Skip to Main Content

Information Literacy Assessment

This guide is to assist in the development of tools to assess information literacy

Assessment Best Practices

 

Oakleaf's (2014) Roadmap article offers a helpful starting point and sequence for assessment development efforts in light of ACRL's (2015) Framework. From a theoretical perspective, Anderson (2015), Badia (2017), and Graf and Harris (2016) all recommend collaborative and reflective models to ensure assessment contributes to lifelong learning processes for students and instructors alike. Oakleaf's (2014) introductory remarks give concrete examples of specific performance assessment tools to illuminate student learning journeys across troublesome patches: 

  • use snapshot assessments like pre- and post-test question prompts to glimpse students' progressive conceptual understanding;
  • use declarative assessments like illustrative concept mapping to discover students' developmental and interrelational thought processes; and,
  • use diarized assessments like reflective portfolios and blogs to encourage externalized learning (p. 511).

Rubric development is a key process for evaluating student artifacts, such as those mentioned above; for more, see chapter 8 of Burkhardt's (2016) Teaching Information Literacy Reframed, found under the Books tab. Also, don't miss The Official (and Unofficial) Rules for Norming Rubrics Successfully by Holmes and Oakleaf (2013) under the Articles tab, and Rubric for Rubrics found under the Online Resources tab.

A variety of case studies published from 2015-2017 detail the information literacy assessment efforts of academic institutions grappling with ACRL's (2015) Framework. Common themes among the studies reinforce best practices described above, in addition to providing concrete examples and lessons learned; for details, see the Case Studies tab. Additional practical tips can be gleaned from several authors and editors whose works are organized under the Books tab.

Only have a few minutes to explore the tabbed content within this guide? See recommended starting places below. 

If you have 5 minutes

Glimpse how other academic libraries are handling information literacy assessment under the Websites subheading of the Online Resources tab. Skim the Case Studies tab content to glean additional insight into other institutions' assessment efforts.

If you have 15 minutes

Check out Oakleaf's (2014) roadmap on assessing ACRL's (2015) framework under the Articles tab. For a super quick read, start at "Ok, So Now What?" and skim down to step 8's key questions. Focus on absorbing recommendations for assessing student learning artifacts.

If you have 30 minutes

Review key chapter takeaways or excerpts summarized in the gray boxes of the Books or Articles tabs. Consider what thoughts or predictions arise for you upon reading these highlights. Choose a chapter or article of interest and explore its beginning and end. 

If you have 60+ minutes

Take a deeper dive into a print or electronic resource of interest to you. Browsing over your lunch break or commute? Tune into ACRL's (2017) Community College Showcase webinar under the Online Resources tab to see concrete examples of Framework-based information literacy instruction and assessment practices in action.

Articles

Excerpt: "Assessments meant to contribute to the process of learning, instead of measuring the outcome of learning, would need be formative by design. Since the concept of scholarship as a conversation and a collaborative process is central to the Framework, the assessment tools identified here—discussion boards, guided group discussion, and web 2.0 technologies—are all collaborative strategies. These strategies overlap to a certain degree, but they also have unique characteristics that make them well-suited to support the learning goals of the ACRL Framework" (p. 5). 

 

Excerpt: "Action research consists of defining the problem to study in the classroom, planning the educational intervention and its assessment, implementing the intervention and its evaluation, examining the responses collected, and reflecting on the findings to innovate or improve. The last step of action research leads back to critical reflection... Three case studies will demonstrate how the author employed action research and Brookfield’s model for different IL sessions to improve her instructional practices... [In one case] the assessment of this intervention occurred as it was happening, eliciting feedback from...the students, teaching assistant, and the instructional librarian" (pp. 702, 704-705).

 

Excerpt: "There is a risk that some librarians and library-adjacent institutions will attempt to treat the Framework as another standard by which they can measure supposedly universal skills. Dishearteningly, one company has already created a standardized test that purports to measure students’ achievements based on concepts in the Framework, even though standardized tests seem a poor fit for assessing the context-specific dispositions championed by the Framework...Precisely because it is not a mere repackaging of the Standards, the Framework offers an opportunity to improve our practice" (p. 713).

 

Excerpt: "Instead of viewing assessment methods as merely mechanisms for producing required 'proof of value,' the process of adding a reflective layer to assessment can help us more carefully evaluate what it is we profess to value in the first place" (p. 45). 

