The Proof is in the
Worksheets:
Tying Library Instruction Assessment to
ACRL Information Literacy Standards
Robin Grant, Felicia Haywood, and Dana Casper*
When Middle Georgia State University Libraries decided to assess our instruction, the First
Year Experience program’s mandatory library sessions gave us the perfect opportunity. Using learning outcomes based on ACRL information literacy standards, we scored every
student in FYE following library sessions—approximately 2,100 students over a two-year
period. We will share what we learned from this large pool of data, and how we are using
this knowledge to improve both FYE and other undergraduate library instruction.
Introduction
Middle Georgia State University was formed in 2012 when the Board of Regents voted to consolidate Macon
State College and Middle Georgia College. The new institution incorporates all five campuses of the two former
colleges, in five different Georgia towns.
The Macon State College Library (before consolidation) had been using an online survey at the end of
most library instruction sessions to assess student learning and make improvements. In these surveys, students
answered questions giving their impression of the usefulness of the class and providing suggestions for changes—many of which were put into practice. However, after reading studies that show a gap between students’
perception of their research competence and their actual skills,1 we wanted a more concrete way to measure
their learning. We decided to develop an assessment of our library instruction based on measurable learning
outcomes, not just student impressions of the class or how they felt about their abilities.
We investigated how other libraries were doing this kind of assessment and were interested in a program at
the University of North Carolina Wilmington, in which students completed activities on a worksheet during the
sessions. Items on the worksheet were tied to specific learning outcomes and scored for assessment.2 We contacted Anne Pemberton, Assistant Director, Library Instructional Services at the University of North Carolina
Wilmington, and discussed these ideas in more detail. Ms. Pemberton provided us with samples of their worksheets, outlines, and rubrics for scoring the worksheets.
For the past three years, Macon State College had been conducting two library instruction sessions for each
section of our new First Year Experience class, and we were using a standardized instruction outline and work* Robin Grant is Electronic Resources Librarian, Middle Georgia State University, email: [email protected]; Felicia Haywood is Assistant Director of Library Services—Macon Campus Library, Middle Georgia State University,
email: [email protected]; Dana Casper is Reference and Instruction Librarian, Middle Georgia State University, email: [email protected].
506
The Proof is in the Worksheets 507
sheet for each of those classes already. For other classes, such as English 1101 or English 1102, there is far more
difference from one library instruction session to another because we teach based on the students’ specific assignments and often do them workshop-style. In FYE, however, we teach broad, basic concepts that are the same
for each class section. It therefore appeared that the FYE program would be the ideal place to try a pilot program
of assessment based on consistent learning outcomes and student activities across all sessions.
In the fall of 2013, as the newly-consolidated Middle Georgia State, we would be expanding this standardized FYE instruction program to four of the five campuses and training librarians at all these locations to conduct FYE sessions. This seemed the perfect opportunity to tweak the existing outline and worksheet to use for a
pilot program of assessment of FYE library instruction sessions.
The prep work was done in summer of 2013. We conducted the assessment during the 2013–14 fall and
spring terms and again in 2014–15 fall and spring.
Developing Learning Outcomes, Class Outlines, and Rubrics based on
ACRL Standards
ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000) stated in the Information Literacy and Assessment section:
In the following competencies, there are five standards and twenty-two 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.3
Based on ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000), we identified
three desired learning outcomes for the first FYE session and four for the second session.
Session I:
• Demonstrate an understanding of the concept of keyword searching to broaden or narrow a topic.
• Demonstrate an understanding of evaluating a book for its appropriateness for their information need.
• Demonstrate an understanding of how to locate books in the library.
Session II:
• Demonstrate the ability to evaluate a website for trustworthiness and appropriateness for their information need.
• Demonstrate the ability to locate an article in an online library database.
• Demonstrate the ability to evaluate an article for its appropriateness for their information need.
• Demonstrate an understanding of the value of scholarly information sources.
