FRR Follow the Rubric Road Assessing the Librarian Instructor Ned Fielden San Francisco State University San Francisco, California

Case Study Assessment of Librarian Instructors Literature Review Theoretical Issues Rubric Design and Implementation Preliminary Evaluation

Instructor Assessment Several 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.Preparation 1.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 Complexity Design can reflect highly nuanced categories *Oakleaf, M.L., Assessing information literacy skills, Dissertation, University of North Carolina. Evaluation Criteria BeginningDevelopingExemplaryStudent Learning Outcomes Articulates Criteria 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 The 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 Scoring Analytic 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 – ~fielden/rbib.html Sample Rubric – ~fielden/rubrics.html Ned Fielden San Francisco State University