Methods and Outcomes of Student Engagement in Systematic Program Planning
Systematic planning is a program management technique designed to facilitate continuous improvements to educational programs through evidence-based decision-making. Constituent engagement is an essential component of systematic planning, but little is known about how higher education programs engage students in program planning, assessment, and decision-making processes. To better understand how responsive higher education programs are to student engagement, this study examines the methods and outcomes of student engagement in systematic program planning in library and information science (LIS) programs. A hybrid, problem-driven content analysis of 15 comprehensive accreditation self-study documents found that LIS programs used a variety of student engagement methods – quantitative and qualitative, formative and summative, systematic and ad-hoc – to engage students in systematic program planning. However, these methods did not necessarily result in substantive programmatic outcomes. The results of this study will be useful to higher education faculty, staff, and administrators who are interested in designing more inclusive and responsive systematic planning processes through authentic and meaningful student engagement methods.
Aharony, N., & Raban, D. R. (2008). Economics of information goods: An interdisciplinary subject for Israeli LIS and MBA curricula. Library & Information Science Research, 30(2), 102–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.07.005
American Library Association. (1992). Standards for accreditation of master's programs in library and information studies. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/standards/standards
American Library Association. (2008). Standards for accreditation of master's programs in library and information studies. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/standards/standards_2008.pdf
American Library Association. (2015a). Accreditation process, policies, and procedures manual (4th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/standards/AP3
American Library Association. (2015b). Standards for accreditation of master's programs in library and information studies. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/standards/Standards_2015_adopted_02-02-15.pdf
American Library Association. (n.d.). Sample self-studies. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/resourcesforprogramadministrators/onlinepp
Applegate, R. (2006). Student learning outcomes assessment and LIS program presentations. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47(4), 324–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40323824
Banta, T. W. & Palomba, C. A. (2015). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Becnel, K., Moeller, R. A., & Pope, J. C. (2016). Powerful partnerships: The worth of embedding masters level library science students in undergraduate classes. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 57(1), 31–42. Retrieved from https://utpjournals.press/toc/jelis/57/1
Berry, J. (1999). Students sound off about their schools. Library Journal, 124(18), 46–48.
Burnett, K., Bonnici, L. J., Miksa, S. D., & Kim, J. (2007). Frequency, intensity, and topicality in online learning: An exploration of the interaction dimensions that contribute to student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1), 21–35. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40324318
Caidi, N., & Dali, K. (2015). Can we talk? Perceptions of diversity issues by students with diverse backgrounds, and a rumination on personal roads to systemic change. New Library World, 116(11/12), 748–780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/nlw-08-2015-0056
Carey, J. O., & Gregory, V. L. (2003). Toward improving student learning: Policy issues and design structures in course-level outcomes assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(3), 215–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293032000059586
Cherry, J. M., Freund, L., & Duff, W. M. (2013). Students’ perceptions of information programs in Canada. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 54(3), 174–190. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43686947
Chow, A. S., Shaw, T. L., Gwynn, D., Martensen, D., & Howard, M. (2011). Changing times and requirements: Implications for LIS education. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 21(1), 1–23. Retrieved from https://www.libres-ejournal.info/1038/
Chu, C. M. (2009). Working from within: Critical service learning as core learning in the MLIS curriculum. In L. Roy, K. Jensen, & A. H. Meyers (Eds.), Service learning: Linking library education and practice (pp. 105–123). Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Committee on Accreditation. (2007). Updating the 1992 Standards for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library and Information Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/governance/council/council_documents/2007_2008_council_docus/accreditationstandard47_47.1.pdf
Conant, R. W. (1980). The Conant report: A study of the education of librarians. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cooke, N. A., & Jacobs, J. A. (2018). Diversity and cultural competence in the LIS classroom: A curriculum audit. Urban Library Journal, 24(1), 1–19. Retrieved from https://academicworks.cuny.edu/ulj/vol24/iss1/2
