Performance Measurement and Metrics

Academic libraries and student learning outcomes

Barbara Blummer, Jeffrey M. Kenton,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Barbara Blummer, Jeffrey M. Kenton, (2018) "Academic libraries and student learning outcomes",
Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 19 Issue: 1, pp.75-87, https://doi.org/10.1108/
PMM-11-2017-0053
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-11-2017-0053
Downloaded on: 17 February 2018, At: 13:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 103 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 81 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:161653 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-8047.htm

Academic
Academic libraries and student libraries
learning outcomes
Barbara Blummer
Center for Computing Sciences, Institute for Defense Analyses,
Bowie, Maryland, USA, and
75
Jeffrey M. Kenton Received 10 November 2017
College of Education, Towson University, Towson, Maryland, USA Revised 10 November 2017
Accepted 13 December 2017

Abstract
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature on student learning outcomes and academic
libraries. An analysis of 81 papers revealed the following themes: outcomes assessment of library skills
instruction, tools for assessing students’ achievement of learning outcomes, institutional accreditation and
student learning outcomes, academic libraries’ impact on student learning outcomes, and the creation of
learning outcomes. An understanding of these themes highlights how student learning outcomes are created,
assessed, and valued in the academy.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodology centered on a literature review of student learning
outcomes and academic libraries from 2001 to the present. To identify relevant articles on this topic, the
authors searched the library literature with various combinations of the following keywords: learning
outcomes, library, academic, university, college, and higher education.
Findings – An analysis of 81 papers on student learning outcomes and academic libraries revealed the
following five themes: outcomes assessment of library skills instruction, assessment tools for student learning
outcomes, institutional accreditation and student learning outcomes, academic libraries’ impact on student
learning outcomes, and the creation of learning outcomes.
Research limitations/implications – The research was limited to articles published in English and
after 2000.
Practical implications – The findings can be utilized to inform instructional librarians about creating and
assessing student learning outcomes. In addition, the paper can assist librarians in forging partnerships with
academic departments and faculty in creating student learning outcomes to support course and departmental
outcomes and accreditation efforts.
Originality/value – The research offers librarians opportunities to incorporate student learning outcomes in
library instruction as well as collaborate with faculty in creating student learning outcomes.
Keywords Literacy, Assessments, Performance, Outcomes, Accreditation, Information
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
One responsibility of academic librarians centers on teaching students information skills.
Initially this included bibliographic instruction and it focused on students’ abilities to
use the library’s catalogs and indexes to find materials (Saunders, 2011, pp. 3-5). In the late
1980s librarians promoted students’ information literacy skills and that encompassed the
recognition of an information need and the “ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively
the needed information” (Association of College & Research Libraries, 1989). Ten years
later, the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) developed the Information
Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education that identified a variety of standards
and learning outcomes for the information literate student (Association of College &
Research Libraries, 2000). Throughout the next decade and a half librarians taught students
information skills through one shot classes, workshops, course integrated instruction, and
credit-based classes. Moreover, students’ information skills such as information literacy,
Performance Measurement and
critical thinking, and problem solving were outlined in course, program, and institutional Metrics
learning outcomes and many were based on the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Vol. 19 No. 1, 2018
pp. 75-87
Standards for Higher Education (hereafter referred to ACRL Standards). Librarians utilized © Emerald Publishing Limited
1467-8047
student learning outcomes to devise the instruction, assess student learning, and revise DOI 10.1108/PMM-11-2017-0053
 PMM subsequent training opportunities. In this paper, we examine the literature on student
19,1 learning outcomes and academic libraries. We seek to identify common themes to increase
our understanding of how student learning outcomes are created, assessed, and valued in
the academy.

Background
76 The expansion of the World Wide Web and the increasing availability of commercial
databases paralleled educational reforms that focused on outcome-based education in
academic institutions in the late 1980s and the early 1990s (National Institute of Education,
1984; Boyer, 1986). Authors termed this the Information or Digital Era and they believed it
highlighted the need for students’ information skills such as information literacy. The
incorporation of students’ information skills in course, program, and institutional learning
outcomes fostered librarians’ instructional role in the academy. Many of the learning
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

outcomes mirrored those outlined in the ACRL Standards (Cmor, 2009; Hufford, 2010;
Seeber, 2013; Whitlock and Nanavati, 2013) and this too highlighted librarians’ roles in
assessing student learning.
Librarians also utilized student learning outcomes to demonstrate the library’s value to
the academy and this increased their interest in outcome-based assessment for information
literacy instruction (Blixrud, 2001; Dugan and Hernon, 2002; Kyrillidou and Crowe, 2001;
Lindauer, 1998; McDaniel et al., 2000; Rockman, 2002). Likewise, librarians joined educators
in seeking evidence of student learning from library instruction. Carter (2002) maintained
outcome-based assessment illustrated students’ skills and fostered the adaption of
instruction to their needs. Moreover, Smith (2001) urged librarians to work with faculty and
administrators in developing learning goals and selecting assessment tools. Librarians
adopted a variety of instruction and assessment techniques to demonstrate student
learning. According to McCulley (2009), assessments examined students’ cognitive,
behavioral, and affective learning. Gratch-Lindauer (2003) linked the learning outcome
assessed to the selection of the assessment instrument.
In 2016, the ACRL Standards were replaced with the release of Framework for Information
Literacy in Higher Education (Association of College & Research Libraries, 2016).
The Framework included knowledge practices and depositions and served as a guide for
developing an instructional program in academic libraries. The Framework remains
especially flexible since it supports librarians’ abilities to create learning outcomes utilizing the
six threshold concepts outlined in the document (Oakleaf, 2014). In the era of accountability in
higher education, learning outcomes remain central to assessing student learning. In addition,
librarians’ creation and assessment of learning outcomes facilitates collaboration with faculty,
promotes the adaption of subsequent instruction to learner needs, and reveals the value of the
library to supporting student success in their academic career.

