Library Instruction Assessment in Academic Libraries

Abstract

Determining the best methods of assessment for a library instruction program in a large research university can be a challenging task. Albert R. Mann Library at Cornell University Library has pilot tested three methods of formative and summative assessment for its library instruction programattitudinal, outcomes-based, and gap-measure-and determined not only key areas of improvement for the program, but also the benefits and drawbacks of each method of assessment. Attitudinal assessment has guided program improvement in areas of marketing and user satisfaction but does not provide the measurement of learning that outcomes-based assessment covers. The latter can be difficult to achieve in single-session, short-term instruction, while gap-measure assessment can provide a more nuanced view of both patron and instructor attitudes toward learning outcomes, if not actual data on achievement on the objectives themselves. The authors have determined that a combination of these three different types of assessment can address the shortcomings of a single method alone and provide a better measure of the program as a whole.Keywords: information literacy, assessment, evaluation, college and university libraries Assessment of library instruction is a growing topic of concern for library instructors as evidenced by the 246 articles found in Library Literature on evaluation of bibliographic instruction (more in the last two years than in the previous six combined). A number of assessment models are available for library instruction; however, with the wide range of methods and their varying utility depending on the format and type of instruction being assessed, choosing and implementing models can be difficult. It is our contention that to present a well-rounded picture of an instruction program, more than one method of assessment is necessary. Over the last two years, the staff at Albert R. Mann Library at Cornell University Library (CUL) has pilot-tested a three-pronged approach to assessment. The first assessment was an evaluation of the entire CUL instruction program using focus groups and a Web-based statistical survey; the second outcomes-based assessment, focused on a single courserelated instruction session at Mann Library, consisted of a pre-test survey and examination of the results of a post-instruction tutorial assignment; and a third assessment featured a gap-measure analysis of instructors' and students' perceptions of the importance of the learning objectives in Mann Library's open workshop series. Below we present our findings and their effect on our instruction program, address the benefits and limitations of these various types of assessment, and show that a multi-method model of assessment, both formative and summative, is key to a clear picture of the various aspects of our instruction program.

What Five Minutes in the Classroom Can Do to Uncover the Basic Information Literacy Skills of Your College Students: A Multiyear Assessment Study

“…This supports other findings that students' learning from single-session ILI is limited (Mokhtar & Majid, 2006;Portmann & Roush, 2004;Hsieh & Holden, 2010). While the credit IL course is not the preferred or the primary way for IL training on most college campuses (Tancheva et al, 2007), some librarians have embedded themselves in the classroom over a period of time (Steiner & Madden, 2008), or have actually gained grading power (Coulter , Clarke, & Scamman, 2007). Moore Librarians need to investigate other means for working more closely with the professors to integrate IL into their courses in the future in order to increase the short-and long-term impact of ILI.…”

“…A review paper describing the pretest/posttest techniques raised concerns about using identical sets of questions for both tests, and the problem with the span of time placed between these two tests as the major factor in determining retention (Emmett & Emde, 2007). At Cornell University, the posttests indicated improvement in IL skills but the authors stated that a posttest later in the term would be needed to determine the amount of retention of the material (Tancheva, Andrews & Steinhart, 2007). Julien and Boon (2004) did just that.…”

In It for the Long Haul: Lessons from a Decade of Assessment

“…Summative evaluation seeks to determine if a program met its objectives. Tancheva, Andrews, and Steinhart (2007) explored the nuances of formative versus summative evaluation and stated that one study may encompass both purposes. Like many experienced evaluators, they also applauded the use of multiple methods.…”

Applications of Business Presentation Techniques to One-Shot Library Instruction

“…Walsh lists the most common assessment methods: analysis of bibliographies, essay, final grades, multiplechoice questionnaire, observation, portfolio, quiz/test, self-assessment, and simulation (2009,21). Key works dealing with library instruction assessment include the works of Belanger and Bliquez (2012), Coonin andWhitehurst (2011), Dunn (2002), Emmons and Martin (2002), López (2002), Maki (2002), Oakleaf (2008Oakleaf ( , 2009), Portmann and Roush (2004), Ragains (1997), Scharf et al (2007), Sobel and Sugimoto (2012), and Tancheva, Andrews, and Steinhart (2007).…”