 

Excerpt: "IMAGINE... despite your best efforts to select appropriate work samples and compose a useful rubric, the group does not always agree on how to score individual work samples using the rubric. Because you know that inconsistent (unreliable) assessments cannot be accurate (valid) assessments, the group decides to address the disagreements through engaging in “norming” the rubric. You have been asked to facilitate the norming session, but you feel uncertain about how to proceed" (p. 599).

 

Excerpt: "threshold concepts are very well suited to learning outcomes assessment, as long as the assessments permit the use of authentic assessment approaches, provide useful feedback to students to help them over the 'stuck places,' emphasize individual variation in the journey that students travel to achieve them, recognize that learners may redefine their sense of self, link learning and grading in meaningful ways, organize programmatic assessment around transformational ideas, and support metacognition" (p. 511).

 

eBooks

Burkhardt's (2016) text supports the Framework's emphasis on threshold concepts and the importance of allowing students to grapple with troublesome learning journeys. Chapter 8 underscores this point from an instructional design standpoint, alongside applicable insight on rubric creation and other assessment how-to's.

 

Kurt, Hinrichs, and Olswang (2011) compile best practices with broad applications to information literacy assessment in light of ACRL's (2015) framework. In chapter 5, Chuprina and Zaher (2011) address reflective self-evaluation as a means of bridging formative and accountability-based assessments while preparing students for lifelong ownership in learning. Gray's (2011) chapter 23 illuminates successful uses of ongoing formative assessment to drive student-centered instructional experiences. Fountain's (2011) chapter 24 offers a case study on City University of Seattle's mission-driven approach to developing regular and ongoing learning outcomes assessment. Together, these authors set forth several recommendations of note: de-mystify and discuss learning outcomes with students in everyday language; use rapid classroom assessment techniques such as quick writes or formative blogging to gain valuable student feedback well before a summative assessment; and seek regular, ongoing feedback to guide instructional practice in order to continuously improve assessment outcomes over time.

 

Though Neely's (2006) text offers standards-era assessment guidance, chapters 8-10 include information beyond the standards which can help inform today's framework-era assessment practices, including broadly applicable road maps for assessment instrument development and automation. 

 

Print Books

Bowles-Terry and Kvenild (2015) offer examples of specific tools for assessing prior knowledge (chapter 1), including focused listing and the minute paper. In chapters 2-3, the authors describe critical and creative thinking assessments, including one-sentence summaries aligned directly with ACRL's (2015) Framework concepts.

 

This text offers sample activities and assignments organized by the ACRL's (2015) threshold concepts, complete with "Guided Practice" recommendations for immediate observational assessment techniques applicable during instructional sessions. Additionally, guidance incorporates opportunities for faculty collaboration on assessing additional student learning artifacts.

 

After defining formative assessment, the authors flesh out snapshot techniques for various instruction stages (chapters 5-7)--useful for gauging student progression through threshold concept learning.

 

In chapter 19, Baker and Gladis (2015) contribute broadly applicable guidance on Southwest Minnesota State University's adoption of institution-wide Information Literacy collaborative instruction and assessment efforts in light of ACRL's (2015) Framework.

 

In chapter 1, authors Mikkelsen and McMunn-Tetangco introduce the Teaching Research and Information Literacy (TRAIL) pilot program used at the University of California, Merced, Library alongside ACRL's (2015) Framework. The chapter authors include a link to an accompanying LibGuide detailing UC Merced's TRAIL literacy lessons, assignments, and assessments as part of the ACRL's Assessment in Action program. Chapter 2 dives into a case study on the pairing of information literacy assessment and course assessment.

Made with Padlet

Document

Toolkit

Webinar

Check out the ACRL's (2017) Community College Showcase webinar, below, for concrete examples of Framework-based information literacy instruction and assessment.

 

Web Pages

Wondering what other academic libraries are doing by way of information literacy assessment development? Check out the selections below.

University of Redlands - developed a set of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and launched participation in a longitudinal study through ACRL's Assessment in Action (AiA) program. In conjunction with AiA, information literacy assessment is approached from multiple angles using mixed methods and a variety of artifacts and instruments at formative and summative stages.

Gonzaga University - developed a set of five SLOs and an accompanying Framework-aligned rubric; annual assessment cycles involve faculty collaboration to design and evaluate one SLO.