Literature review method

The methodology centered on a literature review of student learning outcomes and
academic libraries from 2001 to the present. To identify relevant articles on this topic, the
authors searched the library literature with various combinations of the following
keywords: learning outcomes, library, academic, university, college, and higher education.
The authors truncated terms and limited the results to material published after 2000, to
reflect the availability of commercial technologies designed to support library instruction in
libraries. The reference lists of relevant papers were also reviewed.
The authors focused on peer reviewed items that encompassed book chapters,
academic journals, conference proceedings, and dissertations. The review was limited to
items published in English, but the authors considered material in academic institutions
worldwide. All materials that discussed students’ learning outcomes and academic libraries
 from 2001 to the present were included in the review with one exception. Material that Academic
focused on the learning outcomes outlined in the ACRL Standards were omitted due to their libraries
specificity to information literacy instruction.
The review represented a synthesis, rather than summary of the literature (McKibbon,
2006). It utilized qualitative and quantitative measures. Qualitative measures included
coding the material utilizing Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) constant comparative method.
This method centered on numerous comparisons among papers to ensure accuracy in the 77
identification of codes. Coding remained an iterative process that included creating, merging
as well as eliminating codes. The coding process fostered the identification of five major
themes and various subthemes. The quantitative analysis tracked the numbers of papers in
each theme category (Vassilakaki, 2014). The discussion synthesized the dominant themes
and sought to reveal commonalities among the theme categories (Vassilakaki, 2014).
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

Research analysis and findings

The authors reviewed 81 papers that reported students’ learning outcomes and academic
libraries. The review identified five themes and these are outlined in Table I. The authors
assigned one theme to each paper based on the primary focus of the material. Together,
these materials highlight the roles and responsibilities of academic librarians for supporting
student learning outcomes. The following section presents a discussion of each theme.

Outcomes assessment of library skills instruction

The largest number (n ¼ 32) number of papers discussed outcomes assessments of library
skills instruction (see Table II). Three themes emerged from this body of literature including:
the importance of utilizing authentic assessment measures, the need for employing
comparative techniques, and the benefits of collaborative efforts for outcomes assessment.
Utilizing authentic assessment measures. Foremost, authors highlighted outcomes
assessments that centered on students’ demonstration of their information learning skills in
authentic situations (Cmor et al., 2010; Whitlock and Nanavati, 2013). In this instance,
assessments focused on students’ creation of research papers, class projects, bibliographies,
search logs, oral presentations, and other assignments (Burd, 2003; Cooney and Hiris, 2003;
Hutchins, 2003; Judd et al., 2004; Kinsley et al., 2014; Lacy and Chen, 2013; Macklin, 2007;
Pan et al., 2014; Rapchak and Cipri, 2015; Schroeder, 2003; Victor et al., 2013).

Theme Number of papers

Outcomes assessment of library skills instruction 32

Assessment tools for tracking student learning outcomes 13
Table I.
Institutional accreditation and student learning outcomes 13 Distribution of themes
Academic libraries’ impact on student learning outcomes 13 and papers
Librarians’ creation of student learning outcomes 10 in the literature
Total 81

Table II.
Outcomes assessment of library skills Distribution of
instruction subthemes Number of references subthemes and number
of references in the
Utilizing authentic assessment measures 13 outcomes assessment
Employing comparative techniques 12 of library skills
Benefits of collaborative efforts 7 instruction papers
 PMM Employing comparative techniques. In addition, outcomes assessments included comparative
19,1 techniques such as the administration of pretests and posttests to illustrate students’
attainment of learning outcomes (Carter, 2002; Hufford, 2010; Hufford and Paschel, 2010;
Portmann and Roush, 2004; Radom et al., 2013; Staley et al., 2010). Posttests were aimed at
identifying areas for improving library skills instruction and many supplemented authentic
outcomes assessments (Carter, 2002; Hufford, 2010; Hufford and Paschel, 2010; Staley et al.,
78 2010; Victor et al., 2013). In addition, the literature discussed other comparative techniques
including between students exposed to different instruction or instructional environments
with those individuals that had not received the training (Beile and Boote, 2005; Daland,
2015; McCabe and Wise, 2009; McCarthy and Heald, 2003; Portmann and Roush, 2004;
Serotkin, 2006; White and Cheng, 2016).
Benefits of collaborative efforts. Equally important included articles that discussed the
role of collaboration in fostering student learning outcomes assessment (Smith, 2003).
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

As Sonntag and Meulemans (2003) reminded us each partner in a collaboration offered a

different outlook and skill set. Partnering with faculty and academic departments provided
librarians with avenues for course integrated instruction too (Hsieh et al., 2013, 2014;
Lampert, 2005). Collaborative ventures also fostered research on student learning outcomes
assessment ( Julien and Boon, 2004; Hsieh et al., 2014; Ziegenfuss and Borrelli, 2016).

