Follow the Rubric Road
Assessing the Librarian
InstructorNed FieldenSan Francisco State UniversitySan Francisco, California
Case Study
Assessment of Librarian Instructors
• Literature Review• Theoretical Issues• Rubric Design and
Implementation• Preliminary Evaluation
Instructor AssessmentSeveral 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. Preparation1. 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 ComplexityDesign can reflect highly nuanced
categories
*Oakleaf, M.L., 2006. Assessing information literacy skills, Dissertation, University of North
Carolina.
EvaluationCriteria
Beginning Developing Exemplary Student Learning Outcomes
ArticulatesCriteria
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 3.1.1The 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 ScoringAnalytic 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– http://online.sfsu.edu/
~fielden/rbib.html
• Sample Rubric– http://online.sfsu.edu/
~fielden/rubrics.html
Ned FieldenSan Francisco State