assessment of information literacy in academic libraries: lau libraries case study

38
Assessment of Information Literacy in Academic Libraries: LAU Libraries Case Study By Houeida Kammourié-Charara InfoCommons Librarian Lebanese American University (LAU) Emerald Day @LAU September 15, 2015 RNL, Beirut - Lebanon

Upload: houeida-kammourie

Post on 16-Feb-2017

555 views

Category:

Education


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Assessment of Information Literacy in Academic Libraries: LAU Libraries Case StudyBy Houeida Kammourié-Charara

InfoCommons LibrarianLebanese American University (LAU)

Emerald Day @LAUSeptember 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 Education Task Force , June 2014).

What Is Information Literacy (IL)?

2

Stordy’s Taxonomy Of Literacies (2015)

• 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 Catalyst Team, 2008).

Newer conceptio

ns:3

How Is IL Addressed in Higher Education?

IL general outcomesIL discipline/subject-specific outcomes Workshops and/or seminarsOne Credit course, usually taught by librarians Library instruction sessions (group/individual)

4

According to Kane (2014), IL is addressed in HE as follows:

BTW LAU Libraries and IL Course

Learning Resources Techniques 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

What is Assessment?

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

Purpose of Assessment

To improve To inform To prove To support

campus decision-making activities: Strategic Planning, accreditation, etc.

7

Assessment Steps

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

Models & Standards 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

ACRL standards

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

Redefining IL 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

Why?

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

ACRL Standards Timeline 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 Education Task 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 process13

Assessment Tools For IL 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

Google Forms (Appendix A)Richard J. Daley Library at the University ofIllinois 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

Google Forms

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

IL & Assessment – ACRL Style

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

3 Areas of IL Assessment

18

4 Levels of IL Assessment 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

ACRL IL Course Outcomes 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

IL & Accreditation Associations Middle States Commission on Higher Education

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools – Commission on Colleges Principles of Accreditation

Western Association of Schools and Colleges – Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Standard II.

WSCUC – Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission Standard 2, Teaching and Learning – criteria for review 2.2a

21

IL & Accreditation Associations New England Association of Schools and

Colleges – Commission on Institutions of Higher Education Standard 7, “Library and Other Information Resources”: Information and Technological 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

IL Assessment Instruments

Inventory StatisticsRubricPre/Post testsSurvey Benchmark Focus Group Behavioral observation

23

LAU Libraries Assessment Plan

• accreditation agencyNEAS

C• standards for

Information literacy assessment

ACRL24

Assessment Timeline 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 Assessment Committee 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

LAU Libraries Mission

Mission Statement “The university libraries are

committed to support and enhance teaching, learning and research at the Lebanese American 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

LAU Libraries Assessment Committee

METHODS/TOOLSDirect 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

Goals

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

Outcomes

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

Outcomes / Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

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

Outcomes / KPIs / Methods

OutcomesPerformance Indicators / Measures

Methods

Targets Collection Agent

Assessment Agent

Assessment 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/Information 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

Samples

32

33

Conclusion

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

ReferencesACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education Task 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 Education Task 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 Review Task 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 Services Quarterly, 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: Using Google forms for collaboration and assessment. Library Hi Tech News, 32(4), 9-13. doi:10.1108/LHTN-12-2014-0105

35

ReferencesEmmett, 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 Are Teaching, But Are They 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 Catalyst Team. (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-10-2013-0128

36

THANK YOU

QUESTIONS???

37

Appendix A: How To Create Google Form

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, “Help Text”. Question types: “Text” or “Paragraph Text” 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