Assessment tools for student learning outcomes

In total, 13 (n ¼ 13) articles discussed librarians’ use of various tools and strategies to assess
students’ achievement of learning outcomes (see Table III). The majority of the assessment
tools described in the literature focused on performance-based measures, but there was also
evidence of the utilization of knowledge tests and surveys, as well as proposals for the use of
research models to gauge student learning.
Performance-based assessments. A large number of articles described performance-based
measures including students’ reflections, portfolios, and rubric scores (Hoffmann and
LaBonte, 2012; McKinney and Sen, 2012) utilized to assess students’ achievement of learning
outcomes. Sonley et al. (2007) maintained portfolios represented authentic performance-based
assessment that illustrated students’ abilities to evaluate information, locate items and reflect
on the learning process. Articles also outlined librarians’ creation of rubrics, that were based
on information literacy learning outcomes, to support assessment of course integrated
instruction (Gariepy et al., 2016; Hoffmann and LaBonte, 2012; Witt and Gearhart, 2003).
Faculty assessment surveys, observational assessment forms, and worksheet notecards
represented some additional performance-based assessment measures noted in the papers
(Cunningham, 2006).
Knowledge tests. The use of knowledge tests comprised another form of assessment to
measure students’ learning outcomes. Julien et al. (2011) described the use of the
Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills test to compare business students’
competencies at three Canadian academic institutions. Similarly, Hong Kong Baptist
University’s librarians’ longitudinal study of students’ information literacy centered on the
administration of the Research Readiness Self-Assessment to freshman and second year

Table III.
Distribution of Assessment tools for student learning
subthemes and number outcomes subthemes Number of references
of references in the
assessment tools for Performance-based assessments 6
student learning Knowledge tests and surveys 3
outcomes papers Models for learning outcomes assessment 4
 students and illustrated improvements in individuals skills (Chan, 2016). Kivel (2003) Academic
outlined the development of a cognitive and performance-based assessment tool for student libraries
learning to support the establishment of information competency as a graduation
requirement at Diablo Valley College.
Models for learning outcomes assessment. Articles pointed to the development of models
for learning outcomes assessment too. Authors discussed the application of Information
Literacy Instruction Assessment Cycle for the planning and assessment of student learning 79
(Gustavson, 2013; Oakleaf, 2009a). Moreover, Detlor et al.’s (2011) model for business
students’ learning outcomes suggested that they were influenced by information literacy
program components, learning environments, and student demographics and these effected
the behavioral, psychological, and benefits outcomes. Lastly, Bielavitz (2010) proposed a
model of student learning outcomes assessment based on Kaplan and Norton’s balanced
scorecard that considered four components including: financial, internal business processes,
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

learning, and growth as well as the customer.

Institutional accreditation and student learning outcomes

An identical number of papers (n ¼ 13) discussed institutional accreditation and student
learning outcomes (see Table IV ). These articles sought to promote librarians’ involvement
in the accreditation process through their instruction and assessment efforts as well as the
institutions’ adoption of information literacy as an educational outcome.
Regional accreditation standards. Early articles focused on the standards outlined by
regional accreditation organizations. (Gratch-Lindauer, 2002; Saunders, 2007; Thompson,
2002; Tuňón, 2003). Foremost, authors argued accreditation agencies’ inclusion of
information literacy skills and student learning outcomes in their standards offered
librarians collaboration opportunities with faculty for instruction and assessment
(Ratteray, 2002; Saunders, 2007).
Information literacy in QEP. Several papers traced the use of information literacy as a
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) for institutions accredited by the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools (SACS). These plans represented an institutions’ proposal that contained
strategies to enhance student learning (Millet, 2010). The University of Central Florida’s QEP
included information fluency, and faculty, with assistance from the institutions’ libraries and
other departments, remained responsible for its implementation and assessment (Beile, 2007).
The QEP at Trinity University centered on the integration of information literacy in the
curriculum at different course levels over a five-year period (Millet et al., 2009). East Tennessee
University’s QEP for a tired approach to the integration of information literacy in the
curriculum, also contained extensive assessment strategies (Smith, 2016).
Regional studies on accreditation and librarians. In addition, some articles included
research studies on librarians’ involvement in the accreditation process. Saunders’ (2008)
examination of the published literature on accreditation revealed a small number of articles
that highlighted opportunities for librarians during the accreditation process especially