Cooke, N. A., Sweeney, M. E., & Noble, S. U. (2016). Social justice as topic and tool: An attempt to transform an LIS curriculum and culture. The Library Quarterly, 86(1) 107–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/684147
Creel, S. L., & Pollicino, E. B. (2012). Practitioners’ & LIS students’ perceptions on preparedness in the New York metropolitan area. Education for Information, 29(1), 53–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/efi-2010-0911
Crissinger, S. (2015, Jan 23). Students taking back the conversation: The 2015 LIS Symposium on Education [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://acrlog.org/2015/01/23/students-taking-back-the-conversation-the-2015-lis-symposium-on-education/
Cunha, N. (2016, May 5). DERAIL sparks conversation. The Simmons Voice, 96(23). Retrieved from https://simmonsvoice.com/2016/05/05/derail-sparks-conversation/
Curran, C., Bajjaly, S., Feehan, P., & O'Neill, A. L. (1998). Using focus groups to gather information for LIS curriculum review. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 39(3), 175–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40324153
Dali, K., & Caidi, N. (2016). A two-way street: Building the recruitment narrative in LIS programs. New Library World, 117(7/8), 499–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NLW-03-2016-0020
Davis, C. E., Juengling, L. B., Laurent, R. D., Pye, N., & Williamson, J. (2014). Student chapters: Meeting expectations and providing high quality experiences. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 55(1), 69–82. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43686968
Dow, E. H. (2011). LIS learning culture: Identifying disaffected students. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 52(1), 32–40. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25764652
Dow, M. (2008). Implications of social presence for online learning: A case study of MLS students. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 49(4), 231–242. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40323753
Evans, A., Dresang, E., Campana, K., & Feldman, E. (2013). Research in action: Taking classroom learning to the field. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 54(3), 244–252. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43686952
Fleischmann, K. R., Robbins, R. W., & Wallace, W. A. (2009). Designing educational cases for intercultural information ethics: The importance of diversity, perspectives, values, and pluralism. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 50(1), 4–14. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40732558
Freelon, D. (2010). ReCal: Intercoder reliability calculation as a web service. International Journal of Internet Science, 5(1), 20–33. Retrieved from http://www.ijis.net/ijis5_1/ijis5_1_index.html
Frey, B. A., Alman, S. W., Barron, D., & Steffens, A. (2004). Student satisfaction with the online MLIS program at the University of Pittsburgh. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(2), 82–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40323896
Hackney, S. (2015, Oct 12). SILSSA and the School of Information [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://pala.prattsi.org/silssa-and-the-school-of-information/
Hanson-Baldauf, D., & Hassell, S. H. (2009). The information and communication technology competencies of students enrolled in school library media certification programs. Library & Information Science Research, 31(1), 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.03.003
Harhai, M., & Krueger, J. (2015). Developing competency-based assessment for library professionals. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice, 3(1), 14–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2015.81
Heaney, T. (2010). Democracy, shared governance, and the university. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2010(128), 69-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ace.392
Heim, K. M., & Moen, W. E. (1989). Occupational entry: Library and information science student's attitudes, demographics, and aspirations survey. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Helregel, N. (2014, Dec 11). Administrative transparency & LIS education [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://hacklibraryschool.com/2014/12/11/administrative-transparency-lis-education/
Jardine, F. (2016). The role of students in diversity and inclusion in library and information science. In P. T. Jaeger & J. C. Bertot (Series Eds.), Advances in Librarianship: Vol. 41. Perspectives on libraries as institutions of human rights and social justice (U. Gorham, N. G. Taylor, & P. T. Jaeger, Eds., pp. 399–416). http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/s0065-283020160000041016
Kealey, E. (2010). Assessment and evaluation in social work education: Formative and summative approaches. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(1), 64–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841230903479557
Kim, K., & Sin, S. J. (2006). Recruiting and retaining students of color in LIS programs: Perspectives of library and information professionals. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47(2), 81–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40324324
Kim, K., & Sin, S. J. (2008). Increasing ethnic diversity in LIS: Strategies suggested by librarians of color. The Library Quarterly, 78(2), 153–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/528887