Based on the ACRL standards and these learning outcomes, we developed instruction outlines, activity
worksheets, and scoring rubrics for each session. (See appendices for examples of learning outcomes and class
activities based on ACRL standards, as well as our scoring rubrics.)
Teaching the Classes
In addition to having standardization of the classes from the library side, we were fortunate that, when the FYE
program was being developed in 2010, librarians were on the curriculum committee and helped make information literacy an important goal. Consequently, information literacy and library instruction sessions were a
MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND
508 Robin Grant, Felicia Haywood, and Dana Casper
required part of the FYE curriculum, and the Library was able to take part in training sessions for FYE faculty.
We were also able to secure a requirement that FYE faculty assign a research project, so their students would immediately put into practice the concepts they would be learning in the library. Studies have shown that students
are more engaged in learning information skills when instruction is tied to a class research assignment, making
it relevant4 and requiring them to actively practice what they are learning.5 Therefore, assigning the students a
research project in conjunction with library instruction was seen to be critical. Faculty members of each FYE
section were, however, free to devise their own research project.
Because there are so many sections of FYE, every librarian was called upon to teach at least one of the
classes, so it was important to have a standard teaching outline as well as the worksheets and scoring rubrics.
Each librarian was allowed some leeway as far as sample books or websites chosen for each session, but otherwise were asked to present the classes and guide the students through the worksheet exercises according to
a standard outline. A list of broad sample topics was also provided to each librarian, as well as suggestions for
keywords to help guide students through the processes of broadening and narrowing topics. We began using all
these materials in the fall of 2013.
After each class, the teaching librarian would score the worksheets according to the rubric and send the
scores to the FYE professor. The professors could use these scored sheets as they desired, and most chose to give
the students at least a quiz grade. This had the added benefit of helping the students be more attentive in class
and see the session as a part of their class grade, as supported by earlier research from Robinson and Schlegl
(2004). This research showed that students were more likely to use the skills demonstrated in library research
sessions when doing so was tied to an enforceable penalty,6 which would in this case be the potential loss of a
quiz grade.
One type of problem often found with studies is “nonsampling error,” which involves issues in data processing, how the observations were made or interpreted, etc.7 To reduce the possibility of nonsampling errors such
as scoring discrepancies or librarian bias in our study, the original worksheets were scored again by a second
librarian. Both scores were entered into an Excel worksheet and the average of the two was the final score for the
assessment study.
First Year Results and Next Steps
Feeling confident that our FYE students had been getting a good foundation in information literacy concepts
from these library sessions, we set our initial measure of success high. Our measure of success would be 80 percent of students scoring three or better on each learning outcome/performance indicator.
We were unpleasantly surprised at the end of the first semester (fall 2013) to find that our students had failed
to make the 80 percent goal in all learning outcomes except for one: locating an article in an online database.
In response, librarians held a debriefing session to take a closer look at where students were having problems and to discuss ways for improvement. Neither the learning outcomes nor the rubrics were changed, but the
worksheet questions were tweaked and rearranged in areas that seemed to be causing the students confusion.
For example, on the “book evaluation” section of the original worksheet, identification of the book’s author had
been separated from a question about author credentials by questions about book location. Additionally, students did not seem to be certain what we were asking for on other book-related evaluation questions, so wording
was fine-tuned.
Based on our end-of-term debriefing session with all librarians, we also discovered that the library tour
near the beginning of session I, during which students were allowed to select a topic and book for the class, was
cutting into worksheet and evaluation time. We therefore started assigning topics and bringing in pre-selected
ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N
The Proof is in the Worksheets 509
FIGURE 1
Book Evaluation Section of Original Worksheet
FIGURE 2
Revised Book Evaluation Section of Worksheet
MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND
510 Robin Grant, Felicia Haywood, and Dana Casper
TABLE 1
FYE Session I Worksheet Totals Fall 2013 and Spring 2014
books that students could choose from. This not only allowed us more time for evaluation activities, but also allowed us to select books with a variety of “issues” we could discuss as a class—a dubious author, lack of currency,
lack of information about the author, etc.
