Assessments for University-Level Teacher Librarians

Johnson, Meghan

CA

Sobel, K., & Wolf, K. (2011). Updating your tool belt: Redesigning assessments of learning in the library. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50(3). Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org

Summary:

Academic librarians face unique difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of their teaching strategies. Unlike most primary school librarians who may have weekly scheduled meetings with students, academic librarians may only have a single 75-minute instructional session with a class in an entire quarter. An appropriate assessment of these one-shot sessions, though, can be crucial in encouraging collaboration with other faculty members on campus.

As far as assessments in academic are concerned, Karen Sobel and Kenneth Wolf are proponents of group assessments to illustrate knowledge of information literacy. While this will not necessarily gage the competence of individual students at the end of a library session, it will illustrate the knowledge gathered by the group, and individuals will benefit from this group knowledge. When comparing 3 different types of assessment (pretest and posttest combos, posttest only, and activities), they found that students responded best to activities. While it was not always easy to fit the “activity” assessment into library instruction, students responded positively to this kind of participatory learning. The only downside to this type of assessment was that it would take time for instructors to develop a rubric for assessment. Ultimately, Sobel and Wolf encourage academic librarians to experiment with all 3 core assessment types discussed and find what works best for them.

Evaluation:

I worry that Sobel and Wolf are too accepting that these “one-off” interactions for academic librarians are the norm. In this article about updating tools for academic librarians, they don’t provide any tools that might encourage more lasting and strong collaborations between instructors and academic librarians. Additionally, Sobel and Wolf seem hesitant to take a stance on which assessment type is most successful. Despite all of the positives that are associated with activity-based assessment, Sobel and Wolf choose to focus on the time commitment it will require from faculty and teacher librarians to successfully practice this assessment. This would be another fantastic opportunity for Sobel and Wolf to discuss the ways that librarians can encourage collaboration between themselves and faculty.

One thing that I am optimistic about in this article is the acknowledgement of Sobel and Wolf of the importance group learning can play. They acknowledge that there are benefits to gauging not only what the individual learns, but what the group learns as well. I am also encouraged by their encouragement for librarians to experiment with Web 2.0 tools as far as assessment is concerned. They want librarians to begin experimenting with these online tools.

Overall, though, I feel that Sobel and Wolf are too accepting of the divide that exists between faculty and librarians as far as student literacy assessment is concerned.