Table IV.
Distribution of
Institutional accreditation and student subthemes and number
learning outcomes Number of references of references in the
institutional
Regional accreditation standards 5 accreditation and
Information literacy in QEP 4 student learning
Regional studies on accreditation and librarians 4 outcomes papers
 PMM through collaboration with faculty for instruction and assessment. Six years later Becher
19,1 found 85 percent of library instructors were aware of the accreditation process, but only
55 percent of librarians knowledgeable about information literacy in regional accreditation
standards. Harris’ (2013) study of the QEPs submitted to SACS from 2007 to 2011 illustrated
the popularity of topics that promoted various information literacy skills in students such as
their critical thinking. On the other hand, Saunders’ (2010) dissertation on information
80 literacy as a learning outcome stressed the importance of collaboration, assessment,
accountability, institutional culture, and leadership as affecting information literacy
implementation on campus.

Academic libraries’ impact on students’ learning outcomes

Similarly 13 (n ¼ 13) papers focused on illustrating academic libraries’ and librarians’ impact
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

on student learning outcomes (see Table V ). Foremost, these papers tracked the role of the
library and librarians in fostering students’ achievement of learning outcomes in the academy.
Research linking the library’s resources and services to students’ academic achievements.
The majority of this material represented research aimed at linking the library to students’
overall academic achievements. Early studies revealed students’ library use influenced their
satisfaction with their college experiences (Kuh and Gonyea, 2003; Watson, 2001). On the
other hand, Whitmire (2002) found a relationship between the amount of library resources
and students’ self-reported gains in critical thinking for those attending research
universities. Similar studies ten years later tied students’ use of the libraries’ resources to
improved learning outcomes (Goodall and Pattern, 2011; Montenegro et al., 2016).
Impact of library resources and services on improving student learning outcomes at the
departmental and course level. Authors also sought to demonstrate the relationship between
library resources and services and students’ achievement of learning outcomes at the
departmental and course level. Emmons and Martin (2002) evaluated the impact of a new
library instruction program at the University of New Mexico on the quality of students’
research papers in an English course. In addition, Rodriguez (2012) employed the
Understanding Library Impacts protocol to illustrate the value of students’ use of library
services and resources for history research projects. Moreover, Hufford (2016) tracked the
numbers and outcomes of Texas Tech University courses with engaged learning and active
learning activities that required library services and resources.
Using student learning outcomes to illustrate the library’s value to an institution. Articles
highlighted the significance of using student learning outcomes to illustrate the library’s
value to an institution. Oakleaf (2010, 2011a, b) pointed to the importance of impact value
and urged librarians to identify outcomes, assess student learning and determine how these
outcomes supported institutional, departmental, and accreditation requirements.
Likewise, Hufford (2013) promoted research that addressed the library’s impact on
students’ behaviors and attitudes, their expectations about the library as well as the

Table V.
Distribution of
subthemes and Number of
number of references Academic libraries’ impact on students’ learning outcomes references
in the academic
libraries’ services and Research linking the library’s resources and services to students’ academic achievements 5
resources impact on Impact of library resources and services on improving student learning outcomes at the
students’ learning departmental and course level 3
outcomes papers Using student learning outcomes to illustrate the library’s value to an institution 5
 academy’s efforts to track this information. Menchaca (2014) concurred noting the need for Academic
new measures to illustrate the value of the library to the institution. The author believed libraries
linking the library to students’ development of critical thinking, idea creation, analytical and
synthesizing skills would increase funding opportunities.

Creation of learning outcomes

A smaller number of articles (n ¼ 10) discussed librarians’ creation of student learning 81
outcomes for a class, workshop, tutorial, or course integrated instruction (see Table VI).
These articles pointed to various strategies and tools that fostered librarians’ development
of learning outcomes.
Utilizing standards, models, and institutional competencies as well as consultations with
others. Librarians utilized professional standards and research models to support their creation
of learning outcomes. The ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

Education, Objectives of Information Literacy Instruction: A Model Statement for Academic

Libraries, the Framework for 21st century Skills and the National Educational Technology
Standards offered librarians guidance in constructing learning outcomes (Oakleaf, 2009b;
Lundstrom et al., 2014). Concepts maps, Bloom’s taxonomy, and the ABCD Model represented
additional tools used by librarians to develop learning outcomes. Cahoy and Schroeder (2012)
stated the ABCD Model that represented Audience, Behavior, Condition or Degree was helpful
for creating affective outcomes. Likewise, Turnbow and Zeidman-Karpinski (2016) suggested
incorporating elements of the ABCD Model into each learning outcomes. On the other hand, the
authors noted Bloom’s Taxonomy facilitated the construction of learning outcomes too.
For example, the Taxonomy contained verbs that highlighted learners’ cognition such:
remember, understand, apply, analyze, create, and collaborate. Moreover, Colosimo and
Fitzgibbons (2012) noted utilizing concept maps facilitated the selection of learning outcomes
by visually illustrating relationships among materials in course content.
Utilizing the core competencies or threshold concepts. Several authors highlighted their use
of the core competencies or threshold concepts delineated by an institution or professional
organization to create learning outcomes (Armstrong, 2010; Ford et al., 2015; Fox and Doherty,
2012; Oakleaf, 2009b; Porter, 2014; Whitmire, 2015). In addition, Oakleaf (2009b) and
Ford et al. (2015) recommended aligning disciplinary outcomes with library outcomes to
ensure students receive appropriate information literacy skills. Another technique described
in the literature that supported librarians’ creation of learning outcomes centered on the
assessment of students’ research papers to identify missing skill sets (Lundstrom et al., 2014).

