apply.ala.org
Assessment in Action

University of Michigan: Project Description

Page 1

Top

Primary Outcome Examined (select one or more)

(No) Student Learning: Assignment

(No) Student Learning: Course

(No) Student Learning: Major

(No) Student Learning: Degree

(No) Student Engagement

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)

Instruction

(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)

Undergraduate

(No) Graduate

(No) Incoming

(No) Graduating

(No) Pre-College/Developmental/Basic Skills

(No) Other (please describe)

Discipline (select one or more)

(No) Arts

Humanities

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

(No) Other (please describe)

AiA Team Members (select one or more)

(No) Assessment Office

(No) Institutional Research

(No) Teaching Faculty

(No) Writing Center

(No) Information/Academic Technology

(No) Student Affairs

Campus Administrator

(No) Library Administrator

(No) Other Librarian

(No) Other (please describe)

undergraduate research opportunities program

Page 2

Top

Methods and Tools (select one or more)

Survey

Interviews

(No) Focus Group(s)

(No) Observation

Pre/Post Test

(No) Rubric

(No) Other (please describe)

Direct Data Type (select one or more)

(No) Student Portfolio

(No) Research Paper/Project

(No) 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

Top
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 project aligns with our institution's priorities because the college administrators have made several statements about the importance of undergraduates being part of the research community at the University of Michigan. Since the library plays a role in supporting many of those initiatives, including the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, this project aligns nicely with this focus.
    We have a stake in student success in this program because of our history of supporting the program. Many of our librarians spend a significant amount of time each semester providing instruction to this group, and we want to make sure our time is used wisely and effectively.
    Our primary inquiry question was: Is there a difference in student learning and how the information was received by the students in two different instructional settings: an optional workshop that students can choose to attend, or during a required seminar facilitated by a UROP peer-tutor?

  • 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 significant contribution of our project is more in the spirit of collaboration with other campus units. It's important to make our role visible and this project has helped with that.

    We learned that the library has a very positive impact on student learning in the UROP program, and that students are appreciative of the sessions we offer. We we also reminded that designing assessment instruments is very difficult, and requires a lot of expertise.

    The significant finding was that our current model is effective, and can use some tweaking, but it's not necessary to completely change our method of delivery.

  • 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. I will gather more data to try to specifically identify the students in the program who will benefit most directly from our instruction.

    This project contributes to the body of data the library's instructional program has gathered in the past few years about the effectiveness of the instruction we offer.

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

  1. My poster file is large and I do not want to compromise the resolution, so here is a link to my poster:
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~arforres/universityofmichigan.pdf

    Since I could not submit this report without adding an attachment, I have attached a different, earlier version of my poster--same content, slightly different design.

Student Performance and Perceptions in Different Models of Library Instruction: A Year in Assessment of Undergraduate Research

The University of Michigan Library assessed library instruction for the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP). We compared two types of instruction: optional workshops and a required seminar. We assessed differences in student performance on several research tasks, in confidence levels before and after the sessions, as well as perceived usefulness of content taught.

Filename
aiaposter.pdf