addition, the Director and a representative of the full-time

faculty attend. The agenda for the meetings emphasizes sharing experiences in online

teaching and demonstrations of new technologies that are available for their courses.

38

7. Review the 2015 Assessment Plan and update measures as appropriate.

Action Items

a) Design and administer an employer survey to gather feedback on the skills valued in the

workplace and the comparative value of such skills.

b) Organize a planning meeting with the participation of advisory board members to create the

agenda for the annual advisory board meeting.

Steps Taken

a) The employer survey was administered for the first time. The distribution consisted of the LI

Library Directors list, an LIS employers’ list from St. John’s Career Services, and posting on

listservs for Nassau County Libraries, Suffolk County Libraries, Society of American

Archivists, Catholic Library Association, among others.

b) The first advisory board planning meeting was held on March 10, 2017. The agenda

consisted of the planning survey which was distributed to the entire Board in April and the

employer survey.

39

B. Annual Student Survey - March 2017

1. In which of the following concentrations do you have an interest? You may select more than one concentration.

AnswerOptions ResponsePercent

Response Count

Academic Librarianship 37.3% 19

Archival Studies 35.3% 18

Law Librarianship 13.7% 7

Public Librarianship 49.0% 25

School Media 13.7% 7

Special Librarianship 7.8% 4

Youth Services 37.3% 19

I am undecided 7.8% 4

AnsweredQuestion 51 SkippedQuestion 0

2. Of the concentrations you selected above, at the present time, which of these is your primary intended concentration? (Select one)

AnswerOptions ResponsePercent ResponseCount

Academic Librarianship 15.7% 8

Archival Studies 21.6% 11

Law Librarianship 3.9% 2

Public Librarianship 19.6% 10

School Media 3.9% 2

Special Librarianship 2.0% 1

Youth Services 21.6% 11

I am undecided 11.8% 6


3. During the new student orientation, we explained that the goal of our program was to not only prepare you to become a library or information professional, but to also prepare you to become a leader who would make a difference in society as well as the profession. In your opinion, how well are we doing?


Excellent 36.0% 18

Very Good 56.0% 28

Fair 8.0% 4

Poor 0.0% 0


40

4. Rate your experience with each of the following:

AnswerOptions Excellent Very Good Fair Rating

Average

Faculty feedback about your work 18 24 6 1.75

Access to continuing opportunities for guidance and counseling

19 22 9 1.80

Access to continuing opportunities for placement assistance

14 21 14 2.00

Administrative and staff support 25 18 6 1.66

Physical facilities for accomplishing the objectives of the MS LIS program

12 29 4 1.96

AnsweredQuestion 50

SkippedQuestion 1

5. Please rate the effectiveness of the DLIS Director as a leader of the Division:


Very Effective 60.0% 27

Effective 31.1% 14

Somewhat effective 6.7% 3

Not at all effective 2.2% 1

Please comment on your response: 12


8. Please indicate the number of credits you have completed as of the beginning of the Spring 2017 Semester. Do not include credits for incomplete classes.


Less than 6 credits 28.9% 13

7-18 credits 37.8% 17

More than 18 credits 33.3% 15


41

9. In your opinion, how well prepared are you for your career in library and information science ?


Very well prepared 31.3% 10

Well prepared 50.0% 16

Somewhat prepared 18.8% 6

Not at all prepared 0.0% 0


11. After you graduate, would you consider St. John's educational opportunities for future professional development?


Yes 84.4% 27

No 15.6% 5

Please explain: 15


12. Field Experience: check all the following forms of experience that you

have at this point in your program of study.