Conclusion
An analysis of 81 papers on student learning outcomes and academic libraries revealed the
following five themes: outcomes assessment of library skills instruction, tools for assessing
students’ achievement of learning outcomes, institutional accreditation and student learning
outcomes, academic libraries’ impact on student learning outcomes, and the creation of
learning outcomes.

Number of Table VI.

Creation of student learning outcomes papers references Distribution of
subthemes and
Utilizing standards, models, institutional and professional core competencies as well as number of references
consultations with others 5 in the creation of
Utilizing the core competencies or threshold concepts delineated by an institution or professional students’ learning
organization 5 outcomes papers
 PMM Librarians conducted outcomes assessment to gauge student learning utilizing a variety of
19,1 tools and strategies such as knowledge tests and surveys, informal assessments, and
performance measures. Moreover, librarians identified student learning outcomes for
curriculum and courses and supported efforts to employ these outcomes for institutional
accreditation. In addition, studies linked student learning outcomes to the libraries’
resources and services and that enhanced the value of the library to the institution. Many of
82 the outcomes assessments centered on the ACRL Standards, but librarians also utilized a
variety of other sources including consultations with others.
In addition to these themes, the review pointed to the importance of collaboration in
academic librarians’ use of student learning outcomes. Librarians collaborated with faculty
and other groups in the development of student learning outcomes, in the creation
of assessment tools for student learning outcomes, and in the conduction of outcomes
assessment. Moreover, librarians utilized outcomes assessment results to improve
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

subsequent instruction and to inform faculty of students’ skills. There was also evidence
of librarians’ collaboration with faculty and other academic groups during institutional
accreditation efforts and for research on outcomes assessment.
Furthermore, the review highlighted librarians’ role in supporting the educational
mission of the academy through their work with student learning outcomes. Librarians
remained proactive in creating student learning outcomes, conducting assessments,
supporting accreditation efforts, joining collaborative research ventures, and sharing
assessment results with faculty. These efforts fostered librarians’ visibility as well as the
value of the library to the institution.
Librarians’ involvement with the creation and assessment of student learning outcomes
offered them numerous avenues to demonstrate their value to the educational mission of the
academy. In addition, through the creation and assessment of student learning outcomes
librarians forged partnerships with faculty, academic departments, as well as their
colleagues outside of their institutions. To that end, it remains especially important that
librarians understand the value of their role in assessing information skills instructional
efforts through the creation of student learning outcomes.

References
Armstrong, A. (2010), “Designing a writing intensive course with information literacy and critical
thinking learning outcomes”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 445-457.
Association of College & Research Libraries (1989), “Presidential Committee on Information Literacy:
final report”, available at: www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential (accessed
January 2, 2018).
Association of College & Research Libraries (2000), “Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education”, available at: https://alair.ala.org/handle/22323/7668
(accessed January 2, 2018).
Association of College & Research Libraries (2016), “Framework for Information Literacy”, available at:
www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (accessed January 2, 2018).
Beile, P.M. (2007), “Assessing an institution-wide information fluency program: commitment, plan, and
purposes”, Public Services Quarterly, Vol. 3 Nos 1/2, pp. 127-146.
Beile, P.M. and Boote, D.N. (2005), “Does the medium matter? A comparison of a web-based tutorial
with face-to-face library instruction on education students’ self-efficacy levels and learning
outcomes”, Research Strategies, Vol. 20 Nos 1/2, pp. 57-60.
Bielavitz, T. (2010), “The balanced scorecard: a systemic model for evaluation and assessment of
learning outcomes”, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 35-46.
Blixrud, J.C. (2001), “Establishing a role for research libraries in learning outcomes assessment
programs”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 27-28.
 Boyer, E. (1986), “Prologue and major recommendations of Carnegie Foundation’s report on colleges”, Academic
Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 16-22. libraries
Burd, B. (2003), “Assessing student learning outcomes: training academic librarians”, in Fuseler, E.
(Ed.), Assessing Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy Instruction in Academic
Institutions, Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 80-85.
Cahoy, E.S. and Schroeder, R. (2012), “Embedding affective learning outcomes in library instruction”,
Communications in Information Literacy, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 74-90. 83
Carter, E.W. (2002), “ ‘Doing the best you can with what you have’: lessons learned from outcomes
assessment”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 36-41.
Chan, C. (2016), “Institutional assessment of student information literacy ability: a case study”,
Communications in Information Literacy, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 50-61.
Cmor, D. (2009), “Campus priorities and information literacy in Hong Kong higher education: a case
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

study”, Library Management, Vol. 30 Nos 8/9, pp. 627-642.

