Assessment in Action

DeSales 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

(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)

Other (please describe)

One shot method

Student Population (select one or more)


(No) Graduate

(No) Incoming

(No) Graduating

(No) Pre-College/Developmental/Basic Skills

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)

Professions/Applied Sciences

(No) English Composition

(No) General Education

(No) Information Literacy Credit Course

(No) Other (please describe)

AiA Team Members (select one or more)

(No) Assessment Office

(No) Institutional Research

Teaching Faculty

(No) Writing Center

(No) Information/Academic Technology

(No) Student Affairs

Campus Administrator

Library Administrator

(No) Other Librarian

(No) Other (please describe)

Page 2


Methods and Tools (select one or more)



(No) Focus Group(s)

(No) Observation

(No) Pre/Post Test

(No) Rubric

(No) Other (please describe)

assignment, directed paraphrasing

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)

instructor interviews

Page 3

Inquiry Question (150 words open)

What was the project's primary inquiry question?

  1. Is video instruction or traditional, face-to-face instruction more effective for teaching Searching as Strategic Exploration to DeSales ACCESS students?

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. This project explores the success of one-shot information literacy instruction provided by video to our post-traditional undergraduate students (ACCESS). Twenty-five students were introduced to searching as a process of strategic exploration and data was collected through qualitative assessment of directed paraphrasing. We chose to focus on the success of one-shot instruction delivered through video tutorials because of the goals of our institution. According to the 2020 Strategic Plan, the administration is interested in improving services to ACCESS students by “addressing factors of perseverance” and “mak[ing] campus-based resources and services available from a distance.” Our team included the Dean of Lifelong Learning, Library Director, and ACCESS Instructors. This composition resulted in immediate and uncontested buy-in from the ACCESS Program. By tying instruction to research components of course assignments we introduced students to content that would help them for specific course goals, while teaching them strategy for responsible and efficient research.

  • 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. Our research suggests that ACCESS students’ outcomes were essentially the same, independent of instruction method. This aligns with the conclusions of prior studies within the library sciences that compared video and traditional instruction. However, we are not able to make any claims on statistical significance because of the diminutive size of our participant population. Identifying a student population for assessment was an unanticipated challenge.

    We’ve also determined that the Searching as Strategic Exploration frame can be taught through video tutorials. We’ve also identified the primary elements of instruction that matter to ACCESS students: speed and flexibility. Additionally, this project increased campus awareness of library goals, services, and projects. Students, instructors, and administration showed interest in our findings and in the assessment process.

  • 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. This results of this project encourage our librarians to continue to put forth the time and energy to create customized video tutorials for ACCESS students. We’re hoping to encourage ACCESS instructors to utilize these videos for asynchronous information literacy instruction in order to increase librarian productivity and reach across campus. We generated a lot of cross-campus excitement about our assessment endeavors, which encourages us to continue assessing services to ACCESS students. In the future, we hope to increase our sample size so that our claims are more reliable. Our future studies will hopefully identify additional characteristics of successful instruction to ACCESS students. This project will begin a practice of continual assessment of our library’s instruction endeavors so we can support our contributions to our campus communities.

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

  1. Team leader –
    Jessica Burkhardt
    Trexler Library, DeSales University

    Contact Jess for more information about this project.

We completed an assessment of student achievement after instruction provided by video tutorials and traditional, face-to-face lessons. Twenty-five post-traditional students were introduced to searching as a process of strategic exploration, and qualitative data was collected on their persistence when searching as well as the number of strategies used. The data collected through directed paraphrasing suggests that these students are equally successful across instruction methods.
Assessment_in_Action_Poster.compressed__2_.pdf Title of Poster: TV or Not TV: Assessing Student Learning of Searching as Strategic Exploration, Video Tutorials vs. Traditional Instruction