Academic service-learning project 90.0% 27

Internship 16.7% 5

Graduate assistantship 30.0% 9

Part-time employment in a library, or in a position related to the MS LIS program

53.3% 16

Full-time employment in a library, or in a position related to the MS LIS program

20.0% 6

Volunteer in a library, or in a position related to the MS LIS program

16.7% 5

Other (please specify) 13.3% 4


42

C. Exit Survey 2016 – 2017

1. I was satisfied with the quality of the program.

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Strongly Agree 72.7% 8

Agree 27.3% 3

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0

Strongly Disagree 0.0% 0

Comment 3

answered question 11 skipped question 0

2. My interactions with faculty members were generally positive.



Agree 27.3% 3

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0


Comment 2


3. My interactions with my fellow students were generally positive.



Agree 9.1% 1

Neutral 9.1% 1

Disagree 0.0% 0


Comment 2


43

4. My interactions with DLIS office staff were generally positive.



Agree 18.2% 2

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0


Comment 1


5. I received useful information from my faculty advisor.



Agree 18.2% 2

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0


Comment 1


6. The faculty were effective teachers.



Agree 36.4% 4

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0


Comment 2


44

7. I was satisfied with the variety of courses offered to me.



Agree 45.5% 5

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0


Comment 3


8. Courses were offered frequently enough for timely completion of degree requirements.



Agree 54.5% 6

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0


Comment 2


9. I had access to appropriate library resources, software and related technology to support my educational needs.



Agree 18.2% 2

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0


Comment 1


45

10. I am prepared to enter the workforce in my chosen area.



Agree 27.3% 3

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0


Comment 2


11. I would recommend this program to others.



Agree 36.4% 4

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 0.0% 0


Other (please specify) 2


46

D. New Student Survey 2016 - 2017

1. How did you find out about the St. John’s MS-LIS program?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Recommendation from an Alumni of the program and/or librarian

14.3% 3

Career counselors in the college where I earned my previous degree

0.0% 0

American Library Association website/directory 47.6% 10

St. John's University website 57.1% 12

Other (please explain) 4


2. What were your reasons for choosing to pursue your graduate education at this institution? Please check all that apply.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Nature of the program and course offerings 85.7% 18

Reputation of the school, department, and/or faculty 61.9% 13

Recommendation of colleague or family member 14.3% 3

Availability of funding/scholarship 47.6% 10

Location 42.9% 9

Other (please describe) 14.3% 3


3. What was your primary reason for choosing to pursue your graduate education at this institution? Please select only ONE option.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Nature of the program and course offerings 40.0% 8

Reputation of the school, department, and/or faculty 35.0% 7

Recommendation of colleague or family member 0.0% 0

Availability of funding/scholarship 20.0% 4

Location 5.0% 1



47

4. How did you attend New Student Orientation

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Online (synchronously) 20.0% 4

In person 55.0% 11

I didn't attend, watched recording 25.0% 5


5. To which age group do you belong?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

25 years or younger 60.0% 12

26-40 years 20.0% 4

41-55 years 20.0% 4

55 or older 0.0% 0


6. In which of these activities were you engaged immediately prior to entering this program? Please select ALL that apply.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Undergraduate student 35.0% 7

Graduate student 5.0% 1

Volunteer/community service 10.0% 2

Caring for family 5.0% 1

Employed in a field related to information studies 55.0% 11

Employed in a field unrelated to information studies 40.0% 8



7. What is your current status?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Full-time (9-12 credits/semester) 55.0% 11

Part-time (3-6 credits/semester) 45.0% 9


48

8. Which of the following professional goals do you see yourself accomplishing in the future? Please select ALL options that apply. In the future I believe I will:

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Enjoy a rewarding career 100.0% 20

Be a mentor to new information professionals 80.0% 16

Publish articles in professional journals 25.0% 5

Publish articles in academic journals 20.0% 4

Volunteer my professional services 40.0% 8

Be a high-level manager or executive 40.0% 8

Be an independent consultant 10.0% 2

Start my own business 20.0% 4

Be an innovator and leader in my field 35.0% 7

Pursue another Master's degree or PhD 15.0% 3

Other (please specify) 5.0% 1


9. How useful was the New Student Orientation?

Answer Options

Not Useful Useful Very Useful Rating

Average

0 14 6 2.30

answered question 20

skipped question 1

49

E. Two-Year-Out Alumni Survey – April 2017

1. I was satisfied with the quality of the program.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 46.2% 6

Neutral 30.8% 4

Disagree 7.7% 1


Comment 4


2. My interactions with faculty members were generally positive.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 23.1% 3

