In implementing these standards, institutions need to recognize that different levels of thinking skills are associated with various learning outcomes--and therefore different instruments or methods are essential to assess those outcomes. For example, both "higher order" and "lower order" thinking skills, based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, are evident throughout the outcomes detailed in this document. It is strongly suggested that assessment methods appropriate to the thinking skills associated with each outcome be identified as an integral part of the institution’s implementation plan.
calls for a revision of the standards go well beyond the discovery literature, with authors like Jacobs and Berg (2011, p. 392)calling for a “critical information literacy” which addresses the “broader social, political, cultural, and economic contexts” connected to information. ACRL responded to these developments in online searching, and the subsequent requests for a “rethinking” of the standards, with the formation of the Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task Force (2012).
calls for a revision of the standards go well beyond the discovery literature, with authors like Jacobs and Berg (2011, p. 392)calling for a “critical information literacy” which addresses the “broader social, political, cultural, and economic contexts” connected to information. ACRL responded to these developments in online searching, and the subsequent requests for a “rethinking” of the standards, with the formation of the Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task Force (2012). calls for a revision of the standards go well beyond the discovery literature, with authors like Jacobs and Berg (2011, p. 392)calling for a “critical information literacy” which addresses the “broader social, political, cultural, and economic contexts” connected to information. ACRL responded to these developments in online searching, and the subsequent requests for a “rethinking” of the standards, with the formation of the Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task Force (2012).
Information literacy instruction, has seen rapid change when research tools have moved primarily from print sources to those which can be found online Instruction librarians teach users where and how to locate relevant and reliable information. “Researchers have access to a wide array of content through a single search box, designed to rival the interfaces of more popular Web search engines| (Seeber, 2014, p.20).
“library tour”approach was effective as long as students conducted all of their research in that specific library, and that library’s print collections were enough to meet student research needs (Seeber, 2014, p.19).
Teaching as a process: In an editorial about discovery, Fagan (2011, p. 177) states that these new tools “support some traditional information literacy outcomes, while failing to support others”, and goes on to write that librarians: […] need to reconsider our information literacy standards, indicators, and outcomes. It has been [several] years since these standards were adopted by ACRL. Have there been shifts in the information world that suggest changes or additions to the standards or in their implications?
The library and information studies literature is full of examples of local tests and assessment tools being developed, with more or less rigour, that map their questions to the ACRL standards. At least three standardized tests for assessing IL have been developed: SAILS,6 ILT,7 and iSkills.8 Each of these tests has been carefully constructed and checked for both reliability and validity, and they have demonstrated utility in assessing IL. However, there are disadvantages in using these standardized tests, including cost, lack of flexibility, and length of time required to administer the test. Recognizing these problems in the existing tools and seeing a need for a local solution to these problems, librarians from four Alberta post-secondary institutions launched Information Literacy in Alberta Assessment Pilot (ILAAP), a pilot project to create a custom assessment tool that responds to the unique needs of local institutions and provides a more appropriate model for promoting and assessing IL skills among Alberta students. Several levels of assessments: Standardized assessments – Project SAILS – iSkills – Credit-bearing courses: IDEA or other standard student ratings of instruction Individual student/faculty evaluations – At end of instruction session, or end of term/semester Examinations of bibliographies/reference lists from papers or projects Internal departmental measures of IL outcomes
Google Forms is a Web application that allows users to create surveys and polls that can be distributed to authorized users. It is freely available in Google Drive, Google’s cloud-based, file-storage system, making it an ideal option for educators and librarians. Responses submitted through Google Forms are automatically gathered in a Web-based spreadsheet that can be viewed online or exported to proprietary spreadsheet software such as Microsoft Excel, allowing for easy data analysis LIBRARY HI TECH NEWS Number 4 2015, pp. 9-13,
Library Assessment Plan (LAP) updated regularly to include the newly collected data.
Assessment of Information Literacy in Academic Libraries: LAU Libraries Case Study
By Houeida Kammourié-Charara
Lebanese American University (LAU)
Emerald Day @LAU
September 15, 2015
RNL, Beirut - Lebanon
“Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring
individuals to "recognize when information is
needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and
use effectively the needed information“ (Association
of College and Research Libraries, 2000).
