Assessment in Action

Luther Seminary: 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

(No) 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) Undergraduate


(No) Incoming

(No) Graduating

(No) Pre-College/Developmental/Basic Skills

(No) Other (please describe)

Discipline (select one or more)

(No) Arts


(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

(No) English Composition

(No) General Education

(No) Information Literacy Credit Course

Other (please describe)


AiA Team Members (select one or more)

(No) Assessment Office

(No) Institutional Research

Teaching Faculty

(No) Writing Center

Information/Academic Technology

(No) Student Affairs

(No) Campus Administrator

(No) Library Administrator

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

Other (please describe)

Course evaluation open ended question

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. Our project aligns with institutional goals for lifelong learning that educate and equip God’s people who are called to a variety of vocations in the world and in the church.

    A new curriculum instituted for Fall 2014 eliminated the courses where students received information literacy instruction. We wanted to take a more effective and creative approach, incorporating the new information literacy framework in a series of classes. Our students will need many skills related to information to succeed in ministry.

    The team was composed of two librarians who give instruction sessions. We approached several faculty members, ended up working very successfully with two and making first contact with another three. We also asked our Learning Technologist from IT to participate. She has taught online classes and is very sympathetic to the library and our project goals. She had good advice for us and helped compile the qualitative data.

  • 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. This project underscored our need to learn about assessment: qualitative and quantitative data design, collection and analysis. We will benefit if multiple data gathering processes are in place. Our students are not always successful when they seek, access, and evaluate resources for ministry. Information literacy would help our graduates be more effectively equipped for ministry.

    The library can help faculty learn more about assessment practices, especially rubric writing. Many faculty find creating measures for assessment challenging.

    Our library can, through a process of partnering with faculty, teach many aspects of information literacy in simple steps.

  • 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. We will build more relationships with faculty, and find ways to support their teaching. Our goal is to institute information literacy assignments for all signature and core courses, reaching everyone in our MA and MDiv programs. We plan to market library services more effectively through multiple approaches.

    This project builds upon a campus assessment culture that is emerging. Students began using portfolios this year. Beyond grades there have been few measures for student learning. We believe information literacy is essential for student success, lifelong learning and effective leadership. We want to help nurture our culture of assessment and contribute to Luther's program outcomes.

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

  1. Poster presentation, June 18, 2015, Denver 2015 American Theological Library Association Conference.

    Poster presentation, June 27, 2015, San Francisco 2015 American Library Association Conference, Assessment in Action, cohort 2.

    Team Leader: Jennifer Bartholomew, Luther Seminary Library, 2481 Como Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, 651-641-3458,

AiA_poster_jkb_june23_final2.pdf Cultivating a Culture of Assessment