ACRL Discussion Series Webinar for Instruction Coordinators, 6 March 2015.

1. @ C H A R B O O T H
s l i d e s h a r e . n e t / c h a r b o o t h

2. c a m p u s c o l l a b o r a t i o n s
C U L T I V A T I N G

3. c a m p u s c o l l a b o r a t i o n s
C U L T I V A T I N G

4. c a m p u s c o l l a b o r a t i o n s
P R O P A G A T I N G

18. i.e., making
people care.

20. i.e., making
people aware.

21. I N S T I T U T I O N A L
O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L
D E P A R T M E N T A L
I N D I V I D U A L
S T A K E H O L D E R S

22. A C C R E D I T A T I O N
I L I N T E G R A T I O N
A S S E S S M E N T
P R O J E C T S
O B J E C T I V E S

23. R E S O U R C E S / S T A F F
P A R T N E R S H I P S
E F F E C T I V E N E S S
I M P A C T
O U T C O M E S

24. W h a t ’ s I n I t F o r T h e m ?

25. s t u d e n t s
W h a t ’ s I n I t F o r T h e m ?

26. s t u d e n t s
f a c u l t y
W h a t ’ s I n I t F o r T h e m ?

27. s t u d e n t s
f a c u l t y
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
W h a t ’ s I n I t F o r T h e m ?

28. s t u d e n t s
f a c u l t y
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
W h a t ’ s I n I t F o r T h e m ?
c o l l e a g u e s

30. Academic libraries have long enjoyed
their status as the “heart of the
university.” However, in recent decades,
higher education environments have
changed… Community college, college,
and university librarians no longer can
rely on their stakeholders’ belief in
their importance. Rather, they must
demonstrate their value.
-Megan Oakleaf, 2010

31. ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_summary.pdf - p12
A RT I C U L AT I N G VA L U E

32. ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_summary.pdf - p12
A RT I C U L AT I N G VA L U E

33. A RT I C U L AT I N G VA L U E

34. A RT I C U L AT I N G VA L U E

35. A RT I C U L AT I N G VA L U E

36. A RT I C U L AT I N G VA L U E

37. C O N T E X T
t h e c l a r e m o n t c o l l e g e s

38. C O N T E X T
t h e c l a r e m o n t c o l l e g e s

39. F O U N D A T I O N

40. C O N J E C T U R E

41. E V I D E N C E

42. E V I D E N C E

43. C O N J E C T U R E

44. Rate your abilities (students)your students'
abilities (faculty) in the following areas:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student
Write annotated
bibliographies
Provide proper
attribution to
source materials
in their
academic work
Use sources to
further an
argument/thesis
Evaluate sources
to determine if
they are
authoritative
Differentiate
between types of
information
sources (e.g.,
scholarly v.
popular
literature, fact v.
opinion)
Effectively use
Library
databases,
catalog(s), and
other
information
resources to find
relevant source
material
Excellent/Very High
Above Average/High
Average/Moderate
Below Average/Low
Poor/None
* * **

45. Rate your abilities (students)your students'
abilities (faculty) in the following areas:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student
Write annotated
bibliographies
Provide proper
attribution to
source materials
in their
academic work
Use sources to
further an
argument/thesis
Evaluate sources
to determine if
they are
authoritative
Differentiate
between types of
information
sources (e.g.,
scholarly v.
popular
literature, fact v.
opinion)
Effectively use
Library
databases,
catalog(s), and
other
information
resources to find
relevant source
material
Excellent/Very High
Above Average/High
Average/Moderate
Below Average/Low
Poor/None
* * **
* *
*

46. How much have your instructors (students)/you (faculty)
emphasized the following in the courses you teach?
Student v. Faculty Mean Percentage Difference
-10.38%
-9.97%
-9.12%
-2.86%
-0.97%
-12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0%
Using peer-reviewed or scholarly sources in
assignments
Using practices (terminology, procedures,
writing style, etc.) of a specific major or field
of study
Appropriately citing the sources used in a
paper or project
Questioning the quality of information
sources
Not plagiarizing another author's work