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 7.7% 1


Comment 4


3. My interactions with my fellow students were generally positive.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 33.3% 4

Neutral 8.3% 1

Disagree 8.3% 1


Comment 1


50

4. My interactions with DLIS office staff were generally positive.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 25.0% 3

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 16.7% 2


Comment 3


5. I received useful information from my faculty advisor.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 8.3% 1

Neutral 25.0% 3

Disagree 8.3% 1


Comment 2


6. The faculty were effective teachers.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 66.7% 8

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 8.3% 1


Comment 2


51

7. I was satisfied with the variety of courses offered to me.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 33.3% 4

Neutral 25.0% 3

Disagree 16.7% 2


Comment 3


8. I had access to appropriate library resources, software and related technology to support my career interests.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 58.3% 7

Neutral 0.0% 0

Disagree 8.3% 1


Comment 2


9. I was prepared to enter the workforce in my chosen area.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 45.5% 5

Neutral 9.1% 1

Disagree 9.1% 1


Comment 3


52

11. Field experience in the form of Academic Service-Learning projects, internships and independent studies contributed toward my finding employment.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 18.2% 2

Neutral 36.4% 4

Disagree 18.2% 2


Comment 4


12. I would recommend this program to others.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count


Agree 36.4% 4

Neutral 27.3% 3

Disagree 0.0% 0




53

F. Advisory Board Members*

First Name Last Name* Title Organization

Kathryn Baumgartner Student DLIS

Margaux DelGuidice Teacher Librarian Garden City H.S.

Valeda Dent Dean, University Libraries St. John’s University

Taina Evans Youth Services Librarian Brooklyn Public Library

Caroline Fuchs Associate Prof/Librarian St. John's University Libraries

Alirio Gomez Information Services Consultant

Alyse Hennig Assistant Archivist St. John's University Libraries

Lisa Kropp Assistant Director Lindenhurst Memorial Library

Michelle Levy Archivist Paulist Fathers

Ralph Monaco retired New York Law Institute

Michael Morea Director Gold Coast Public Library

Dan Murphy Knowledge Manager

Tom Nielsen Director, Membership Services Metropolitan NY Library Council

Jean O'Grady Director, Research Services DLA Piper LLP

Christina Orozco Archivist Paulist Fathers

Jamie Papandrea Director Brookhaven Public Library

Elizabeth Pollicino Murphy Director St. Joseph College Libraries

Stacy Posillico Medical Librarian Northwell Health Services

Susan Roby Berdinka Information Services Self-Employed

Blythe Roveland-Brenton University Archivist St. John's University Libraries

Taryn Rucinski Branch Librarian US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

Kathryn Shaughnessy Associate Prof/Librarian St. John's University Libraries

Anthony Todman Associate Prof/Librarian St. John's University Libraries

Satasha Williams Student DLIS

Christian Zabriskie Reference Librarian Queens Public Library

*not including FT DLIS faculty (C. Angel, S. Lee, K. Rioux, R. Singh, and J. Vorbach) and staff (M. Crossfox)

54

G. DLIS Advisory Board Planning Survey – March 2017

Answer Options Rating

Average Response

Count

Collection Development/Management: Update/redesign of LIS 211 Collection Development and Management of Knowledge Resources (next offered in Spring 2018).

3.27 11

Soft skills: How best to teach soft skills (e.g. email protocol, resume writing, cover letters, group discussion, organizing/chairing a meeting, etc.) to graduate students in the MS LIS program.

3.91 11

Student Engagement: Develop/promote activities which engage students both professionally and socially.

3.18 11

DLIS Alumni: How to increase participation of alumni in DLIS programs and events to strengthen the relationship between alumni and DLIS students and faculty.

3.18 11

Job Market: How to best prepare students to be competitive in today’s job market.

4.64 11


55

H. MS LIS Mission Statement

DLIS is preparing for reaccreditation in 2018. In this context, DLIS believes that the MS LIS

program’s mission statement should be revisited and requests your input in this process. Please

discuss suggestions for improving the mission statement. Recorders, please enumerate

suggestions from your respective groups.