“Information literacy is a repertoire […] that
involves finding, evaluating, interpreting,
managing, and using information to answer
questions and develop new ones; and creating new
knowledge through ethical participation in
communities of learning, scholarship, and practice”
(ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards
for Higher EducationTask Force , June 2014).
• computer literacy
• information literacy
• digital literacy
• media literacy
• internet literacy
• Transliteracy: Read, write and interact
across a range of platforms, tools and media
including social media.
• Metaliteracy: Collaborate, produce and
• multimodal literacy: “All the different
ways in which meaning can be created and
communicated in the world today” (Silverton PS
IL general outcomes
IL discipline/subject-specific outcomes
Workshops and/or seminars
One Credit course, usually taught by librarians
Library instruction sessions (group/individual)
According to Kane (2014), IL is addressed in HE as follows:
Learning ResourcesTechniques one
credit course was taught by LAU
librarians since late 50’s in different
In fall 2007 the University decided to
cancel the course.
Since 2013 the University is carrying out an
assessment plan – a must for NEASC accreditation
“Assessment of academic support units is a
systematic and ongoing process of determining
administrative unit objectives, gathering,
analyzing and using information about
administrative unit outcomes to make decisions
and improvements in the units” (Assessment
workshop, IRA, 2013)
campus decision-making activities: Strategic
Planning, accreditation, etc.
Using the resulting
According to Bruce (2004) four
models/standards of information literacy
have had a major impact within education:
Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s Big6 information skills.
ALA and AECT’s information literacy standards for
ACRL’s information literacy competency
standards for higher education.
Libraries use ACRL standards as a benchmark in
IL programs (Emmett, & Emde, 2007, p.211).
Performance Indicators and Outcomes are used
to measure attainment of the standards.
It is the duty of the library to select the means of
measuring information literacy that suits best its
The use of Discovery tools continue to increase in
academic libraries, and with it, the need for adequate
information literacy instruction.
Web-scale discovery requires that librarians engage students in
the critical evaluation that forms the core of research, rather
than rely on explaining an interface or giving a tour (Seeber,
ACRL standards (2000) are no longer valid.
In 2012 ACRL started reconsidering information
literacy standards, indicators, and outcomes, due to
drastic change in the information age.
need to teach users
where and how to
locate relevant and
tools moved from
print sources to
exposed to huge
content via one
designed to rival
2000 Association of College and Research Libraries
Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher
2012 Information Literacy Competency Standards Review
Task Force (2012).(rethinking the standards).
2014 Feb. ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards
for Higher EducationTask Force Framework for information
literacy in higher education, draft 1”, Format as process
2014 June Framework for information literacy in higher
education, draft 2”, Format as a process
In addition to ACRL standards, local tests and assessment tools were developed,
that map their questions to the ACRL standards.
Kane (2014) listed the following standardized assessments
▪ Credit-bearing courses: IDEA , etc.
“Librarians from four Alberta post-secondary institutions launched Information Literacy in Alberta
Assessment Pilot (ILAAP), a pilot project to create a custom assessment tool that responds to the unique
needs of local institutions and provides a more appropriate model for promoting and assessing IL skills
among Alberta students (Goebel, Knoch,Thomson, Willson, & Sharun, 2013, p.28-29).
Its goal is to make the tool widely available to academic libraries throughout Alberta” (Goebel, et. 2013,
Individual student/faculty evaluations
Examinations of bibliographies/reference lists from papers or projects
Internal departmental measures of IL outcomes
Richard J. Daley Library at the University of
Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is using Google Forms as:
An assessment tool
A way of incorporating active learning during
information literacy sessions (Djenno, Insua &
Pho, 2015, p.9).
Google Forms, can be used as self-
assessment tool for library staff.
Librarians’ self-assessment of skills can
complement and enhance the value of their
assessment of student learning (Djenno,
Insua & Pho, 2015, p.9).
5 standards and 22 performance indicators.
The standards focus upon the needs of students in
higher education at all levels.
The standards also list a range of outcomes for
assessing student progress toward information
These outcomes serve as guidelines for faculty,
librarians, and others in developing local methods for
measuring student learning in the context of an
institution’s unique mission.
