Assessment in Action

Point Park University: Project Description

Page 1


Primary Outcome Examined (select one or more)

Student Learning: Assignment

(No) Student Learning: Course

(No) Student Learning: Major

(No) Student Learning: Degree

(No) Student Engagement

(No) Student Success

(No) Academic Intimacy/Rapport

(No) Enrollment

(No) Retention

(No) Completion

(No) Graduation

(No) Articulation

(No) Graduates' Career Success

(No) Testing (e.g., GRE, MCAT, LSAT, CAAP, CLA, MAPP)

(No) Other (please describe)

Primary Library Factor Examined (select one or more)


(No) Instruction: Games

Instruction: One Shot

(No) Instruction: Course Embedded

(No) Instruction: Self-Paced Tutorials

(No) Reference

(No) Educational Role (other than reference or instruction)

(No) Space, Physical

(No) Discovery (library resources integrated in institutional web and other information portals)

(No) Discovery (library resource guides)

(No) Discovery (from preferred user starting points)

(No) Collections (quality, depth, diversity, format or currency)

(No) Personnel (number and quality)

(No) Other (please describe)

Student Population (select one or more)


(No) Graduate

(No) Incoming

(No) Graduating

(No) Pre-College/Developmental/Basic Skills

(No) Other (please describe)

Discipline (select one or more)

(No) Arts

(No) Humanities

(No) Social Sciences

(No) Natural Sciences (i.e., space, earth, life, chemistry or physics)

(No) Formal Sciences (i.e., computer science, logic, mathematics, statistics or systems science)

(No) Professions/Applied Sciences

English Composition

General Education

(No) Information Literacy Credit Course

(No) Other (please describe)

AiA Team Members (select one or more)

Assessment Office

(No) Institutional Research

Teaching Faculty

(No) Writing Center

(No) Information/Academic Technology

(No) Student Affairs

(No) Campus Administrator

(No) Library Administrator

(No) Other Librarian

(No) Other (please describe)

Page 2


Methods and Tools (select one or more)


(No) Interviews

(No) Focus Group(s)


(No) Pre/Post Test


(No) Other (please describe)

Direct Data Type (select one or more)

(No) Student Portfolio

(No) Research Paper/Project

Class Assignment (other than research paper/project)

(No) Other (please describe)

Indirect Data Type (select one or more)

(No) Test Scores

(No) GPA

(No) Degree Completion Rate

(No) Retention Rate

(No) Other (please describe)

Page 3

Executive Summary (150 words open)

  • How does the project align with your institution’s priorities and needs?
  • Why did you choose the outcome and library factor as areas to examine?
  • Why was the team composition appropriate?

  1. The AiA team broke up the library instruction one-shot into two sessions for each of Point Park University’s newly revamped general education courses. Each course had its own lesson, assignment and learning outcomes to support the literacy learning objectives for the new Core Curriculum. Including everyone involved in designing and assessing the first two courses in the new core curriculum, the project allowed the Library to move beyond self-assessment to assessment at the program level.

  • What are the significant contributions of your project?
  • What was learned about assessing the library’s impact on student learning and success?
  • What was learned about creating or contributing to a culture of assessment on campus?
  • What, if any, are the significant findings of your project?

  1. The AiA project allowed us to begin to go beyond Bibliographic Instruction and start teaching information literacy skills with a direct application to course assignments and objectives. We broke up the one-shot orientation session, implementing more high-impact practices through specific lessons and assignments. The new library sessions and assignments became more than library self-assessment, they are now included in program assessment of the information literacy learning outcome of the new Core Curriculum. We were also able to establish a baseline for ongoing assessment, and significantly grow the instruction program.
    Significantly, we learned that while faculty expresses satisfaction in post session surveys – anecdotally the students are not putting what was to have been learned in the sessions to use on later assignments. We also learned that students (when surveyed) are confident in their abilities, though that does not appear to be the case when we assessed their assignments.

  • What will you change as a result of what you learned (– e.g., institutional activities, library functions or practices, personal/professional practice, other)?
  • How does this project contribute to current, past, or future assessment activities on your campus?

  1. The first things to change are the assignments based on what we learned of their shortcomings. The assignments used will need to be clearer so students know what is expected of them. They will also need to require more substantial answers than the theoretical, practice worksheets/checklists we gave them. Faculty and librarians will also need to make sure students understand that what is covered in the lessons is supposed to be put to use on later assignments. This is an ongoing process; we’ll improve the assignments and the one-shot lessons based on what we learned this past year, then we’ll assess again. As stated previously, the assignments we developed are being used for assessment of the information literacy learning outcome for all three core courses, and so everyone will have a stake in the process.

Please list any articles published, presentations given, URL of project website, and team leader contact details.

  1. Project LibGuide with poster and project write-up:

    Contact information:
    Robert Stancampiano
    (412) 392-3166

AiA_Poster.pdf Assessing One-Shot Information Literacy Lessons in Gen Ed Courses