MS LIS Mission Statement (rev. 2009).

The program’s mission is to serve the people and organizations of the New York Metropolitan

area and the wider community by:

Preparing and enabling outstanding librarians and other information professionals who

will lead the profession forward in providing access to information where, when, and

how people need and require it;

Researching and publishing about issues in the profession; and

Serving, particularly the underserved.

56

I. Minutes of Advisory Board Planning Meeting

Location: Queens Campus, D’Angelo Activity Center (DAC) Rm 401

Date: March 10, 2017; 10:00am – 1:30pm

Attendees: Michael Crossfox, Taina Evans, Caroline Fuchs, Lisa Kropp, Michael Morea, Christina

Orozco, Kathryn Shaughnessy, James Vorbach

1. Discussed planning of May 12, 2017 Advisory Board meeting

a) Meeting format

i. MS LIS program update

ii. Breakout session – groups composed of five board members discuss topics

(possibly ‘world café’ approach)

iii. Lunch

iv. Recorders wrap up the breakout session

v. Discussion – entire board

vi. Meeting evaluation and adjournment

b) Pre-survey – decision to survey board members (distributed Apr 20th) to rank

importance of pre-selected topics and to provide an opportunity for board members to

introduce topics

i. Pre-selected topics (from the 2016 Board meeting evaluation survey results)

Collection Development / Management

Soft skills – examples include writing a cover letter, resume vs CV, email

protocol, advocacy skills, among others

2016-2017 DLIS Strategic Priorities

ii. Planning Board will prepare items for pre-survey and forward to Michael

Crossfox ([email protected] ) by April 1st

Collection Development / Management – Fuchs, Shaughnessy

Soft skills – Evans

2016-2017 DLIS Strategic Priorities – Vorbach

iii. DLIS will forward the pre-survey to the planning board the week of April 10th for

their review.

2. Discussion of March 2017 Employer Survey

a) Survey format

i. Likert scale rating of competencies expected in graduates

ii. Open questions such as

I can’t believe you didn’t learn blank in Library School.

What competencies do you believe will be necessary in the near future?

mailto:[email protected]

57

iii. Items conditioned on whether respondent currently employs or has employed

St. John’s graduates, for example

How do St. John’s graduates compare with graduates of other Library School

programs?

b) Planning board members are encouraged to respond to Michael Crossfox

([email protected] ) by Friday March 17th if they have any specific items for the employer

survey

c) The employer survey will be distributed through various listservs including

i. Nassau Libraries – Morea

ii. Suffolk Libraries – Kropp

iii. SAA – Orozco

iv. CLA – Shaughnessy

v. Others – Fuchs

d) DLIS will forward the employer survey to the planning board the week of March 20th for

their review.

3. Meeting adjourned at 1:10pm

mailto:[email protected]

58

J. Enrollment Summary Statistics 2012 - 2016

Summary Degree Major

Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

MLS LIS Library Science 54 22

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci 13 42 64 65 68

Grand Total 67 64 64 65 68

Enrollment by Gender Degree Major Gender Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

MLS LIS Library Science F 42 18

MLS LIS Library Science M 12 4

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci F 11 39 57 55 56

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci M 2 3 7 10 12

Grand Total 67 64 64 65 68

Enrollment by Ethnicity/Race Degree Major Ethnicity/Race Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