Assessment of information literacy skills can
and should be implemented at numerous
levels. Iannuzzi (1999) described four levels of
learning outcomes assessment:
“within the library;
in the classroom;
on campus; and
beyond the campus”.
Be able to locate, evaluate, and use information
Be knowledgeable users of library and information
Use information as a commodity
Become information literate learners, able to
integrate technology skills and information literacy
Demonstrate an understanding of ethical issues such
as plagiarism, copyright, and intellectual freedom
(Mayer, Bowles-Terry, 2013).
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools –
Commission on Colleges Principles of Accreditation
WesternAssociation of Schools and Colleges –
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges Standard II.
WSCUC –WesternAssociation of Schools and
Colleges, Senior College and University Commission
Standard 2,Teaching and Learning – criteria for
New England Association of Schools and Colleges –
Commission on Institutions of Higher Education
Standard 7, “Library and Other Information
Resources”: Information andTechnological Literacy
7.9“The institution demonstrates that students use
information resources and technology as an integral part
of their education, attaining levels of proficiency
appropriate to their degree and subject or professional
field of study.
” 7.10 “The institution ensures that throughout their
program of study students acquire increasingly
sophisticated skills in evaluating the quality of information
sources appropriate to their field of study and the level of
the degree program”.
• standards for
March 1, 2013 the Institutional Research and Assessment (IRA)
LAU’s Assessment Plan Road Map to the Library
April 10, 2013 IRA conducted an Assessment workshop
April 30, 2013 Library Assessment Plan (LAP)
September 12, 2013 LAP
Jan. 23, 2014 AssessmentCommittee meeting to prepare the
implementation process for each goal and outcome of the Library
February 12, 2014 LAP
March 19, 2014 LAP
May 6, 2014 LAP
March 18, 2015 LAP
May 8, 2015 LAP
May 13, 2015 LAP meeting
July 7, 2015 Building groups and committees
Assessment-Survey group Meeting July 28, 2015, etc…
August 1st, 2015 LAP
July 2015 - present (ongoing meetings)
“The university libraries are committed to
support and enhance teaching, learning and
research at the LebaneseAmerican University
through providing high quality services and
resources, anticipate and respond to
emerging technologies, and, enrich the
intellectual and cultural life of the LAU
Statistics: Sherine – Rebecca
– Ali – Nelly – Samar Kalash –
Hani - Mona (Gihade: Leader)
Survey: Greg – Aida –
Bughdana – Caline – Samar
Wehbe (Leader: Houeida)
Inventory: Ghenwa – Maha –
Zeina – Mohamad – Hani –
Nancy – Hind (Nabil: Leader)
Focus Group: Rita – Joyce –
Samar Kalash (Rola Sfeir:
Pre/Post tests – Rubric: Joyce
– Said – Grace (Leader:
Behavioral observation: Greg
– Rebecca – Nancy – Katia
Benchmark: Rana – Rola
Habre (Sawsan: Leader)
2014 Creation of the
Librarian (Chair), and
Heads of Depts.
2015 Small groups
involving all staff were
leaders assigned for
Within the stated mission, 3 goals for the
Library were determined:
Goal 1: Create a university-wide collection
Goal 2: Create a library environment that is
conducive to teaching, learning and
Goal 3: Increase visibility and accessibility of
the university heritage.
For each goal, the C0mmittee documented tangible
Outcome 1.1: Maintain a dynamic collection.
Outcome 2.1: Offer high quality user-centered services.
Outcome 2.2: Improve the current state of innovation
Outcome 3.1: Preserve and disseminate the intellectual
output of the university.
Outcome 3.2: Promote and market the library.
For each outcome, measurable key performance indicators were developed.
Outcome 1.1: Maintain a dynamic collection.
KPI 1.1.1: Review and evaluate the quality of the library collection.
Outcome 2.1: Offer high quality user-centered services.
KPI 2.1.1: Assist users in discovering information and knowledge in a variety of formats.
KPI 2.1.2: Ensure the effectiveness use of library spaces.
KPI 2.1.3: Develop and maintain an effective information literacy program.
Outcome 2.2: Improve the current state of innovation practices.
