Complex questions, evolving answers: Creating a multidimensional assessment strategy to build support for the "Teaching library"

Public Services Quarterly

Volumn 3, Issue 1-2, 2007, Pages 57-82

  McMillen, Paula ^a   Deitering, Anne Marie ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Collaboration; Information literacy; Learning outcomes; Library instruction; Student learning; Teaching library

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650156831     PISSN: 15228959     EISSN: 15229114     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J295v03n01_04     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. AAUC (1985) Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the academic community: The findings and recommendations of the Project on Redefining the Meaning and Purpose of Baccalaureate Degrees, Association of American Colleges, Washington, DC
2. American Association for Higher Education Assessment Forum (1996) 9 principles of good practice in assessing student learning
3. Ansay, S. J., Perkins, D. F. and Nelson, C. J. (2003) Interpreting outcomes: Using focus groups in evaluation research. Family Relations, 53:3, pp. 310-316.
4. Baker, R. L. (2002) Evaluating quality and effectiveness: Regional accreditation principles and practices. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28, p. 1.
5. Black, K. E. and Kline, K. A. (2002) Program review: A spectrum of perspectives and practices. Building a scholarship of assessment, pp. 223-239. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
6. Bloom, B. S. (1984) Taxonomy of educational objectives, Allyn & Bacon, Boston
7. Buschman, J. and Warner, D. A slip between the cup and the lip: Practical and intellectual problems of marketing U.S. academic libraries. Education and research for marketing and quality management in libraries = la formation et a recherche sur le marketing et la gestion de la qualité en bibliotheque: Satellite meeting/colloque satellite Quebec K. G. Saur, 200, pp. 269-278. Munchen
8. Carter, E. W. (2002) "Doing the best you can with what you have": Lessons learned from outcomes assessment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28:12, p. 36.
9. Colborn, N. W. and Cordell, R. M. (1998) Moving from subjective to objective assessment of your instruction program. RSR: Reference Services Review, 26:34, pp. 125-137.
10. Davidson, J. R. and Crateau, C. A. (1998) Intersections: Teaching research through a rhetorical lens. Research Strategies, 16:4, pp. 245-257.
11. Davidson, J. R., McMillen, P. S. and Maughan, L. S. (2002) Using the ACRL information literacy competency standards for higher education to assess a university library instruction program. Journal of Library Administration, 36:12, p. 97.
12. Dugan, R. E. and Hernon, P. (2002) Outcomes assessment: Not synonymous with inputs and outputs. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28:6, pp. 376-380.
13. Fister, B. (1993) Teaching the rhetorical dimensions of research. Research Strategies, 12, pp. 214-215.
14. Flynn, C., Gilchrist, D. and Olson, L. (2003) Using the assessment cycle as a tool for collaboration. Resource Sharing and Information Networks, 17:12, pp. 187-203.
15. Forrest, C. and Williamson, A. J. (2003) From inputs to outcomes: Measuring library service effectiveness through user surveys. Georgia Library Quarterly, 40:2, pp. 12-18.
16. Fraser, B. T., McClure, C. R. and Leahy, E. H. (2002) Toward a framework for assessing library and institutional outcomes portal. Libraries and the Academy, 2:4, pp. 505-528.
17. Frey, B. A., Alman, S. W., Barron, D. and Steffens, A. (2004) Student satisfaction with the online MLIS program at the University of Pittsburgh. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 45:2, pp. 82-97.
18. Gibson, C. (1992) Accountability for BI program in academic libraries: Key issues for the 1990's. Reference Librarian, pp. 99-108.
19. Harvard Writing Project (2003) Shaped by writing: The undergraduate experience, Harvard University Expository Writing Project, Cambridge, MA
20. Iannuzzi, P. (1999) We are teaching, but are they learning: Accountability, productivity, and assessment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25:4, pp. 304-305.
21. Jackson, S., Hansen, C. and Fowler, L. (2004) Using selected assessment data to inform information literacy program planning with campus partners. Research Strategies, 20:12, pp. 44-56.
22. Kapoun, J. (2004) Assessing library instruction assessment activities. Library Philosophy & Practice, 7:1, pp. 1-11.
23. Kempcke, K. (2002) The art of war for librarians: Academic culture, curriculum reform, and wisdom from Sun Tzu. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2:4, pp. 529-551.
24. Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004) Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information service, Libraries Unlimited, Westport, CT
25. Maki, P. L. (2002) Developing an assessment plan to learn about student learning. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28:1, pp. 8-13.
26. McMillen, P. S. and Hill, E. (2004) Why teach "research as a conversation" in freshman composition courses? A metaphor to help librarians and composition instructors develop a shared model. Research Strategies, 20:12, pp. 3-22.
27. McMillen, P. S., Miyagishima, B. and Maughan, L. S. (2002) Lessons learned about developing and coordinating an instruction program with freshman composition. Reference Services Review, 30:4, pp. 288-299.
28. Meulemans, Y. N. (2002) Assessment city: The past, present, and future state of information literacy assessment. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 9:2, pp. 61-74.
29. National Governors' Association, Center for Policy Research and Analysis (1986) Time for results: The governors' 1991 report on education, The Association, Washington, DC
30. Nolan, D. A. (2006) Measurement, assessment and evaluation section (MAES). Library Administration & Management, 20:1, p. 48.
31. Oregon State University (2004) A strategic plan for the 21st century
32. Oregon State University Libraries (2004) Strategic plan 2004
33. Oregon State University Libraries (2004) OSU Undergraduate Information Literacy Competencies
34. Penhale, S. J., Taylor, N. and Kirk, T. G. (1997) A method of measuring the reach of a bibliographic instruction program, American Library Association, Chicago
35. Project SAILS (2006) About Project SAILS
36. Project SAILS (2006) Project SAILS Skills Sets
37. Ragains, P. (1997) Evaluation of academic librarians' instructional performance: Report of a national survey. Research Strategies, 15:3, pp. 159-175.
38. Sommers, N. and Saltz, L. (2004) The novice asexpert: Writing the freshman year. College Composition and Communication, 56:1, pp. 124-150.
39. Valentine, B. (1993) Undergraduate research behavior: Using focus groups to generate theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19:5, pp. 300-204.
40. Von Seggern, M. and Young, N. J. (2003) The focus group method in libraries: Issues relating to process and data analysis. Reference Services Review, 31:3, pp. 272-284.
41. Warner, D. A. (2003) Programmatic assessment: Turning process into practice by teaching for learning. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29:3, pp. 169-176.
42. Warnken, P. N., Young, V. L. and Ahuja, R. (1992) Beyond the survey: Using market research techniques to evaluate and improve library services and collections. Academic libraries: Achieving excellence in higher education: Proceedings of the sixth national conference of the association of college and research libraries, pp. 401-404. Salt Lake City, Utah