Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Assessment of Information Literacy in Academic Libraries: LAU Libraries Case Study

719 views

Published on

The use of ACRL standards in assessing information literacy skills in the Lebanese American University libraries.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Assessment of Information Literacy in Academic Libraries: LAU Libraries Case Study

  1. 1. By Houeida Kammourié-Charara InfoCommons Librarian Lebanese American University (LAU) Emerald Day @LAU September 15, 2015 RNL, Beirut - Lebanon
  2. 2. “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). 2
  3. 3. • computer literacy • information literacy • digital literacy • media literacy • internet literacy Established literacies: • Transliteracy: Read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media including social media. • Metaliteracy: Collaborate, produce and share. • multimodal literacy: “All the different ways in which meaning can be created and communicated in the world today” (Silverton PS CatalystTeam, 2008). Newer conceptions: 3
  4. 4. IL general outcomes IL discipline/subject-specific outcomes Workshops and/or seminars One Credit course, usually taught by librarians Library instruction sessions (group/individual) 4 According to Kane (2014), IL is addressed in HE as follows:
  5. 5.  Learning ResourcesTechniques one credit course was taught by LAU librarians since late 50’s in different formats.  In fall 2007 the University decided to cancel the course. 5
  6. 6. Since 2013 the University is carrying out an assessment plan – a must for NEASC accreditation and reaccreditation  “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) 6
  7. 7.  To improve  To inform  To prove  To support  campus decision-making activities: Strategic Planning, accreditation, etc. 7
  8. 8. Making expectations and standards Systematically gathering evidence Analyzing and interpreting the evidence Using the resulting information to document, explain and improve performance (IRA, 2013). 8
  9. 9.  According to Bruce (2004) four models/standards of information literacy have had a major impact within education:  Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s Big6 information skills.  Doyles.  ALA and AECT’s information literacy standards for student learning.  ACRL’s information literacy competency standards for higher education. 9
  10. 10.  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 needs. 10
  11. 11.  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, 2014, p.20).  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. 11
  12. 12. Instruction librarians need to teach users where and how to locate relevant and reliable information. When research tools moved from print sources to online, Information literacy instruction witnessed drastic change Researchers are exposed to huge content via one search box, designed to rival popular search engines e.g. Google 12
  13. 13.  2000 Association of College and Research Libraries Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.  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 13
  14. 14.  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 ▪ SAILS ▪ ILT ▪ iSkills ▪ Credit-bearing courses: IDEA , etc. ▪ ILAAP “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, p.30).  Individual student/faculty evaluations  Examinations of bibliographies/reference lists from papers or projects  Internal departmental measures of IL outcomes 14
  15. 15. 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). 15
  16. 16.  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). 16
  17. 17.  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 literacy.  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. 17
  18. 18. 18
  19. 19.  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”. 19
  20. 20.  Students will:  Be able to locate, evaluate, and use information properly.  Be knowledgeable users of library and information resources.  Use information as a commodity  Become information literate learners, able to integrate technology skills and information literacy skills.  Demonstrate an understanding of ethical issues such as plagiarism, copyright, and intellectual freedom (Mayer, Bowles-Terry, 2013). 20
  21. 21.  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 review 2.2a 21
  22. 22.  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”. 22
  23. 23.  Inventory  Statistics  Rubric  Pre/Post tests  Survey  Benchmark  Focus Group  Behavioral observation 23
  24. 24. • accreditation agencyNEASC • standards for Information literacy assessment ACRL 24
  25. 25.  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 Assessment Plan.  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) 25
  26. 26. Mission Statement  “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 community”. 26
  27. 27. METHODS/TOOLS Direct Indirect 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: Leader) Pre/Post tests – Rubric: Joyce – Said – Grace (Leader: Marie-Thérèse) Behavioral observation: Greg – Rebecca – Nancy – Katia (Omar: Leader) Benchmark: Rana – Rola Habre (Sawsan: Leader)  2014 Creation of the Assessment Committee, University Librarian (Chair), and Heads of Depts.  2015 Small groups involving all staff were established, with leaders assigned for each group. 27
  28. 28. Within the stated mission, 3 goals for the Library were determined:  Goal 1: Create a university-wide collection development strategy.  Goal 2: Create a library environment that is conducive to teaching, learning and research.  Goal 3: Increase visibility and accessibility of the university heritage. 28
  29. 29. For each goal, the C0mmittee documented tangible outcomes:  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 practices.  Outcome 3.1: Preserve and disseminate the intellectual output of the university.  Outcome 3.2: Promote and market the library. 29
  30. 30. 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. 30
  31. 31. Outcomes Performance Indicators / Measures Methods Targets Collection Agent Assessment Agent Assessm ent Cycle Starting Date Direct Indirect 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. -Pre/Post tests -Rubric Evaluation form 70% Head, Reference/Informat ion Literacy Dept. Reference/ Information Literacy Dept. Committee 3 years Oct. 2015 KPI 2.1.2: Ensure the effective use of library spaces. -Behavioral observation -Statistics Survey 70% Head, InfoCommons Dept. Head, Access Services Dept. Library Space Committee 3 years Oct. 2015 KPI 2.1.3: Develop and maintain an effective information literacy program. Statistics Survey 70% Chair, Assessment Committee Information Literacy Program Committee 3 years Oct. 2015 31
  32. 32. 32
  33. 33. 33
  34. 34.  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 processes 34
  35. 35. 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 September 2015). Association of College and Research Libraries (2000), “Information literacy competency standards for higher education”, available at: www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency (accessed 10 September 2014). 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 35
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. QUESTIONS??? 37
  38. 38. 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 question.  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 spreadsheet.  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). 38

×