Cmor, D., Chan, A. and Kong, T. (2010), “Course-integrated learning outcomes for library database
searching: three assessment points on the path of evidence”, Evidence Based library and
Information Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 64-81.
Colosimo, A. and Fitzgibbons, M. (2012), “Teaching, designing and organizing: concept mapping for
librarians”, Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and
Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 2-15.
Cooney, M. and Hiris, L. (2003), “Integrating information literacy and its assessment into graduate
business course: a collaborative framework”, Research Strategies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 213-232.
Cunningham, A. (2006), “Using ‘ready-to-go’ assessment tools to create a year long assessment
portfolio and improve instruction”, College & Undergraduate Libraries, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 75-90.
Daland, H.T. (2015), “Just in case, just in time, or just don’t bother? Assessment of one-shot library
instruction with follow-up workshops”, Liber Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 125-139.
Detlor, B., Julien, H., Willson, R., Serenko, A. and LaVallee, M. (2011), “Learning outcomes of
information literacy instruction at business schools”, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 572-585.
Dugan, R.E. and Hernon, P. (2002), “Outcomes assessment: not synonymous with inputs and outputs”,
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 376-380.
Emmons, M. and Martin, W. (2002), “Engaging conversation: evaluating the contribution of library
instruction and the quality of student research”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 63 No. 6,
pp. 545-560.
Ford, E., Izumi, B., Lottes, J. and Richardson, D. (2015), “Badge it! A collaborative learning outcomes
based approach to integrating information literacy badges within disciplinary curriculum”,
Reference Services Review, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
Fox, B.E. and Doherty, J.J. (2012), “Design to learn, learn to design: using backward design for
information literacy instruction”, Communications in Information literacy, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 144-155.
Gariepy, L.W., Stout, J.A. and Hodge, M.L. (2016), “Using rubrics to assess learning in course integrated
library instruction”, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 491-509.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Aldine Publishing Co., New York, NY.
Goodall, D. and Pattern, D. (2011), “Academic library non/low use and undergraduate student
achievement: a preliminary report of research in progress”, Library Management, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 159-170.
Gratch-Lindauer, B. (2002), “Comparing the regional accreditation standards: outcomes assessment
and other trends”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 14-25.
 PMM Gratch-Lindauer, B. (2003), “Selecting and developing assessment tools”, in Fuseler, E. (Ed.), Assessing
19,1 Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy Instruction in Academic Institutions,
Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 22-39.
Gustavson, A. (2013), “Using ILIAC to systematically plan and implement a library information literacy
assessment program for freshman classes”, Public Services Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 97-113.
Harris, B.R. (2013), “Subversive infusions: strategies for the integration of information literacy across
84 the curriculum”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 175-180.
Hoffmann, D. and LaBonte, K. (2012), “Meeting information literacy outcomes: partnering with faculty
to create effective information literacy assessment”, Journal of Information Literacy, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 70-85.
Hsieh, M.L., Dawson, P.H., Hofmann, M.A., Titus, M.L. and Carlin, M.T. (2014), “Four pedagogical
approaches in helping students learn information literacy skills”, The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 234-246.
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

Hsieh, M.L., McManimon, S. and Yang, S. (2013), “Faculty-librarian collaboration in improving

information literacy of educational opportunity program students”, Reference Services Review,
Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 313-335.
Hufford, J.R. (2010), “What are they learning? Pre- and post-assessment surveys for LIBR 1100,
Introduction to library research”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 130-158.
Hufford, J.R. (2013), “Can the library contribute value to the campus culture for learning?”, The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 288-296.
Hufford, J.R. (2016), “The academic library and the culture for learning”, Portal: Libraries and the
Academy, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 39-372.
Hufford, J.R. and Paschel, A.K. (2010), “Pre-and post-assessment surveys for the distance section of
LIBR 1100, introduction to library research”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 50 Nos 5/6,
pp. 693-711.
Hutchins, E.O. (2003), “Assessing student learning outcomes in political science classes”, in Fuseler, E.
(Ed.), Assessing Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy Instruction in Academic
Institutions, Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 172-184.
Judd, V., Tims, B., Farrow, L. and Periatt, J. (2004), “Evaluation and assessment of a library instruction
component of an introduction to business course: a continuous process”, Reference Services
Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 274-283.
Julien, H. and Boon, S. (2004), “Assessing instructional outcomes in Canadian academic libraries”,
Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 26, pp. 121-139.
Julien, H., Detlor, B., Serenko, A., Willson, R. and LaVallee, M. (2011), “Preparing tomorrow’s decision
makers: learning environments and outcomes of information literacy instruction in business
schools”, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 348-367.
Kinsley, K., Hill, L.B. and Maier-Katlin, D. (2014), “A research and class model in future library
instruction in higher education”, New Library World, Vol. 115 Nos 9/10, pp. 482-495.
Kivel, A. (2003), “Institutionalizing a graduation requirement”, in Fuseler, E. (Ed.), Assessing Student
Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy Instruction in Academic Institutions, Association of
College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 192-197.
Kuh, G.D. and Gonyea, R.M. (2003), “The role of the academic library in promoting student engagement
in learning”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 256-282.
Kyrillidou, M. and Crowe, W. (2001), “In search of new measures”, Journal of Library Administration,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 19-24.
Lacy, M. and Chen, H. (2013), “Rethinking library instruction: using learning outcome based design to
teach online search strategies”, Journal of Information Literacy, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 126-148.
Lampert, L. (2005), “ ‘Getting psyched’ about information literacy: a successful faculty-librarian
collaboration for educational psychology and counseling”, The Reference Librarian, Vol. 43
Nos 89/90, pp. 5-23.
 Lindauer, B.G. (1998), “Defining and measuring the library’s impact on campus wide outcomes”, Academic
College & Research Libraries, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 546-570. libraries
Lundstrom, K., Fagerheim, B.A. and Benson, E.M. (2014), “Librarians and instructors developing
student learning outcomes: using frameworks to lead the process”, Reference Services Review,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 484-498.
McCabe, J. and Wise, S. (2009), “It’s all fun and games until someone learns something: assessing the
learning outcomes of two educational games”, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 85
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 6-22.
McCarthy, P. and Heald, G. (2003), “Integrated information literacy impact study”, in Fuseler, E. (Ed.),
Assessing Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy Instruction in Academic
Institutions, Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 216-219.
McCulley, C. (2009), “Mixing and matching: assessing information literacy”, Communications in
Information Literacy, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 171-180.
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