As can be seen from table 1, scores did improve from fall to spring in all areas of session I.
Second Year’s Results
The Library decided to repeat the assessment for a second year, encompassing fall of 2014 and spring of 2015. At
the end of the fall semester, librarians once again had a debriefing session to examine the scores. For the second
year, we also set a more realistic goal that 70 percent of the students would achieve a score of three or better on
all the worksheet questions.
At the end of the fall term, we achieved our goal that 70 percent of students would achieve a score of three
or better on all the worksheet questions/learning outcomes, except for these two, both on the worksheet for the
second session:
ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N
The Proof is in the Worksheets
• Demonstrate the ability to evaluate an article for its appropriateness for their information need.
• Demonstrate an understanding of the value of scholarly information sources.
We noted that both of those learning outcomes had to do with recognizing the difference between scholarly
and other types of sources. It is sometimes hard for information professionals to understand that the idea of
scholarly, peer-reviewed sources is new and foreign to many students. Our worksheets and scores graphically
demonstrated that students often have difficulty grasping exactly what scholarly, peer-reviewed materials are,
what their purpose is, and how to identify them. In response, we decided to make some changes to our spring
2015 teaching outline to address those two learning outcomes specifically.
After analyzing the data, it appeared that one librarian had the best average scores from her students on
those two questions—and that she was doing some specific things in her teaching that were unique to her sessions:
• Bringing in samples of scholarly, peer-reviewed journals for the students to examine;
• Tying the website evaluation to the article evaluation.
◊ Specifically, when evaluating a website at the beginning of the class, students were asked to note
one claim the website made;
◊ Then, when they reached the part of class dealing with locating and evaluating an article, she led
them through a keyword search and helped them locate a scholarly, peer-reviewed article verifying
(or disproving) the website’s claim.
Since the data indicated that students were having more success with the evaluation of scholarly resources
when exposed to this method, the teaching outline for the second FYE session was revised to follow this general outline. Again, we did not change the worksheets, learning outcomes, or rubrics, but adjusted the teaching
outline to give more weight and clarity to the issue of scholarly resources. We again gave individual librarians
the option of choosing their own websites and article sources for the evaluations, but also provided two topic/
website samples.
At this point, we also asked librarians not to use “hoax” web pages for the website evaluation section of their
classes. Some librarians had been successfully using hoax websites in library instruction to make classes more
fun and get students’ attention. One popular example was “Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus.”8 However,
hoax websites would not work as well with our new outline, because we wanted students to be able to follow the
process of seeing original research reported in a scholarly journal, then interpreted and reported secondhand
on a website.
As seen in table 2, after adjusting our teaching outline for session II, scores did improve from fall of 2014 to
spring of 2015.
Results/Conclusions/Next Steps
We conducted library instruction sessions and scored and analyzed worksheets for 1,215 students in 2013–14
and for 1,109 students in 2014–15. Most of those students attended two library sessions, producing two worksheets, and all of the worksheets were scored by two different librarians. This large pool of data collected on
four different campuses across four semesters and many class sections helped give us a detailed picture of our
students and information literacy: their understanding and skills at the very beginning of their college careers;
how we were communicating with them; what they were learning; and the weaknesses that remained.
One benefit of this assessment is having hard data demonstrating students scoring well on questions about locating a certain resource, such as a book in a catalog or an article in a database. Once pointed in the right direction,
they were able to figure out where to click, where to enter search terms, etc. In other words, the mechanics of online
MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND
511
512 Robin Grant, Felicia Haywood, and Dana Casper
TABLE 2
FYE Session II Worksheet Totals Fall 2014 and Spring 2015
Note: the rows highlighted in yellow show the learning outcomes we focused on improving by
adjusting our teaching outline from fall to spring of that year.
searching, according to worksheet scores, was far more intuitive for students than the evaluation of information—
and in particular, the difference between scholarly and other types of information. Faculty members sometimes assume the opposite—that their students understand what kind of resource they need and will know it when they see
it, and only need librarians to show them the mechanics of the databases and “where to click.” Having these figures
allows us to demonstrate that students need much more to help them become information literate.
