destination innovation: library data and student …€¦ · we can design and deliver embedded...

10/07/2017

1

DESTINATION INNOVATION: LIBRARY DATA AND STUDENT SUPPORT

10/07/2017

2

CONTENTS01 The Library

02 The Vision

03 The Results

04 The Next Step

7/10/2017

DESTINATION INNOVATION: LIBRARY DATA AND STUDENT SUPPORT - CONTENTS

PAGE 3

01.THE LIBRARY

7/10/2017

DESTINATION INNOVATION: LIBRARY DATA AND STUDENT SUPPORT - THE LIBRARY

PAGE 4

10/07/2017

3

In the beginning …

As a forward facing, student focused support structure, The Western Sydney University Library’s guiding service principle is ‘no wrong door’.

A student can access any of the services that the Library offers through any pathway.

7/10/2017


PAGE 5

New opportunities

7/10/2017


PAGE 6

2016 saw the creation of the new Academic Literacies Team to expand existing support and create new opportunities.

10/07/2017

4

What’s all the hype about data?

Students are at the centre of the Library’s service, and we collaborate in a hub-and-spoke model to maximise outcomes.

7/10/2017


PAGE 7

02.THE VISION

7/10/2017

DESTINATION INNOVATION: LIBRARY DATA AND STUDENT SUPPORT - THE VISION

PAGE 8

10/07/2017

5

Looking forward

At Western

• Impact on student outcomes

• Home grown student support

• Accessibility

• Growth

Beyond Western

• A community of practice that informs the sector

• Leaders in student support and development

7/10/2017


PAGE 9

What’s all the hype about data?

Meaningful support for:

• Targeted units

• Targeted cohorts

• Scaffolded content

• Improved Student Outcomes

7/10/2017


PAGE 10

10/07/2017

6

The starting point

1. Listened

2. Formed partnerships

3. Created

4. Implemented

5. Collected feedback

7/10/2017


PAGE 11

Library MEGA data – 2016

7/10/2017


PAGE 12

10/07/2017

7

03.THE RESULTS

7/10/2017

DESTINATION INNOVATION: LIBRARY DATA AND STUDENT SUPPORT - THE RESULTS

PAGE 13

A word of caution!

7/10/2017


PAGE 14

10/07/2017

8

7/10/2017


PAGE 15

• Students who used the Study Smart service and resources showed improved results

• Control group (Red) was students who did not use Study Smart Advisor service in 2015 or 2016

• Sample group (Purple) was students who did not use Study Smart Advisor in 2015 but did use it in 2016

• What does that mean?

Improved student outcomes

****

‐1.5

‐1

‐0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Mean difference of 2016 Weighted Average Mark

No intervention Intervention

Significant difference (p< 0.0001) between sample (n=413) and control (n=26,670). Un‐paired t‐test

Identifying target units

School UnitStudy Smart enquiries

YourTutor enquiries

Total enquires % of Unit Focus

School A Unit 1 14 46 60 1.59 % Assignment

School B Unit 2 6 20 26 7.2 % Assignment

School C Unit 3 61 58 119 10.79 % Writing

School D Unit 4 63 58 121 9.62 % Writing

School E Unit 5 0 0 0 0 % Structure

7/10/2017


PAGE 16

• The data helps to identify focus units

• MEGA data is not the only element though. A human element is still needed!

• So we have the unit, now what?

• Student tasks and graduate attributes are identified to provide focus

10/07/2017

9

Identifying target units

7/10/2017


PAGE 17

• The data helps to identify focus units

• MEGA data is not the only element though. A human element is still needed!

• So we have the unit, now what?

• Student tasks and graduate attributes are identified to provide focus

• The enquiry type also helps to target what type of support to provide

• Assignment enquiries received per fortnight gives us an idea on the focus for students over the session

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Assignment

2015 Assignment enquiries per fortnight

March F1 March F2 April F1 April F2 May F1

May F2 June F1 August F1 August F2 September F1

September F2 October F1 October F2 December F1 December F2

Embedded and optional student support

9864

23119

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Unit literacy support

Enro

lled

stud

ents

Student numbers in supported units

Embedded Optional

7/10/2017


PAGE 18

Let the great content creation begin!

• Embedded material in targeted units

1. Listened

2. Formed partnerships

3. Created

4. Implemented

5. Collected feedback

• What was the feedback?

10/07/2017

10

Feedback

7/10/2017


PAGE 19

UC"I think it will be an engaging and useful activity for our students."

DAP"Appreciative of assistance in helping strengthen the units' activities for the largest course cohort of the school."

HIPSTARS On average, a 3 point increase per student! UC "This is so amazing I'm crying,

thank you, thank you."

UCThank you for putting this together. It will be a highly practical tool for student learning in research.

UC"Those who watched the video also had significantly higher marks in the formatting/style part of the marking criteria."

STUDENT"Before this session, I had no knowledge of how to research for scholarly articles. Now I feel confident."