McDaniel, E.A., Felder, B.D., Gordon, L., Hrutka, M.E. and Quinn, S. (2000), “New faculty roles in
learning outcomes education: the experiences of four models and institutions”, Innovative Higher
Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 143-157.
McKibbon, K.A. (2006), “Systematic reviews and librarians”, Library Trends, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 202-215.
McKinney, P.A. and Sen, B.A. (2012), “Reflection for learning: understanding the value of reflective
writing for information literacy development”, Journal of Information Literacy, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 110-129.
Macklin, A.S. (2007), “Integrating information and communication technology literacy into the first-year
composition course: impact on teaching, learning outcomes and assessment” doctoral dissertation,
Retrieved from ProQuest. (3291128), Purdue University, West LaFayette, IN, available at: http://
docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI3291128/ (accessed January 3, 2018).
Menchaca, F. (2014), “Start a new fire: measuring the value of academic libraries in undergraduate
learning”, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 353-367.
Millet, M. (2010), “Be prepared for the opportunity: foundations, information literacy, and a QEP”,
LOEX Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 8-12.
Millet, M.S., Donald, J. and Wilson, D.W. (2009), “Information literacy across the curriculum: expanding
horizons”, College & Undergraduate Libraries, Vol. 16 Nos 2/3, pp. 180-193.
Montenegro, M., Clasing, P., Kelly, N., Gonzalez, C., Jara, M., Alarcòn, R., Sandora, I. and Saurina, E.
(2016), “Library resources and students’ learning outcomes: do all the resources have the same
impact on learning?”, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 551-556.
National Institute of Education (1984), “Involvement in learning: realizing the potential of American
Higher Education”, Report No. ED 246 833, ERIC Document, ERIC, HE 017 750, Washington, DC.
Oakleaf, M. (2009a), “The Information Literacy Instruction Assessment Cycle: a guide for increasing
student learning and improving librarians instructional skills”, Journal of Documentation,
Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 539-560.
Oakleaf, M. (2009b), “Writing information literacy assessment plans: a guide to best practice”,
Communications in Information Literacy, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 80-89.
Oakleaf, M. (2010), The Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report,
Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL.
Oakleaf, M. (2011a), “What’s the value of an academic library? The development of the ACRL value of
academic libraries comprehensive research review and report”, Australian Academic & Research
Libraries, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Oakleaf, M. (2011b), “Are they learning? Are we? Learning outcomes and the academic library”,
Library Quarterly, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 61-82.
Oakleaf, M. (2014), “A roadmap for assessing student learning using the new framework for
information literacy for higher education”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 40 No. 5,
pp. 510-514.
 PMM Pan, D., Ferrer-Vinent, I.J. and Bruehl (2014), “Library value in the classroom: assessing student
19,1 learning outcomes from instruction and collections”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
Vol. 40 Nos 3-4, pp. 332-338.
Porter, B. (2014), “Designing a library information literacy program using threshold concepts, student
learning theory, and millennial research in the development of information literacy sessions”,
Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 19 Nos 3-4, pp. 233-244.
86 Portmann, C.A. and Roush, A.J. (2004), “Assessing the effects of library instruction”, The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 461-465.
Radom, R., Wilkinson, L. and Jabaily, M. (2013), “Applying outcomes-based assessment to information
literacy”, Tennessee Libraries, Vol. 63 No. 3.
Rapchak, M. and Cipri, A. (2015), “Standing alone no more: linking research to a writing course in a
learning community”, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 661-675.
Ratteray, O.M.T. (2002), “Information literacy in self-study and accreditation”, The Journal of Academic
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

Librarianship, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 368-375.