MLS LIS Library Science 2 or more

races 1 1

MLS LIS Library Science Asian 3 1

MLS LIS Library Science

Black or African

American 5 1

MLS LIS Library Science Hispanic 7 6

MLS LIS Library Science Unknown 3

MLS LIS Library Science White 35 13

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci 2 or more

races 1 2 2

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci Asian 1 3 1

1

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci

Black or African

American 1 2 3 4 6

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci Hispanic

2 10 6 5

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci Non Resident

1 1 1

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci Unknown 1 2 3 3 3

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci White 10 32 45 49 51

Grand Total 67 64 64 65 68

59

Enrollment by Full-time/Part-time

Degree Major Full-time or Part-time


MLS LIS Library Science F 23 8

MLS LIS Library Science P 31 14

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci F 8 25 35 35 35

MS LIS2 Library & Information Sci P 5 17 29 30 33

Grand Total 67 64 64 65 68

60

K. Geographic Distribution of Students 2012 - 2016


Num % of Num % of Num % of Num % of Num % of

LOCATION

Total

Total

Total

Total

Total

NEW YORK STATE

New York City*

Queens

14 20.3% 10 15.6% 12 18.5% 9 13.6% 4 5.9%

Kings

7 10.1% 4 6.3% 5 7.7% 6 9.1% 5 7.4%

New York 1 1.4% 4 6.3% 4 6.2% 4 6.1% 2 2.9%

Richmond 2 2.9% 1 1.6% 2 3.1% 3 4.5% 5 7.4%

Bronx

3 4.3% 4 6.3% 1 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Total New York City 27 39.1% 23 35.9% 24 36.9% 22 33.3% 16 23.5%

Nassau*

12 17.4% 14 21.9% 9 13.8% 4 6.1% 4 5.9%

Suffolk

19 27.5% 12 18.8% 14 21.5% 19 28.8% 17 25.0%

Westchester 0.0% 3 4.7% 4 6.2% 4 6.1% 4 5.9%

Rockland

1 1.4% 2 3.1% 1 1.5% 2 3.0% 2 2.9%

Other New York 1 1.4% 1 1.6% 3 4.6% 5 7.6% 4 5.9%

Total New York State 60 87.0% 55 85.9% 55 84.6% 56 84.8% 47 69.1%

New Jersey 1 1.4% 1 1.6% 1 1.5% 1 1.5% 5 7.4%

Pennsylvania 1 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Connecticut 1 1.4% 1 1.6% 2 3.1% 4 6.1% 7 10.3%

Massachusetts 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.5%

California 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.5%

Maryland 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.5% 1 1.5%

Virginia

1 1.4% 1 1.6% 1 1.5% 1 1.5% 2 2.9%

Texas

2 2.9% 1 1.6% 1 1.5% 0.0% 1 1.5%

Florida

1 1.4% 1 1.6% 1 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Other

2 2.9% 3 4.7% 3 4.6% 2 3.0% 3 4.4%

Total Out of State 9 13.0% 8 12.5% 9 13.8% 9 13.6% 21 30.9%

Non-Residents 0.0% 1 1.6% 1 1.5% 1 1.5% 0.0%

Grand Totals: 69 100.0% 64 100.0% 65 100.0% 66 100.0% 68 100.0%

* Primary market

61

L. Employer Survey – May 2017

1. Please tell us the job title:

Answer Options

Response Count

34


Number Response Date Response Text

1 May 30, 2017 8:44 PM Archivist Librarian 2 May 25, 2017 8:58 AM Librarian

3 May 18, 2017 5:04 AM Librarian I 4 May 17, 2017 2:00 PM Collection Development Librarian

5 May 17, 2017 1:40 PM Associate Librarian 6 May 17, 2017 1:02 PM PT Reference Librarian

7 May 16, 2017 7:12 PM Chief Librarian

8 May 16, 2017 6:40 PM xxx 9 May 16, 2017 3:31 PM Medical Librarian

10 May 16, 2017 3:08 PM Director of Library Services 11 May 16, 2017 1:37 PM Librarian

12 May 16, 2017 1:25 PM Library Directory 13 May 16, 2017 11:53 AM Library Director 14 May 15, 2017 9:35 PM Librarian

15 May 15, 2017 9:10 PM reference manager 16 May 15, 2017 9:04 PM Library Information Literacy Director

17 May 15, 2017 8:44 PM Reference & Instruction Librarian

18 May 15, 2017 2:45 PM Librarian, Electronic Reserves

19 May 15, 2017 2:21 PM campus librarian 20 May 14, 2017 10:19 PM Librarian

21 May 14, 2017 7:27 PM Resource Sharing/Instruction Librarian

22 May 14, 2017 7:11 PM Resource Sharing/Instruction Librarian

23 May 11, 2017 10:02 PM Librarian

24 May 11, 2017 5:00 PM Reference and Instruction Librarian (physical sciences liaison)

25 May 11, 2017 3:16 PM Reference Librarian 26 May 11, 2017 2:57 PM Library Director 27 May 9, 2017 9:03 PM Director

28 May 9, 2017 2:50 PM

All of our librarian faculty lines...I'll go with a generalist ref/infolit/electronic resources type for this survey