47. I N S T I T U T I O N A L
O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L
D E P A R T M E N T A L
I N D I V I D U A L
C O L L A B O R AT I O N S

48. I N D I V I D U A L
C O L L A B O R AT I O N S

49. I L I N W I K I P E D I A

50. IL VIA WIKIPEDIA

51. IL VIA WIKIPEDIA

52. IL VIA WIKIPEDIA

53. D E P A R T M E N T A L
S C A F F O L D I N G I L

54. S C A F F O L D I N G I L
C U R R I C U L U M V I S U A L I Z A T I O N

55. S C A F F O L D I N G I L
c a t a l o g s s c h e d u l e s w e b s i t e s

56. S C A F F O L D I N G I L

57. S C A F F O L D I N G I L

58. S C A F F O L D I N G I L

59. S C A F F O L D I N G I L

60. S C A F F O L D I N G I L

61. S C A F F O L D I N G I L

62. O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L
I L D E F I N I T I O N

63. I L D E F I N I T I O N

64. I L D E F I N I T I O N
t h e c l a r e m o n t c o l l e g e s

65. I L D E F I N I T I O N
College Embedded librarian
POMONA Gale Burrow
CLAREMONT MCKENNA Sara Lowe
PITZER Natalie Tagge
SCRIPPS Alex Chappell
HARVEY MUDD
Sam Kome: FA12-SP13
Cynthia Cohen: SU13-FA14
CLAREMONT GRADUATE
UNIVERSITY
Char Booth
KECK GRADUATE INSTITUTE Sean Stone

66. RUBRIC ADOPTION

67. S C R I P P S
P I T Z E R
P O M O N A
C G U
H M C
K G I
C M C
Grassroots/
consensus
governance
with robust
committee
structure
Pitzer College
Consensus-
based
governance
without much
committee
structure
Scripps College
Faculty
committees
with strong
departmental
autonomy
Pomona
College
Top-down/
federated
states
governance
Claremont
Graduate
University
Faculty-
committee-
based
governance
Harvey Mudd
College
Small/agile/
progressive
committee of
core faculty
Keck Graduate
Institute
Top-down
governance/
assessment
driven
Claremont
McKenna
College
RUBRIC ADOPTION