"This is awesome and so helpful. THANK YOU." STUDENT"...has helped me locate peer reviewed sources on library website which I was not aware of before."

STUDENT"I learnt so many new strategies to enable me to search more effectively using Google Scholar, databases and the Library catalogue."

Case study – unit review

7/10/2017


PAGE 20

• We compared support provided in 2015 to that provided in 2016

• There was statistical significance!

• Student marks showed improvement but was it due to the support they received?

Significant difference (p< 0.0001) between sample (n=413) and control (n=26,670). Un‐paired t‐test

***

54.5

55

55.5

56

56.5

57

57.5

58

58.5

59

59.5

60

Unit 3 grade comparison

2015 2016

10/07/2017

11


7/10/2017


PAGE 21

• We analysed another unit with the same cohort in the same year

• We found no statistical significance in an equivalent unit with no embedded activities or support

61

61.2

61.4

61.6

61.8

62

62.2

62.4

62.6

62.8

Unit 3 equivalent

2015 2016

Significant difference (p< 0.0047) versus no significant difference (p< 0.8613) from 2015 to 2016. Un‐paired t‐test

***

54.5

55

55.5

56

56.5

57

57.5

58

58.5

59

59.5

60


2015 2016


7/10/2017


PAGE 22

We checked again

• Moved to another school

• Chose another unit we supported

• Chose another unit we did not support but same cohort and year

• Statistical significance again.

***

54

56

58

60


2015 2016

61

62

63

Unit 3 equivalent

2015 2016

***

65

70

75


2015 2016

62

64

66

68

Unit 2 equivalent

2015 2016Significant difference (p< 0.0047) versus no significant difference (p< 0.8613)

from 2015 to 2016. Un‐paired t‐test

Significant difference (p< 0.0021) versus no significant difference (p< 0.1029)from 2015 to 2016. Un‐paired t‐test

10/07/2017

12


7/10/2017


PAGE 23

And again

• Moved to yet another school

• Chose yet another unit we supported

• Chose yet another unit we did not support but same cohort and year

• Statistical significance again!

Other external support

• We need to acknowledge that there are other supports available to students

61

62

63

Unit 3 equivalent

2015 2016

***

65

70

75


2015 2016

62

64

66

68

Unit 2 equivalent

2015 2016

****

50

60

70


2015 2016

52

54

56

58

Unit 4 equivalent

2015 2016

***

50

55

60


2015 2016




Case study – student perceptions

7/10/2017


PAGE 24

Measuring a unit based activity

• One proactive unit coordinator wanted to see our effect on their unit based on an embedded activity

• Grade changes are only one aspect to the improved student outcomes

• Students’ confidence in their ability is also key in student retention

• No statistical significance in marks

• But!24.32

24.34

24.36

24.38

24.4

24.42

24.44

24.46

24.48

24.5

24.52

Unit 5 assessment marks pre and post test

No activity Activity

No significant difference (p< 0.825) between sample (n=116) and control (n=409). Un‐paired t‐test

10/07/2017

13

Case study – student perceptions

7/10/2017


PAGE 25

***

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Confidence in Part 1

Before activity

After activity

***

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Before activity

After activity

***

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Before activity

After activity

Significant difference (p< 0.0001) between sample (n=116) and control (n=409). Paired t‐test

Measuring a unit based activity

• The unit coordinator compared students’ confidence across the activity’s three parts

• For each part, the students’ confidence increased

04.THE NEXT STEP

7/10/2017

DESTINATION INNOVATION: LIBRARY DATA AND STUDENT SUPPORT – WHAT’S NEXT

PAGE 26

10/07/2017

14

More data!

7/10/2017


PAGE 27

2016 Key Data• 53,308 student interactions• 11,024 embedded unit interactions• 5,175 literacy advisor consultations• 4,300 YourTutor consultations• 15,563 attendees at library sessions

2017 Q1 Key Data• 86,597 student interactions• 18,703 embedded unit interactions• 853 literacy advisor consultations*• 3,147 YourTutor consultations• 9,030 attendees at library sessions*Low numbers due to reduced service in holiday periods. Comparative to 2016 for the same period.

Where to from here?

• Expand our current offerings to further support students

• Form partnerships with individuals, divisions and units by sharing data and expertise

• Participate in collaborative projects to develop targeted student support

7/10/2017


PAGE 28

10/07/2017

15

Working together

We can design and deliver embedded literacy outcomes for specific units which:

• Support the overall improvement of student success, retention and progression

• Provide “point of pain” feedback to schools from the data collected

• Support the curriculum renewal and learning transformation initiatives

7/10/2017


PAGE 29

What can you do?

• Start recording your numbers and themes

• Acknowledge your interventions

• Record your achievements

• Collaborate!

7/10/2017


PAGE 30

10/07/2017

16

destination innovation: library data and student …€¦ · we can design and deliver embedded...

Documents