Assessment in Action

Western University of Health Sciences: 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) 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

Institutional Research

Teaching Faculty

(No) Writing Center

(No) 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) Survey

(No) Interviews

(No) Focus Group(s)

(No) Observation

(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)

Survey data

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. At Western University of Health Sciences, faculty are embracing the flipped classroom model. In the past, we noticed that students were not performing well on the assignments. We wanted to know: Is the flipped or didactic method of instruction more effective at preparing third-year Optometry students to use evidence-based medicine in clinical practice?  This course is taught in two sections, which provided us an opportunity to perform a quasi-experimental study with two cohorts.

    Team members included the instructor of the course, who is also the Dean of the College of Optometry, an Optometry faculty member who would see them in the semester following this course, the Director of Institutional Research Effectiveness, and four librarians. We also included two faculty from the College of Podiatric Medicine who are experts in EBM as consultants for assessment, and to include an aspect of interprofessional 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. We did not find much literature evaluating the effectiveness of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) instruction using the flipped model. Literature was split between advantages and disadvantages of flipping the classroom for other disciplines, so we wanted to see if it would work for EBM.

    The librarians learned that faculty members on our campus want to include us in student learning assessment, we just need to reach out to them. Faculty for this project worked with us on every step, including modifying the assignment and rubric and planning instructional activities. We also learned that we need to be included in student assessment, and are working to have more library assessments in University level surveys.

    We concluded that, while there was no statistically significant difference in student performance on assignments, qualitatively, students who received flipped instruction seemed to have progressed to more complex steps of the Evidence-Based 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. Most importantly, I learned not to rush into research as a result of this project. Any research that I conduct now will be thoroughly planned out.

    We will use the information learned here in future assessments of teaching Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). This will be throughout Western University of Health Sciences, not just the College of Optometry. Since flipping seemed more effective, we can use the evidence gathered here to persuade other Colleges include more hands on activities to reinforce EBM concepts.

    We are currently working with our Institutional Research and Effectiveness Department conducting program review for the library. We can use this information with WASC to demonstrate that we are effectively teaching information literacy because we are able to draw parallels between each of these standards and EBM.

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

  1. Librarians collaborating with faculty to develop and deliver an Evidence-Based Eye Care Course
    Poster, Medical Library Group of Southern California and Arizona conference, 2012
    Co-authored by Frances Chu, R. Rudy Barreras, and Elizabeth Hoppe

    Librarians collaborating with faculty to develop and deliver an Evidence-Based Eye Care Course
    Poster, California Academic & Research Libraries conference, 2012
    Co-authored by Frances Chu, Rudy R. Barreras, and Elizabeth Hoppe

    Librarians collaborating with faculty to develop and deliver an Evidence-Based Eye Care Course
    Poster, Medical Library Association conference, 2013
    Co-authored by Frances Chu, Rudy R. Barreras, and Elizabeth Hoppe

    Using images and video in teaching and property rights
    Session Presenter, Association of Optometric Contact Lens Educators Conference, 2013

    Ruth Harris, MLIS
    Harriet K. & Philip Pumerantz Library
    Western University of Health Sciences
    309 E. Second Street
    Pomona, CA 91766
    (909) 469-5466

Flip or Flop? Flipped vs. Didactic Instruction for Evidence-Based Eye Care

Librarians work with the Dean of the College of Optometry to teach Evidence-Based Eye Care. We researched the impact of flipping the class on retention and ability to apply Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) concepts. Cohort 1 received lecture. Cohort 2 viewed videos before class and did hands-on activities. We found no statistical significance between the cohorts’ assignments. However, qualitatively, Cohort 1 focused on EBP step 1; Cohort 2 advanced to step 2.