68. Grassroots/
consensus
governance with
robust
committee
structure
Pitzer College
Consensus-
based
governance
without much
committee
structure
Scripps College
Faculty-
committee-
based with
strong
department
decision making
Pomona College
Top-down/
federated states
governance
Claremont
Graduate
University
Faculty-
committee-
based
governance
Harvey Mudd
College
Small/agile/
progressive
committee of
core faculty
Keck Graduate
Institute
Top-down
governance/
assessment
driven
Claremont
McKenna
College
SU 2012: Director of
Assessment meets
with librarians to
discuss IL
assessment options
SU 2012: Librarians
edit Carleton College
Rubric to create
Rubric v1.1
SU 2012: Librarians
score First Year
Seminar papers (FYS)
using Rubric v1.2
FA 2012: Faculty
incorporate Rubric
v1.4 into FYS
FA 2012: Librarians
score capstone
papers with Rubric
v1.4
SU 2014: Library
uses AiA Rubric to
evaluate student IL
skills
FA 2012: Writing 50
(first-year seminar)
faculty score papers
using Rubric
2012/2013
SU 2014: Library
uses 5-part Rubric to
evaluate student IL
skills
Future: Hopeful
integration of
2013-14 IL Rubric
into capstone
evaluation
SU 2011:
Environmental
Analysis (EA) Rubric
created based on
Drake Univ. Rubric
SU 2011: Discussions
with faculty improve
rubric & EA program
FA 2011/FA 2012:
EA Rubric used to
develop IL instruction
for EA senior thesis
students
SP 2013: Librarians/
faculty use Rubric
2012/2013 to
evaluate sample EA
theses from three
prior years, submits
to WASC
SU 2013: Library
uses AiA Rubric to
evaluate student IL
skills
SU/FA 2012: Rubric
v1.4 discussed at all
departmental
meetings
SP 2013: Dean
requests Rubric
2012/2013 as
foundation for an IL
instruction session in
methods course /
leads to development
of IL Labs pilot
SP 2013: 5-Part
Rubric provides
foundation for
developing five core
learning outcomes for
IL Labs pilot
Future: Planning for
potential integration
of Rubric into a
Canvas course pilot
as a sample
evaluation object, and
a Thesis/Dissertation
evaluation project
FA 2012: Librarians
and ALO attend
WASC Accreditation
Retreat on Core
Competencies:
Critical Thinking and
Information Literacy
FA 2012: Librarians
present Rubric
2012/13 to
Assessment
Committee
FA 2012: Committee
interested in training
upper class “peers” in
using rubric to
evaluate clinic work
SU 2014: Library
uses AiA Rubric to
evaluate student IL
skills
Future: Hopeful
integration of
2013-14 IL Rubric
into clinic evaluation
FA 2012: Librarians
and ALO attend
WASC Accreditation
Retreat on Core
Competencies:
Critical Thinking and
Information Literacy
FA 2012: Map and
integrate Rubric v1.?
into existing rubrics
for some programs
SP 2013: Begin using
updated rubrics as
part of an overall
program to increase
rubric use in more
classes
Future: IL Rubric data
needs to be gathered
and assessed.
Rubrics are being
adopted/developed
for the new
BioPharmacy
program
FA 2012:
Assessment
committee adopts
Rubric 2012/2013
FA 2012: Keck
Science Dept. adopts
Rubric 2012/2013
SP 2013: Library
scores senior theses
using Rubric
2012/2013
SP 2013: Keck
Science Dept. scores
senior theses using
Rubric 2012/2013
SU 2014: Library
uses AiA Rubric to
evaluate student IL
skills
Future: Hopeful
integration of
2013-14 IL Rubric
into capstone
evaluation

69. I N S T I T U T I O N A L
C O M M O N G O A L S

70. C O M M O N G O A L S

71. College
Campus Lead
Liaison
Arts &
Humanities
Team
Social Sciences
Team
STEM Team
POM Gale Burrow
Dani Brecher
Cook
Micquel Little Cynthia Cohen
CMC Mary Martin
Adam
Rosenkranz
Assessment
Librarian
Keck Science:
Jessica Greene
PZR Natalie Tagge Allegra Swift Cindy Snyder
SCR Alex Chappell Holly Gardinier Ashley Sanders
HMC Sam Kome Lisa Crane Chris Jones
STEM Team
Librarian
CGU Carrie Marsh Maria Savova Kim Franklin Margaret Hogarth
KGI STEM Team Librarian
C O M M O N G O A L S

72. C O M M O N G O A L S

73. C O M M O N G O A L S
College
Campus Lead
Liaison
Arts &
Humanities
Team
Social Sciences
Team
STEM Team
POM Gale Burrow
Dani Brecher
Cook
Micquel Little Cynthia Cohen
CMC Mary Martin
Adam
Rosenkranz
Assessment
Librarian
Keck Science:
Jessica Greene
PZR Natalie Tagge Allegra Swift Cindy Snyder
SCR Alex Chappell Holly Gardinier Ashley Sanders
HMC Sam Kome Lisa Crane Chris Jones
STEM Team
Librarian
CGU Carrie Marsh Maria Savova Kim Franklin Margaret Hogarth
KGI STEM Team Librarian

74. I N S T I T U T I O N A L
O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L
D E P A R T M E N T A L
I N D I V I D U A L
C H A N N E L S

75. C H A N N E L S

76. L S E D I F Y
D I Y

77. h e a t h b r o t h e r s . c o m / r e s o u r c e s /
M E S S A G E S

78. I N S T E A D o f :
“students can post to the IR...”

79. “googled yourself/your graduates lately?”
t r y T H I S .