Another unplanned advantage we have discovered in using the worksheets instead of a survey is that we
don’t have to wait for another college department to send us results from our online form at the end of a semester
in order to make adjustments to our teaching. We are able to look at our worksheets immediately after classes
and spot possible trouble spots, or where students are not grasping the material as readily. We can then tweak
the next sessions to give more emphasis and clarity to the weak areas.
One issue we have had in standardizing these FYE library sessions has been that each FYE professor has
been responsible for developing his or her own research project for their classes. We found that the assigned
ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N
Robin Grant, Felicia Haywood, and Dana Casper
The Proof is in the Worksheets 513
projects varied greatly from one class to another, and many did not actually contain a satisfactory research
component. In response, we have developed a suggested research assignment and were allowed to share it with
FYE instructors starting at the beginning of fall 2015. We are hopeful that we will eventually be able to have a
standard, required research assignment across all sections to go along with the FYE library instruction sessions.
Although ACRL now has a new Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education (2015) available,
institutions interested in replicating our project should be able to use this same general process with other standards or learning outcomes.
Since we were already teaching all these FYE students and scoring their worksheets as a regular part of our
instruction, we chose to use all the students’ worksheets in this assessment, rather than a sample. We felt more
confident of the validity of our results since this allowed us to avoid sampling error, in which our chosen sample
may not have accurately reflected our whole population.9 However, conducting the second scoring to acquire
an average and working with so many worksheets and scores did involve a great deal of work hours. We might
consider including only a sample of the students if we do the study again.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Melissa Gross and Don Latham, “What’s Skill Got to Do With It?: Information Literacy Skills and Self-Views of Ability Among
First-year College Students,” Journal Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology 63, no. 3 (2012): 574–583,
doi: 10.1002/asi.21681; Melissa Gross, “The Impact of Low-Level Skills on Information-Seeking Behavior: Implications of Competency Theory for Research and Practice,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 45, no. 2 (2005): 155, http://ezproxy.mga.edu/
login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.20864481&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Anne Pemberton, “Getting More Bang for Your Buck: Using a Template to Create Rubrics and Worksheets for Library Instruction
Assessment,” YouTube video, 31:55, posted by the University of Chicago August 22, 2011, https://youtu.be/O4C3opGb_8A.
“Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,” American Library Association, last modified September 1,
2006, accessed December 20, 2016, http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.
Janet Webster and Lorett Rielly, “A Library Instruction Case Study: Measuring Success from Multiple Perspectives,” Research Strategies 19, no. 1 (2003): 16–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2003.11.001.
Susan E. Cooperstein and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger, “Beyond Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning,” Reference Services Review 32, no. 2 (2004): 141–148, http://ezproxy.mga.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/200546638?
accountid=12418; Ann Roselle, “Preparing the Underprepared: Current Academic Library Practices in Developmental Education,”
College & Research Libraries 70, no. 2 (2009): 142–156, http://ezproxy.mga.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eft&AN=502972691&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Andrew M. Robinson and Karen Schlegl, “Student Bibliographies Improve When Professors Provide Enforceable Guidelines for
Citations,” Portal : Libraries and the Academy 4, no. 2 (2004): 275–90, http://ezproxy.mga.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.
com/docview/216172087?accountid=12418.
Peter Hernon, “Determination of Sample Size and Selection of the Sample: Concepts, General Sources, and Software,” College &
Research Libraries 55, no. 2 (1994): 171–179, doi:10.5860/crl_55_02_171.
“Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus,” http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/.
Hernon, “Determination of Sample Size,” College & Research Libraries 55, 173.
MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND
514 Robin Grant, Felicia Haywood, and Dana Casper
APPENDIX 1
Teaching Outlines and Activities Based on ACRL Standards
FYE SESSION I
FYE Teaching Outline
ACRL Info Lit
Standard
ACRL Performance
Indicator/Outcome
FYE Activity for
Assessment/Learning
Outcome
Search Strategy
• Keyword basics
• Facebook as a
database and
keyword search
example
• Narrowing and
broadening topics
Standard One (I): The
information literate
student determines
the nature and extent
of the information
needed.
(I) 1d. Defines
or modifies the
information need to
achieve a manageable
focus.
On worksheet:
Student identifies
main topic.
Identifies keywords to
narrow or broaden.
Standard Two (II): The
information literate
student accesses
needed information
effectively and
efficiently.
(I) 1e. Identifies key
concepts and terms
that describe the
information need.
(II) 2b: Identifies
keywords, synonyms
and related terms
for the information
needed.
Search Strategy
• Start with general
info like reference,
then go more
specific
• Intro to library
book (GIL)
catalog and library
locations
Standard One (I): The
information literate
student determines
the nature and extent
of the information
needed.
(I) 2c. Identifies the
On worksheet, student
value and differences
identifies books as
of potential resources reference or general.
in a variety of formats.
Evaluating Sources
• Discuss
importance
of evaluating
information
• Demonstrate
evaluation of
a book for
currency; author’s
credentials;
intended audience;
factual information
vs. bias.
Standard Three (III):
The information
literate student
evaluates information
and its sources
critically and
incorporates selected
information into his or
her knowledge base
and value system.
(III) 2. The information
literate student
articulates and applies
initial criteria for
evaluating both the
information and its
sources
(I) 2d. Identifies the
purpose and audience
of potential resources.
(III) 2a. Examines and
compares information
from various sources
in order to evaluate
reliability, validity,
accuracy, authority,
timeliness, and point
of view or bias.
ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N
On worksheet,
student discusses and
evaluates a sample
book for currency,
author’s credentials,
intended audience,
factual information vs.
bias.
The Proof is in the Worksheets 515
APPENDIX 1
Teaching Outlines and Activities Based on ACRL Standards
FYE Teaching Outline
ACRL Info Lit
Standard
ACRL Performance
Indicator/Outcome
FYE Activity for
Assessment/Learning
Outcome
Evaluating Sources
• Discuss
importance
of evaluating
information
• Demonstrate
evaluation of
a book for
currency; author’s
credentials;
intended audience;
factual information
vs. bias.
Standard Three (III):
The information
literate student
evaluates information
and its sources
critically and
incorporates selected
information into his or
her knowledge base
and value system.
(III) 2. The information
literate student
articulates and applies
initial criteria for
evaluating both the
information and its
sources
On worksheet,
student discusses and
evaluates a sample
book for currency,
author’s credentials,
intended audience,
factual information vs.
bias.
When possible, give
a tour of the campus
library. Show students
how to locate books
in the library during
the tour. If tour is not
possible, show them
how to find books
based on locations in
GIL catalog.
Standard Two (II): The
information literate
student accesses
needed information
effectively and
efficiently.
(II) 3a. Uses various
search systems to
retrieve information in
a variety of formats
(III) 2a. Examines and
compares information
from various sources
in order to evaluate
reliability, validity,
accuracy, authority,
timeliness, and point
of view or bias.
(II) 3b. Uses various
classification schemes
and other systems…
to locate information
resources within the
library…
On worksheet,
identifies book’s call
number and describe
its location. Identifies
GIL as the library’s
book catalog.
FYE SESSION II
FYE Teaching Outline
ACRL Info Lit
Standard
ACRL Performance
Indicator/Outcome
Lead students in
evaluation of a sample
website for
• Currency
• Appropriateness
for project
(scholary v.
popular, reference,
news, etc.)