Kingma, B., & Keefe, S. (2006). An analysis of the virtual classroom: Does size matter? Do residencies make a difference? Should you hire that instructional designer? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47(2), 127–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40324327
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lieutenant, E. (2015, January). Whose education is it anyway? Student engagement in LIS program assessment and evaluation. Poster session presented at the meeting of the Association for Library and Information Science Education, Boston, MA. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2354.5684
Lieutenant, E. (2018). Student engagement for student learning: Preparing inclusive and impactful change agents through high-impact student engagement practices. In P. T. Jaeger (Series Eds.), Advances in Librarianship: Vol. 44a. Re-envisioning the MLS: Perspectives on the future of library and information science education (J. Percell, L. C. Sarin, P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot, Eds., pp. 119–138). http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0065-28302018000044A012
Lieutenant, E., & Inge, L. (2016, March). Student leaders, student-teachers: Embedding diversity into LIS education through iDiversity’s curriculum development project. Presentation at the Diversity, Equity, Race, Accessibility, and Identity in LIS Forum, Boston, MA. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3641.7682
Lieutenant, E., & Kules, B. (2016). Analysis of LIS student engagement in systematic program planning: Preliminary results. In X. Lin & M. Khoo (Eds.), iConference 2016 Proceedings (pp. 1–7). http://dx.doi.org/10.9776/16228
Menon, M. E. (2003). Student involvement in university governance: A need for negotiated educational aims? Tertiary Education and Management, 9(3), 233–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2003.9967106
Mitchell, E. (2013). Reflective course construction: An analysis of student feedback and its role in curricular design. Education for Information, 30(3–4), 149–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/efi-130942
Montague, R., & Pluzhenskaia, M. (2007). Web-Based information science education (WISE): Collaboration to explore and expand quality in LIS online education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1), 36–51. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40324319
Noble, S. U., Austin, J., Sweeney, M. E., McKeever, L., & Sullivan, E. (2014). Changing course: Collaborative reflections of teaching/taking "Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Information Professions." Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 55(3), 212–222. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43686984
Oguz, F., Chu, C. M., & Chow, A. S. (2015). Studying online: Student motivations and experiences in ALA-accredited LIS programs. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 56(3), 213–231. Retrieved from https://utpjournals.press/toc/jelis/56/3
Oxley, R. (2013). iDiversity and LIS education: Student-based groups promoting cultural competence as a vision for the profession. The Library Quarterly, 83(3), 236–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/670698
Saunders, L. (2016, Jan 27). How today’s library science students are working to fight oppression [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://slis.simmons.edu/blogs/unbound/2016/01/27/fighting-oppression-as-an-lis-student/
Schilling, K. (2009). The impact of multimedia course enhancements on student learning outcomes. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 50(4), 214–225. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40732584
Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19(3), 321–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/266577
Shannon, D. M. (2008). School library media preparation program review: Perspectives of two stakeholder groups. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 49(1), 23–42. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40323785
Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 397-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009285
Stansbury, M. (2015). From the COA chair: Perspective. Prism: The Office for Accreditation newsletter, 23(1), 8-9. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/accreditation/prp/prism/prismarchive/prismarchive
Stephens, M. (2011). The transparent library school. Library Journal, 136(9), 46. Retrieved from https://lj.libraryjournal.com/2011/05/opinion/michael-stephens/the-transparent-library-school-office-hours/
Wachtel, H. K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230207
Wolske, M., Rhinesmith, C., & Kumar, B. (2014). Community informatics studio: Designing experiential learning to support teaching, research, and practice. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 52(2), 166–177. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43686978
Yukawa, J. (2010). Communities of practice for blended learning: Toward an integrated model for LIS education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51(2), 54–75. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20720485
Zingarelli-Sweet, A. S. (2014, March 13). You, too, can be a change agent [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://hacklibraryschool.com/2014/03/13/you-too-can-be-a-change-agent/
How to Cite
LicenseAuthors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).