KPI 2.2.1: Embrace appropriate technology to discover library services and resources
“anywhere, everywhere, anytime”.
Outcome 3.1: Preserve and disseminate the intellectual output of the university.
KPI 3.1.1:Curate and manage data through partnership with faculty.
KPI 3.1.2: Collect and manage university records.
Outcome 3.2: Promote and market the library.
KPI 3.2.1: Create and maintain partnerships with communities worldwide.
KPI 3.2.2: Empower library web presence.
KPI 3.2.3: Promote special events and services.
Targets Collection Agent
Offer high quality user-
KPI 2.1.1: Assist
knowledge in a
variety of formats.
ion Literacy Dept.
3 years Oct. 2015
KPI 2.1.2: Ensure
the effective use of
KPI 2.1.3: Develop
and maintain an
Statistics Survey 70%
3 years Oct. 2015
Emmett & Emde (2007) stated that
“Assessment of instruction and learning
outcomes are essential in determining the
development of information competencies”.
A good assessment is NOT used to evaluate
individual students faculty and staff rather
ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher EducationTask Force (2014a), “Framework for
information literacy in higher education, draft 1”, available at:http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/Framework-for-IL-for-HE-Draft-1-Part-1.pdf (accessed 10 September 2015).
ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher EducationTask Force (2014b),“Framework for
information literacy in higher education, draft 2”, available at:http://acrl.ala.org/ilstandards/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/Framework-for-IL-for-HE-Draft-2.pdf (accessed 10 September 2015).
ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards ReviewTask Force (2012), “Task force recommendations”,
available at: www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/ils_recomm.pdf (accessed 10
Association of College and Research Libraries (2000), “Information literacy competency standards for higher
education”, available at: www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency (accessed 10
Bonnie, G. L. (2004).The three arenas of information literacy assessment. Reference &User ServicesQuarterly, 44(2),
122-129. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/217893044?accountid=27870
Djenno, M., Insua, G. M., & Pho, A. (2015). From paper to pixels: UsingGoogle forms for collaboration and
assessment. Library HiTech News, 32(4), 9-13. doi:10.1108/LHTN-12-2014-0105
Emmett, A., & Emde, J. (2007). Assessing information literacy skills using the ACRL standards as a
guide. Reference Services Review, 35(2), 210-229. doi:10.1108/00907320710749146
Fluk, L. R. (2015). Foregrounding the research log in information literacy instruction.The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 41(4), 488-498. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.010
Goebel, N., Knoch, J. K.,Thomson, M., Willson, R. B., & Sharun, S. (2013). Making assessment less
scary. College & Research Libraries News, 74(1), 28-31.
Iannuzzi, P. (1999).We AreTeaching, But AreThey Learning: Accountability, Productivity, and
Assessment. Journal Of Academic Librarianship, 25(4), 304.
Kane, c. (April 12, 2014). Academic libraries, information literacy assessment and higher education
accreditation. Higher Learning Commission Annual Conference, IL, Chicago.
Silverton PS CatalystTeam. (2008). Multimodal Literacy.
Sharun, S., Michelle, E.T., Goebel, N., & Knoch, J. (2014). Institutions collaborating on an information
literacy assessment tool. Library Management, 35(8), 538-546. doi:10.1108/LM-03-2014-0035
Stordy, P. (2015).Taxonomy of literacies. Journal of Documentation, 71(3), 456-476. doi:10.1108/JD-10-36
Once in Google Drive, follow these steps:
Click “Create” – “Form”.
Give your Form a name and choose a theme.
Put your question in the box labeled, “Question Title” and any instructions or helpful hints
in the one labeled, “HelpText”.
Question types: “Text” or “ParagraphText” for free-form entries-multiple choice-
checkboxes-choose from a list-scale or grid.
After you have finished your question, click “Done”.
To add another question, click the down arrow next to “Add item” and choose the type of
To check the Form, click “View” and then “Live Form”.
To embed the Form, click on “Send Form” at the top of the page and then “Embed”.
Once your Form is completed, click on “View Responses” to access the response
Click on “Share” and choose the level of access you want to grant. If you would like your
class to have access to the responses (Djenno, Insua & Pho, 2015, p. 12).