29 May 9, 2017 1:39 PM Assistant Dean

30 May 9, 2017 12:57 PM Librarian for Outreach Services

31 May 8, 2017 8:38 PM Director of Scheduling 32 May 8, 2017 8:32 PM Electronic Resources Librarian

62

33 May 8, 2017 7:55 PM Resource and Collection Services Librarian

34 May 8, 2017 7:48 PM Library Director

2. Rate the RELEVANCE for successful performance of the job

Answer Options Not at all/ Not

very Somewhat

Very/ Extremely

Rating Average

Oral/written communication 0 0 30 4.83

Listening to others 0 0 30 4.83

Organizing information for presentation

0 3 27 4.47

Critical thinking (evaluating information)

0 1 29 4.67

Decision making 0 5 25 4.33

Statistics 4 14 11 3.31

Basic computer (e.g., word-processing, spreadsheets)

0 1 29 4.63

Advanced computer (e.g., databases, coding, web design)

7 4 19 3.60

Understanding of professional ethics 0 2 28 4.73

Leadership 0 6 23 4.10

Teamwork (interpersonal relationships)

0 1 29 4.80

Customer service 0 0 30 4.80



skipped question 4

4. Rate the RELEVANCE for successful performance of the job

Answer Options Not at all/ Not

Very Somewhat

Very/ Extremely

Rating Average

Management of resources (budgets, subordinates, etc.)

5 12 12 3.34

Fluency in a language other than English

13 14 2 2.34

Project management 1 10 18 3.79

Negotiation (contracts, sales, alliances)

11 13 5 2.59

Mentoring or coaching colleagues 6 9 14 3.21

Ability to set goals and manage time to achieve them

1 1 27 4.41

Ability to translate theory into practice

2 7 20 4.03

Marketing and advocacy 2 14 13 3.59

Grantsmanship 10 14 5 2.55



skipped question 5

63

6. To your knowledge, does anyone currently working at your institution with the job title in question hold a Master's of Library Science (MLS) or Master of Science-Library and Information Science (MS LIS) from St. John's University?

Answer Options Response

Percent Response

Count

Yes 20.7% 6

No 58.6% 17

Not Sure 20.7% 6


7. Please indicate your agreement to the following comparative statements about GRADUATES OF ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY'S LIS program.

Answer Options Disagree Neutral Agree Rating

Average

St. John's grads are NOT AS prepared as those from other LIS programs.

5 1 0 1.17

St. John's grads compare FAVORABLY to those from other LIS programs.

0 1 5 2.83

St. John's grads are BETTER prepared than those from other LIS programs.

0 4 2 2.33

Comments on Preparedness of St. John's Graduates.

answered question 6

skipped question 28

64

M. Course Artifact Assessment Form (revised 2/11/2017)

Course Number and Title: LIS 999 course name

Artifact: assignment name

Term: {format: Fall 2016}

Instructor:

Date: [format: month-name (d)d, yyyy}

Course Description.

Bulletin description or course outline description

Program Goals

The course contributes towards satisfying the following program goals of the MS LIS (Appendix

N):

Program goals and outcomes listed

Description of Artifact: assignment name, same as above

description

Students’ overall performance

Did students’ performance on the artifact meet your expectations with regards to satisfying

the program goals and outcomes?

If expectations were not met, what actions do you recommend to improve the course?

Sample Reviews

A. Student 1

{Student’s artifact may be either pasted here, submitted as separate document, or persistent

URL to the artifact may be pasted here.}

Review of Student 1’s artifact.

65

Student 1’s artifact.

B. Student 2

{Student’s artifact may be either pasted here, submitted as separate document, or persistent

URL to the artifact may be pasted here.}

Review of Student 2’s artifact

Student 2’s artifact

division of library and information science assessment

Documents