Rockman, I.F. (2002), “Strengthening connections between information literacy, general education, and
assessment efforts”, Library Trends, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 185-198.
Rodriguez, D. (2012), “Answering questions about library impact on student learning”, In The Library
With The Lead Pipe, April 4, available at: www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/
answering-questions-about-library-impact-on-student-learning/
Saunders, L. (2007), “Regional accreditation organizations’ treatment of information literacy:
definitions, collaboration, and assessment”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 317-326.
Saunders, L. (2008), “Perspectives on accreditation and information literacy as reflected in the literature of
library and information science”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 305-313.
Saunders, L. (2010), “Information literacy as a student learning outcome: as viewed from the
perspective of institutional accreditation”, doctoral dissertation, retrieved from proquest.
(3452631), Simmons College, Boston, MA.
Saunders, L. (2011), Information Literacy as a Student Learning Outcome: The Perspective of
Institutional Accreditation, Libraries Unlimited, Santa Barbara, CA.
Schroeder, R. (2003), “Assessing information literacy in community college human services courses”,
in Fuseler, E. (Ed.), Assessing Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy Instruction in
Academic Institutions, Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 223-231.
Seeber, K.P. (2013), “Using assessment results to reinforce campus partnerships”, College &
Undergraduate Libraries, Vol. 20 Nos 3/4, pp. 352-365.
Serotkin, P.B. (2006), “Understanding the paradigm shift: a descriptive case study of the impact of
changes in information literacy instruction methods on librarians, faculty, and students at a
private, comprehensive institution”, doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
IN and PA, available at: http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd/562/
Smith, K.R. (2001), “New roles and responsibilities for the university library: advancing student earning
through outcomes assessment”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 29-36.
Smith, P.A. (2016), “Integrate and assess: information literacy as quality enhancement of
undergraduate curriculum”, Communications in Information Literacy, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 214-244.
Smith, R.L. (2003), “Learning in ENGL 101 composition”, in Fuseler, E. (Ed.), Assessing Student
Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy Instruction in Academic Institutions, Association of
College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 232-241.
Sonley, V., Turner, D., Myer, S. and Cotton, Y. (2007), “Information literacy assessment by portfolio:
a case study”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 41-70.
Sonntag, G. and Meulemans, Y. (2003), “Planning for assessment”, in Fuseler, E. (Ed.), Assessing
Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy Instruction in Academic Institutions,
Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 6-21.
 Staley, S.M., Branch, A.A. and Hewitt, T.L. (2010), “Standardised library instruction assessment: Academic
an institution-specific approach”, Information Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 1-22. libraries
Thompson, G.B. (2002), “Information literacy accreditation mandates: what they mean for faculty and
librarians”, Library Trends, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 218-241.
Tuňón, J. (2003), “The impact of accreditation and distance education on information literacy”,
Florida Libraries, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 11-14.
Turnbow, D. and Zeidman-Karpinski, A. (2016), “Don’t use a hammer when you need a screwdriver: 87
how to use the right tools to create assessment that matters”, Communications in Information
Literacy, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 143-162.
Vassilakaki, E. (2014), “Mobile information services in libraries: a review of current trends in delivering
information”, Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 176-186.
Victor, P., Otto, J. and Mutschler, C. (2013), “Assessment of library instruction on undergraduate
student success in a documents-based research course: the benefits of librarians, archivist, and
Downloaded by Eastern Michigan University At 13:35 17 February 2018 (PT)

faculty collaboration”, Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 154-176.

Watson, L.W. (2001), “How do students’ perceptions of their library usage influence their educational
outcomes”, College Student Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 366-373.
White, S. and Cheng, H. (2016), “Assessing the effectiveness of one-hour instruction sessions after
hurricane sandy: a comparison study of English 101 students”, Community & Junior College
Libraries, Vol. 22 Nos 1/2, pp. 31-46.
Whitlock, B. and Nanavati, J. (2013), “A systematic approach to performative and authentic
assessment”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 32-48.
Whitmire, E. (2002), “Academic library performance measures and undergraduates’ library use and
educational outcomes”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 107-128.
Whitmire, A.L. (2015), “Implementing a graduate-level research data management course: approach,
outcomes, and lessons learned”, Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 1-22.
Witt, S. and Gearhart, R. (2003), “Ethnography and information literacy: an assessment project”,
in Fuseler, E. (Ed.), Assessing Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy Instruction in
Academic Institutions, Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 265-275.
Ziegenfuss, D.H. and Borrelli, S. (2016), “Exploring the complexity of student learning outcome
assessment practices across multiple libraries”, Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 9-27.

Further reading
Baker, B. and Litzinger, M.E. (1992), The Evolving Educational Mission of the Library, Association of
College and Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, pp. 90-108.
Becher, M. (2013), “Instruction coordinators and higher education accreditation: a study of awareness
and assessment documentation use”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 39 No. 6,
pp. 573-581.

Corresponding author
Barbara Blummer can be contacted at: bablumm@super.org

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com