University of Southern California - developed new SLOs and faculty grant opportunities for collaborating with librarians to infuse the 2015 Framework in course-level instructional design and assessment.

Azuza Pacific University - developed Framework-aligned information literacy assignment lib guides with examples of formative and summative assessments.

University of Washington - developed a project roadmap for teaching and learning efforts, including mention of forthcoming Framework-aligned SLOs.

References

Anderson, M. (2015). Rethinking assessment: Information literacy instruction and the ACRL framework. SLIS Student Research Journal, 5(2), 1. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&context=slissrj

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2017a). ACRL framework for information literacy toolkit. Retrieved from http://acrl.libguides.com/c.php?g=651675&p=4571135

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2017b). ACRL SLILC framework for information literacy: A community college showcase [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/hTuerD9NA5M

Badia, G. (2017). Combining critical reflection and action research to improve pedagogy. Libraries and the Academy, 17(4), 695-720. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/672180/pdf

Berg, C. (2017). Ready-to-go assessment: The implementation and design of a general assessment tool. Reference Services Review, 45(2), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0072

Bowles-Terry, M., & Kvenild, C. (2015). Classroom assessment techniques for librarians. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries. 

Bravender, P., McClure, H., & Schaub, G. (Eds.). (2015). Teaching information literacy threshold concepts: Lesson plans for librarians. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.  

Broussard, M. S., Hickoff-Cresko, R., & Oberlin, J. U. (2014). Snapshots of reality: A practical guide to formative assessment in library instruction. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.  

Buck Institute for Education. (2011). Rubric for rubrics [Word document]. Retrieved from https://www.bie.org/object/document/rubric_for_rubrics

D'Angelo, B., Jamieson, S., Maid, B., & Walker, J. R. (Eds.). (2017). Information literacy: Research and collaboration across disciplines. Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse.  

Foasberg, N. (2015). From standards to frameworks for IL: How the ACRL Framework addresses critiques of the Standards. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15(4). Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/article/595062

Gammons, R., & Inge, L. (2017). Using the ACRL framework to develop a student-centered model for program-level assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(1), 168-184. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2017.11.1.40

Gariepy, L. W., Stout, J. A., & Hodge, M. L. (2016). Using rubrics to assess learning in course-integrated library instruction. Libraries and the Academy, 16(3), 491-509. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0043

Graf, A.J., & Harris, B.R. (2016). Reflective assessment: Opportunities and challenges. Reference Services Review, 44(1), 38-47. doi:10.1108/RSR-06-2015-0027

Grigg, K. S., & Dale, J. (2017). Assessing and meeting the information literacy needs of incoming transfer students: Implementing ACRL’s assessment in action program. Reference Services Review, 45(3),527-539. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0076

Johnson-Grau, G., Archambault, S. G., Acosta, E. S., & McLean, L. (2016). Patience, persistence, and process: Embedding a campus-wide information literacy program across the curriculum. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(6), 750. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.10.013

Kiel, S., Burclaff, N., & Johnson, C. (2015). Learning by doing: Developing a baseline information literacy assessment. Libraries and the Academy, 15(4), 747-766. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/595064

Kurt, K. D., Hinrichs, H. M., & Olswang, S. G. (2011). Authentic instruction and online delivery: Proven practices in higher education [eReader version]. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555567

Neely, T. Y. (2006). Information literacy assessment: Standards-based tools and assignments [eReader version].  

Oakleaf, M. (2014). A roadmap for assessing student learning using the new framework for information literacy for higher education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(5), 510-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.08.001

Pinkley, J., & Hoffmann, D. (2017). Opportunities in disguise: The continuing evolution of an authentic information literacy assessment. Codex: the Journal of the Louisiana Chapter of the ACRL, 5(1), 19-37. Retrieved from http://journal.acrlla.org/index.php/codex/article/view/125

Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment [eReader version].  

Ragains, P., & Wood, S. (Eds.). (2016). The new information literacy instruction: Best practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. 

Whitlock, B., & Ebrahimi, N. (2016). Beyond the library: Using multiple, mixed measures simultaneously in a college-wide assessment of information literacy. College & Research Libraries, 77(2), 236-262. doi:10.5860/crl.77.2.236

Willson, G., & Angell, K. (2017). Mapping the Association of College and Research Libraries information literacy framework and nursing professional standards onto an assessment rubric. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(2), 150-154. doi:dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.39