Follow the Rubric Road

Assessing the Librarian

InstructorNed FieldenSan Francisco State UniversitySan Francisco, California

Case Study

Assessment of Librarian Instructors

• Literature Review• Theoretical Issues• Rubric Design and

Implementation• Preliminary Evaluation

Instructor AssessmentSeveral Methods

• Classroom Visitation– Supervisor (higher in hierarchy)– Peer Colleague

• Surveys• Performance Assessment

(Learning outcomes of students assessed)

Institutional Need for Instructor Assessment

• Retention of probationary candidates, Tenure and Promotion

• CSU as public institution, criteria based, strict rules about personnel review

• Summative vs. formative assessment

Faculty Status• Over 60% of Academic Librarians Nationally have Faculty Status– 45% ARL Libraries– 70% Non-ARL Libraries• Best & Kneip, C&RL, 3/2010

• Approximately 40% • Parks & Riggs, JAL, 5/1993

Process

• Literature Review• Identify Suitable Mechanism for

Review• Create Draft• Consult with Library Education

Committee• Formally Adopted by Library Faculty

Rubrics

• Powerful, easy to use, standardized

• Considerable literature on rubric use for students/programs/outcomes

• Little on library instructor usage

Value of Rubrics• Standardised• Easy to use (minimal training)• Insures all criteria of review met• Possibilities of quantitative data

analysis, introduction of new values

• Can be employed both for summative and formative assessment

Rubric Basics• Glorified “checklist”, annotated to

establish criteria, distinct items

A. Preparation1. Communicated with course instructor before

the session to determine learning objectives and activities

2. Learned about course assignment(s) specifically related to library research

3. Customized instruction session plan to curriculum, specific course assignments and/or faculty/student requests

Rubric ComplexityDesign can reflect highly nuanced

categories

*Oakleaf, M.L., 2006. Assessing information literacy skills, Dissertation, University of North

Carolina.

EvaluationCriteria

Beginning Developing Exemplary Student Learning Outcomes

ArticulatesCriteria

0 – Student does not address authority issues

1 – Student addresses authority issues but does not use criteria terminology

2 – Student addresses authority issues and uses criteria terminology such as: author, authority, authorship or sponsorship

LOBO 3.1.1The student will articulate established evaluation criteria (ACRL 3.2 a)

Two Types of Researchers

Lumpers

Look at the whole Forest

Splitters

Look at individual Trees

Types of Rubrics• Analytic – Specific Criteria – Isolated Facets –Capacity for Highly Granular ScoringAnalytic rubrics “divide … a product or performance into

essential traits or dimensions so that they can be judged separately…” *

• Holistic –Big Picture –Fuzzier Focus“overall, single judgment of quality” *

*Arter and McTighe, Scoring rubrics, 2001.

Rubric Design

• What criteria to include• Opportunity to introduce

specific values in program• Involvement of all

constituents (evaluators/evaluatees)

Rubric Implementation

• Formative – Raw data given to candidate– Pre- and post-consultation– Candidate to use data however

desired

• Summative – Framework for formal letter for RTP

file

Summary

• Powerful, easy to use tool, levels playing field, highly customizable

• Issues of mixing formative and summative functions

Further Study

• Explore different varieties of instructor assessment tools

• Test different rubrics• Establish balance point between

depth of data and ease of use• Evaluate outcomes

Follow the Rubric Road Assessing the Librarian Instructor

• Bibliography– http://online.sfsu.edu/

~fielden/rbib.html

• Sample Rubric– http://online.sfsu.edu/

~fielden/rubrics.html

Ned FieldenSan Francisco State

Universityfielden@sfsu.edu