81. N AY S AY E R S

82. A L R E A D Y
TRIED THAT.
N AY S AY E R S

83. A L R E A D Y
TRIED THAT.
NOT (Y)OUR JOB.
N AY S AY E R S

84. A L R E A D Y
TRIED THAT.
N O T E N O U G H
STAFF/MONEY.
NOT (Y)OUR JOB.
N AY S AY E R S

85. A L R E A D Y
TRIED THAT.
N O T E N O U G H
STAFF/MONEY.
NOT (Y)OUR JOB.
N AY S AY E R S
NOT CONVINCED.

86. NOT CONVINCED.
A L R E A D Y
TRIED THAT.
N O T E N O U G H
STAFF/MONEY.
NOT (Y)OUR JOB.
W H A T
H A P P E N E D
LAST TIME?
Y E A S A Y E R S
N AY S AY E R S
Calgani, 2008

87. NOT CONVINCED.
A L R E A D Y
TRIED THAT.
N O T E N O U G H
STAFF/MONEY.
NOT (Y)OUR JOB.
W H A T
H A P P E N E D
LAST TIME?
WHAT’S REALLY
IMPORTANT IS…
Y E A S A Y E R S
N AY S AY E R S
Calgani, 2008

88. NOT CONVINCED.
A L R E A D Y
TRIED THAT.
N O T E N O U G H
STAFF/MONEY.
NOT (Y)OUR JOB.
W H A T
H A P P E N E D
LAST TIME?
BUT WHAT WE SHOULD
REALLY FOCUS ON IS…
WHAT’S REALLY
IMPORTANT IS…
Y E A S A Y E R S
N AY S AY E R S
Calgani, 2008

89. NOT CONVINCED.
A L R E A D Y
TRIED THAT.
N O T E N O U G H
STAFF/MONEY.
NOT (Y)OUR JOB.
A M I H E A R I N G Y O U R
CONCERNS CORRECTLY?
W H A T
H A P P E N E D
LAST TIME?
BUT WHAT WE SHOULD
REALLY FOCUS ON IS…
WHAT’S REALLY
IMPORTANT IS…
Y E A S A Y E R S
N AY S AY E R S
Calgani, 2008

90. “ F A I L U R E ” I S I N E V I T A B L E

91. S K I L L S H A R E

93. C H A R B O O T H
director of research,
t e a c h i n g , a n d
l e a r n i n g s e r v i c e s
T H E C L A R E M O N T
C O L L E G E S L I B R A R Y
charbooth@gmail.com
slideshare.net/charbooth
i n f o m a t i o n a l . c o m

94. C R E D I T S / R E S O U R C E S
• ACRL. Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review
and Report. (2010). Researched by Megan Oakleaf. Chicago: ACRL.
• Heath, Chip, & Heath, Dan. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas
survive and others die. New York: Random House.
• Booth, Lowe, Tagge, & Stone. (2014). Degrees of Impact: Analyzing the Effect
of Progressive Librarian Course Collaborations on Student
Performance. crl.acrl.org/content/early/2014/07/22/crl14-621.abstract
• Rubric content adapted for the Claremont Colleges from an instrument developed
at Carleton College (Gould Library Reference & Instruction Department.
"Information Literacy in Student Writing Rubric and Codebook."
Northfield, MN: Carleton College. 2012. go.carleton.edu/6a).
• CCL Student/Faculty Surveys & Reports: scholarship.claremont.edu/library_staff
• WIKIPEDIA STORY: www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-wikipedia-20140615-story.html
• ORIGINAL DANDELION IMAGE: community.poppyswap.com
• AMANDA HOLLIS-BRUSKY IMAGE: latimes.com
• RED DOORS: standrews.dioala.org/dfc/newsdetail_2/3167085