Evidence Summary
Students May Demonstrate Information Literacy Skills Following Library
Instruction
A Review of:
Luetkenhaus, H., Hvizdak, E., Johnson, C., & Schiller, N. (2017).
Measuring library impacts through first year course assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(2),
339-353. http://comminfolit.org/index.php
Reviewed by:
Robin E. Miller
Associate Professor and Assessment & Instruction
Librarian
McIntyre Library
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, United States of America
Email: millerob@uwec.edu
Received: 1 Mar. 2018 Accepted: 3 May 2018
2018 Miller.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To determine whether there is a correlation between
information literacy skill development and participation in one or more library
instruction sessions.
Design – Learning outcomes assessment.
Setting – A public research institution with multiple
campuses.
Subjects – 244 first-year undergraduates enrolled in a
compulsory general education course during the 2014-2015 academic year. All
subjects completed a series of library research assignments, followed by a
final research paper. 65% of subjects participated in at least one library
instruction session as part of the course, and 35% did not.
Methods – The researchers convened six librarians and six
instructors/faculty to score 244 research papers using a rubric designed to
measure six possible information literacy learning outcomes. Evaluators
established inter-rater reliability through a norming session, and each
artifact was scored twice. The authors analyzed rubric scores using Ordinary
Least Squares regression modeling.
Main Results – Participation in a library instruction session
correlated with higher rubric scores in three information literacy learning
outcomes: argument building; source type integration; and ethical source
citation.
Conclusion – Students may achieve greater information literacy
learning outcomes when they participate in course-integrated library
instruction.
Commentary
This research presents a thoughtful attempt to measure
the impact of library instruction integrated into a compulsory course for
undergraduates at a large institution. During the 2014-2015 academic year, more
than 4,600 students enrolled in this course completed a common set of library
research assignments, and all were expected to write a final research paper.
The researchers recruited 12 evaluators to score research papers authored by 5%
of students enrolled in the course. A weighted sample was necessary to adequately
represent students from a smaller campus. The validity of the sample cannot be
determined because the authors do not disclose the populations of students
representing each of the campuses involved in the study.
Each research paper was scored with a six-point rubric
featuring five levels of achievement. The rubric aligned with the common
research assignment, general education goals of the institution, and VALUE
rubrics published by the Association of American Colleges & Universities
(AAC&U). The authors indicate they convened a norming session to finalize
the rubric, implying that the instrument was validated at that time. This study
aligns with, and is similar to, current research about the impact of
information literacy instruction on the products of student research (Jastram, Leebaw & Tomkins,
2014; Lowe, Booth, Stone & Tagge, 2015).
Students who had participated in 1-4 library
instruction sessions authored a majority of the artifacts scored in this
research project. The authors identified six possible information literacy
learning outcomes, and report that participation in library instruction
positively correlated with 3 of the 6 learning outcomes. For information
literacy instruction practitioners, this finding seems encouraging. However, in
discussion of the study’s limitations, the authors note that their analysis
does not address variables such as the number of library instruction sessions
attended by students in the sample, or other forms of assistance included in
individual courses. In a contrasting study of librarian engagement in first
year courses, Booth, Lowe, Tagge, and Stone (2015)
found that greater degrees of librarian involvement in a course improved
student information literacy learning outcomes. Analysis using Ordinary Least
Squares regression modeling enabled the investigators to control for variations
in library instruction attendance on different campuses. The same model could
also have been used to control for the variation in number of sessions
attended.
The researchers report that papers authored by
students who had participated in library instruction received higher scores in
three areas: argument building (p<.05),
source type integration (p<.05),
and ethical source citation (p<.01).
They offer a general description of a library lesson in the discussion, making
a logical argument about the lesson’s connection to higher scores in source
type integration. The authors state that one of the campuses involved delivered
“standardized” library instruction, but it remains unclear if the majority of
the sample was exposed to the same interventions. Similarly, ethical source
citation was not explicitly covered by the library instruction lesson. While
scores appear to be higher, this research does not identify an intervention
that helped students to perform well in ethical source citation. These
ambiguities point to a general problem with assessment of library instruction
due to variations in scope, content, and course implementation (Ackermann,
2007).
The authors suggest that this article “bolsters” the
field of research about information literacy learning outcomes. Oakleaf (2007)
has observed that a challenge to rubric-based assessment may be that rubrics
are difficult to transfer from one university setting to another. While this
research may indicate that learning outcomes are improved by course-integrated
library instruction, the findings are preliminary because the tool has not been
generalized beyond a single academic year or to another institutional setting.
References
Ackermann, E. (2007). Program assessment in academic libraries: An
introduction for assessment practitioners. Research
and Practice in Assessment, 2, 18-23. http://www.rpajournal.com/
Booth, C., Lowe, M. S., Tagge, N., &
Stone, S. M. (2015). Degrees of impact: Analyzing the effects of progressive
librarian course collaborations on student performance. College & Research Libraries, 76(5), 623-651. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.5.623
Jastram, I., Leebaw, D., & Tomkins, H. (2014). Situating information literacy within the curriculum: Using a rubric to
shape a program. portal: Libraries and
the Academy, 14(2), 165-186. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2014.0011
Lowe, M. S., Booth, C., Stone, S., & Tagge,
N. (2015). Impacting information literacy learning in first-year seminars: A
rubric-based evaluation. portal:
Libraries and the Academy, 15(3), 489-512. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2015.0030
Oakleaf, M. (2007). Using rubrics to collect evidence for
decision-making: What do librarians need to learn? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2(3), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS3W