• Authority
• Information v. bias
• Accuracy
Standard Three (III):
The information
literate student
evaluates information
and its sources
critically and
incorporates selected
information into his or
her knowledge base
and value system.
(III) 2. The information
literate student
articulates and applies
initial criteria for
evaluating both the
information and its
sources.
(III) 2a. Examines and
compares information
from various sources
in order to evaluate
reliability, validity,
accuracy, authority,
timeliness, and point
of view or bias.
FYE Activity for
Assessment/Learning
Outcome
On worksheet,
student identifies
and discusses sample
website’s date/
currency; author
and credentials;
identity of website
owner/organization;
purpose of website
and possible
bias; accuracy of
information on site.
MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND
516 Robin Grant, Felicia Haywood, and Dana Casper
APPENDIX 1
Teaching Outlines and Activities Based on ACRL Standards
FYE Teaching Outline
ACRL Info Lit
Standard
ACRL Performance
Indicator/Outcome
FYE Activity for
Assessment/Learning
Outcome
Demonstrate
Advanced Google
searching to achieve
more focused results.
Standard Two (II): The
information literate
student accesses
needed information
effectively and
efficiently.
(II) 2e: Implements
the search strategy in
various information
retrieval systems
using different user
interfaces and search
engines, with different
command languages,
protocols, and search
parameters.
Hands-on student
practice, but no
worksheet item.
Demonstrate Subject
Guides and article
databases as a way to
most efficiently find
scholarly information.
Ask the student to
locate an article
on a given topic in
Academic Search
Complete.
Standard Two (II). The
information literate
student accesses
needed information
effectively and
efficiently.
(II)1. The information
literate student selects
the most appropriate
investigative methods
or information
retrieval systems for
accessing the needed
information.
Demonstrates the
ability to locate an
article in an online
library database.
(II) 1c. Investigates
the scope, content,
and organization of
information retrieval
systems.
(II) 1d. Selects
efficient and
effective approaches
for accessing the
information needed
from the investigative
method or information
retrieval system.
Demonstrate and
discuss popular
articles vs. scholarly,
peer-reviewed.
Standard One (I): The
information literate
student determines
the nature and extent
of the information
needed.
(I) 2d. Identifies the
purpose and audience
of potential resources
(e.g., popular vs.
scholarly, current vs.
historical)
ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N
Student identifies the
article they located as
popular or scholarly
and discusses the
intended audience.
On the worksheet,
student identifies
scholarly, peerreviewed journals as
the most authoritative
sources of information
for their papers.
The Proof is in the Worksheets 517
517
APPENDIX 1
Teaching Outlines and Activities Based on ACRL Standards
FYE Teaching Outline
ACRL Info Lit
Standard
ACRL Performance
Indicator/Outcome
FYE Activity for
Assessment/Learning
Outcome
Demonstrate how to
evaluate an article
found in Academic
Search Complete. Ask
students to evaluate
the article they
located.
Standard Three (III):
The information
literate student
evaluates information
and its sources
critically and
incorporates selected
information into his or
her knowledge base
and value system.
(III) 2. The information
literate student
articulates and applies
initial criteria for
evaluating both the
information and its
sources.
Student discusses the
article they located
in terms of currency,
authority, intended
audience, and
scholarly or popular.
(III) 2a. Examines and
compares information
from various sources
in order to evaluate
reliability, validity,
accuracy, authority,
timeliness, and point
of view or bias.
MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND
518 Robin Grant, Felicia Haywood, and Dana Casper
APPENDIX 2
Scoring Rubric for FYE Session I
Learning
Outcome
Excellent (4)
Good (3)
Fair (2)
Weak (1)
Demonstrate an
understanding
of the concept
of keyword
searching to
broaden or
narrow a topic.
Provides at least
two terms that
would broaden
AND two to
narrow their
assigned topic.
Provides at least
one term that
would broaden
AND one to
narrow their
assigned topic.
Provides at least
one term that
would broaden
OR narrow their
assigned topic.
