Faculty Opinions on the Use of Master's Degree End of Program Assessments.

IntroductionThe majority of Library and Information Studies (LIS) master's degree programs require students to successfully complete an end-of-program assessment (EPA) to receive a master's degree. Other LIS master degree programs do not use EPAs to determine whether a student earns a master's degree. Some EPAs may assess students' knowledge and abilities more directly than others and there is a wide range of opinions among LIS faculty on the use and value of these assessments. This study examines faculty opinions of the advantages and disadvantages of different EPAs. It also reports preferences for the use of EPAs in LIS education.BackgroundFinal assessments are standard in many disciplines. Comprehensive exams and theses or dissertations have been part of graduate education in the United States for at least 150 years (Storr, 1953). Portfolios have become popular more recently.Master's degree requirements are variable both across disciplines and across universities (Berelson, 1960). While U.S. doctoral degree components became standardized in the 1930s to generally include coursework, comprehensive exams, two foreign languages, dissertation, and oral exam (Schafer & Giblin, 2008), a similar process has not standardized Master's degrees. While some Master's programs focus on research and discipline-specific knowledge acquisition, the Council of Graduate Schools reported that the majority are practice-oriented professional programs (Council of Graduate Schools, 1994). Whether an EPA is a required component of master's education may be dictated by university requirements or accreditation standards (Oehrtman, Smolen, Hoblet, & Phillips, 2010).While few studies on EPAs exist in the LIS literature, there are several such studies in the literature of other fields. Many of the papers reviewed pointed to Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives as a rubric for designing effective EPAs, particularly the cognitive aspects of the taxonomy (Fitch, Reed, Peet, & Tolman, 2008; Loughead, 1997; Ponder, Beatty, & Foxx, 2004; Schafer & Giblin, 2008). For LIS education, Latrobe and Lester (2000) reported that there was a variety of EPA options including theses, capstone courses, various kinds of projects or papers, and portfolios, with about 40% of programs requiring comprehensive exams. Following, are brief lists of advantages and disadvantages of EPAs as gathered from the literature.PortfoliosPortfolios are relative newcomers to graduate education and are hailed as a means to spur self-reflective analysis by students. In Latrobe and Lester's (2000) piece on the adoption of portfolios at University of Oklahoma, they reported that, by 1999, there were four LIS programs using portfolios. By 2010, there were 15 LIS programs doing so (Wallace & Naidoo, 2010).Not all portfolios are the same and different types result in different products and learning experiences. Fitch, Reed, Peet, and Tolman (2008) identify the following portfolio types: Assessment or evaluative, reflective, integrative, structured, process or learning, and showcase or professional. Additionally, they can be paper or electronic.Portfolios have a number of advantages. Unlike other EPAs they offer a longitudinal assessment that represents the educational process (Fitch, Reed, Peet, & Tolman, 2008; McNamara & Bailey, 2006; Prus & Johnson, 1994; Ryan, 2011). They also illustrate multiple components like writing, critical thinking, and ability to integrate knowledge (Fitch, Reed, Peet, & Tolman, 2008; McNamara & Bailey, 2006; Prus & Johnson, 1994; Thyer, 2003) and demonstrate student achievement of program objectives and competencies (Latrobe & Lester, 2000; McNamara & Bailey, 2006; Ryan, 2011; Thyer, 2003). They teach selfreflection (Fitch, Reed, Peet, & Tolman, 2008; Latrobe & Lester, 2000; Ryan, 2011; Scott, 2010). Reputed to be more related to professional expectations than other EPAs (Fitch, Reed, Peet, & Tolman, 2008; McNamara & Bailey, 2006; Prus & Johnson, 1994; Ryan, 2011; Thyer, 2003), they give a more accurate picture of abilities and potential success in a career (McNamara & Bailey, 2006). …