Provides no
terms to broaden
or narrow their
assigned topic.
Demonstrate an
understanding
of evaluating
a book for its
appropriateness
for their
information need.
Provides all of
the following:
Sound discussion
of the book’s
currency; author’s
credentials;
intended
audience; factual
information vs.
bias
Provides most
of the following:
sound discussion
of the book’s
currency; author’s
credentials;
intended
audience; factual
information vs.
bias
Provides some
of the following:
sound discussion
of the book’s
currency; author’s
credentials;
intended
audience; factual
information vs.
bias
Provides little
or none of the
following: sound
discussion of the
book’s currency;
author’s
credentials;
intended
audience; factual
information vs.
bias
Demonstrate an
understanding
of how to locate
books in the
library.
Does all of the
following:
Does most of the
following:
Does some of the Does little or
following:
none of the
following:
Identifies GIL as
Identifies GIL as
Identifies GIL as
the resource to
the resource to
Identifies GIL as
the resource to
look
for
books;
look
for
books;
the resource to
look for books;
physically
locates
physically
locates
look for books;
physically locates
a
call
number
a
call
number
physically locates
a call number
in
the
library
in
the
library
a call number
in the library
and/OR
fully
and/OR
fully
in the library
and/OR fully
describes
on
the
describes
on
the
and/OR fully
describes on the
worksheet
where
worksheet
where
describes on the
worksheet where
the
book
would
the
book
would
worksheet where
the book would
be
located.
be
located.
the book would
be located.
be located.
ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N
The Proof is in the Worksheets 519
APPENDIX 3
Scoring Rubric for FYE Session II
Learning
Outcome
Excellent (4)
Good (3)
Fair (2)
Weak (1)
Demonstrate the
ability to evaluate
a website for
trustworthiness
and
appropriateness
for their
information need.
Provides all of
the following:
sound discussion
of the website’s
currency,
accuracy, source,
bias (or lack
thereof), and
authority.
Provides most
of the following:
sound discussion
of the website’s
currency,
accuracy, source,
bias (or lack
thereof), and
authority.
Provides some
of the following:
sound discussion
of the website’s
currency,
accuracy, source,
bias (or lack
thereof), and
authority.
Provides little
or none of the
following: sound
discussion of
the website’s
currency,
accuracy, source,
bias (or lack
thereof), and
authority.
Demonstrate the
ability to locate
an article in an
online library
database.
Provides all three
of the following:
Title of an article;
name(s) of
author; and name
of database.
Provides at
least two of the
following: Title
of an article;
name(s) of
author; and name
of database.
Provides at
least one of the
following: Title
of an article;
name(s) of
author; and name
of database.
Provides none
of the following:
Title of an article;
name(s) of
author; and name
of database.
Demonstrate the
ability to evaluate
an article for its
appropriateness
for their
information need.
Provides all of the
following: sound
discussion of the
article’s currency;
authority;
and intended
audience; and
identification
as scholarly or
popular.
Provides most
of the following:
sound discussion
of the article’s
currency;
authority,
and intended
audience; and
identification
as scholarly or
popular.
Provides some
of the following:
sound discussion
of the article’s
currency;
authority;
and intended
audience; and
identification
as scholarly or
popular.
Provides little
or none of the
following: sound
discussion of the
article’s currency;
authority;
and intended
audience; and
identification
as scholarly or
popular.
Demonstrate an
understanding
of the value
of scholarly
information
sources.
Identifies
journal articles
as the most
authoritative
source of
information for
a research paper
and gives at
least two sound
supporting
reasons.
Identifies
journal articles
as the most
authoritative
source of
information for
a research paper
and gives at
least one sound
supporting
reason.
Identifies
journal articles
as the most
authoritative
source of
information for
a research paper
and gives no
sound supporting
reasons.
Does not identify
journal articles
as the most
authoritative
source of
information
for a research
paper and gives
no supporting
reasons.
MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND