LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review

Assessment The process of assessment is used to determine the extent of a chosen quality found in a service, resource or program. This overview of the literature regarding assessment in academic libraries, and more specifically library instruction, provides a starting point for the assessment process by summarizing current trends and best practices. To be clear, sometimes ‘assessment’ and ‘evaluation’ are used interchangeably, but generally the literature notes a distinction (Barclay 1993; Choinski, Mark, & Murphey, 2003; Meulemans, 2002; Oakleaf, 2008; Rabine and Cardwell, 2000; Scharf, Elliot, & Huey, 2007). For Dugan and Hermon (2002) “evaluation measures whether or not a system does what it is designed to do in an efficient and effective manner. The assessment process measures learner performance” (378).

The push for quality assessment of academic libraries can be attributed to the accreditation process (Barclay, 1993; Choinski, Mark, &Murphey, 2003), the increasing demand for libraries to account for their resources to their universities and communities (Barclay, 1993; Hufford, 2010; Knight, 2002; Meulemans, 2002; Stueart & Moran, 2007), as well as the desire for libraries to determine the quality and effectiveness of their services and programs so improvements can be made to better assist their patrons (Knight, 2002; Meulemans, 2002; Stueart & Moran, 2007). The reason behind the assessment will affect what, and how, information is gathered – some may be interested in the library’s affects on student learning while others may find patron opinion and numbers in versus numbers out more compelling (Stueart & Moran, 2007). Who the information is for is an important factor to keep in mind when determining the scope of the assessment.

Assessment is common place in libraries and many other organizations that wish to prove their worth or improve their programs and services. However, examples of assessment, as opposed to evaluation, of library services, are difficult to find (Colborn & Cordell, 1998; Dugan & Hermon, 2002; Meulemans, 2002; Scharf, Elliot, & Huey, 2007; Walsh, 2009; Warner, 2003). Although the theory behind quality assessment is well described in the literature, it is not always followed in practice (Walsh, 2009). This is likely because the current trend in assessment literature is the move from inputs and outputs to outcomes assessment, a more complex process.

In the past, library assessment has mainly focused on user satisfaction or the comparison of inputs and outputs to determine the quality or effectiveness of their resources and services, but literature from the past two decades show a strong movement towards outcomes assessment, a more informative process (Barclay, 1993; Colborn and Cordell, 1998; Hufford, 2010; Meulemans, 2002; Oakleaf, 2008; Warner, 2003). Inputs are the resources or activities that make up a library such as “budget, staff, facilities, materials, and equipment” while outputs are “various products of program activities” and are usually counted in numbers (Stueart & Moran, 2007, 410). Outcomes are the “benefits or changes for individuals or populations during or after participating in activities” (Stueart & Moran, 2007, 410). According to the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), outcomes assessment “focuses on the achievement of outcomes that have been identified as desirable in the library's goals and LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review objectives. It identifies performance measures, such as proficiencies, that indicate how well the library is doing what it has stated it wishes to do” (2005, para. 16). This requires knowing what the desired outcomes are, and having the time and resources to create an assessment tool that will provide information directly related to those outcomes. For library instruction the most likely desired outcome is information literacy, which “is the set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information” (Association of Collage & Research Libraries (ACRL), 2010).

Outcomes assessment presents the most difficulty with single sessions of library instruction (Colborn & Cordell, 1998; Riddle & Hartman, 2001). This is because of the lack of time to conduct an assessment that is detailed enough to provide information on outcomes, and the lack of an incentive for students to complete such an assessment (Rabine & Cardwell, 2000; Riddle & Hartman, 2001) There is also much less literature on one-shot library instruction workshops than there is for assessment in courses for credit.

Scope The first step of the assessment process requires deciding on what exactly will be analyzed, and it is contingent on why the assessment is being performed (Goebel & Peacock, 2009). For library instruction the scope can be divided into two aspects – the level of assessment and the learning objectives. The level can be thought of as who we want the results to pertain to – patrons who completed a library workshop (classroom level), the students within a specific program or department that has information literacy integrated into the curriculum (programmatic level), or the entire student body (institutional level) (Radcliff, Jensen, Salem, Burhanna, &Gedeon, 2007). Institutional assessment can be applied to one-shot library instruction but that requires sampling patrons who did not complete a library instruction session as well as those who did.

The learning objectives are the skills that the library instruction is supposed to impart on patrons and they must be accurately reflected in the class’s lesson plan for the assessment to be valid (validity is discussed more later on) (Barclay, 1993). If created correctly, these learning objectives double as measurable outcomes because “assessing student learning outcomes means describing and measuring what students should ‘know, think or do’ when they have completed a particular academic program (Choinski, Mark, & Murphey, 2003, 563). Increasingly, these learning objectives are being based on professional or organizational standards (such as institutional or program mission statements) and they must be developed in a way that makes them measureable (Barclay, 1993; Oakleaf, 2008; Radcliff et al., 2007; Stueart & Moran, 2007).

One of the most common set of standards used for assessing information literacy is the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Information Literacy Competency Standards for Libraries in Higher Education, see Appendix A (Emmett & Emde, 2007; Fuseler Avery, 2003; Hufford, 2010; Stueart & Moran, 2007; Veldof, 2006). These standards reflect both the cognitive and behavioural domains of learning which makes them useful for an outcomes assessment. The domains of learning come from Bloom’s taxonomy which can be used as a framework for developing usable learning objectives (Radcliff et al., 2007). The behavioural LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review domain relates to what students can do, while the cognitive domain relates to what students know and can be divided into levels of complexity (“remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create”) (Radcliff et al., 2007, 16). The other domain of learning is affective which refers to patron “perceptions and values” and although an outcomes assessment may include gathering information relating to the affective domain, it is not the focus (Radcliff et al., 2007, 16). When learning objectives are created, whether or not they are based on standards, it is important (so they can be measured easily) that they include the audience (the learner), behaviour (“what they learner is expected to do”), conditions (“the circumstances under which the learning will occur”), and degree (“how much of the behaviour needs to be performed and to what level”) (Radcliff et al., 2007, 15). Following this procedure makes creating the assessment tool easier and results in a more effective assessment (Fuseler Avery, 2003).

Process Much of what can be found in the literature are summaries of how individual libraries implemented an assessment program and what the results were. They outline what they wanted to know, the assessment tool used, and what was learned (Colborn & Cordell, 1998; Knight, 2002; Oakleaf, 2009; Ondrusek, Dent, Bondie-Joseph, & Williams, 2005; Rabine and Cardwell, 2000). The more important lessons learned from these papers include the need to document the decision-making process; know what information the assessment is supposed to provide and refer back to that when making decisions; and be prepared for the work that is required to develop an assessment tool from scratch, or for dealing with the limitations of a standardized tool.

One of the more widely discussed standardized tests in the literature is Project SAILS, an assessment tool developed by Kent State University (Sutherland, 2009). SAILS is a multiple choice test that can be used in any campus and is based on ACRL’s Information Literacy standards (Scharf, Elliot, & Huey, 2007). It is considered a standardized test because it is “designed to be administered uniformly and scored objectively” (Oakleaf, 2008, 234). The major advantage of SAILS is that it is simple to administer, “inexperienced librarians do not have to worry about sophisticated procedures” (Lym, Grossman, Yannotta, & Talih, 2010). SAILS does have some detractors in the literature, and one of them notes that “the use of such standardized assessments reduce information literacy from the realm of higher order thinking [and] critical thinking ability that is necessary to produce and communicate new knowledge[,] to a set of disconnected, decontextualized skills that have nothing to do with knowledge production and communication” (Sutherland, 2009, para. 21).

Tools There are a large number of different tools discussed in the literature with suggestions about the kind of learning they assess the best, how to create them and their benefits and limitations. However, there are some more general conclusions that can be made from the literature. LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review  Pre- and post-testing are necessary to determine any change over time (Radcliff et al., 2007; Samson, 2000)  To determine causation, that library instruction caused patrons to learn something or change their behaviour, it is necessary to pre- and post-test library instruction students (Knight, 2002; Samson, 2000) or assess a control group with similar demographics that has not taken library instruction as well as the group that did  However, logistically, it may not be possible to include control groups in smaller assessments (Wong, Chan, & Chu, 2006) while pre-testing may “sensitize” students to particular concepts and give them clues as to what will be on the post-test (Riddle & Hartman, 2001)  Performance based assessment is the most meaningful and effective way to determine outcomes because they are authentic – they come from a real, not simulated, environment (Blum and Arter, 1996; Oaklaef, 2008)  Performance based assessment where work is graded is uncommon for single library instruction sessions (Colborn & Cordell, 1998)  Fixed choice tests cannot easily test higher-level thinking skills (Oakleaf, 2008; Scharf, Elliot, & Huey, 2007)  The assessment tool should be piloted before implemented so that issues with wording and layout can be addressed before they can affect the results (Radcliff et al., 2007)  The tool must be manageable in terms of time and money, it is better to implement a useful but small assessment rather than a large assessment that fails to address the outcomes we want to know about (Rabine and Cardwell, 2000; Barclay, 1993)  Reliability and validity are important considerations for assessment tools (Fuseler Avery, 2003; Murtha, Stec, & Wilt, 2006; Ondrusek, Dent, Bondie-Joseph, & Williams, 2005)  “The concept of reliability means that the measurement can be repeated, in that you are not measuring a random effect, but something that can be duplicated over time” (Samson, 2000)  “Content validity is evaluated by comparing how the test reflects the scope of the subject-matter being tested. Face validity refers to experts looking at a test and determining if the questions seem reasonable, given the test specifications” (Samson, 2000)  Assessments that are done without captive audiences (when the assessment tool is not administered during the instruction session) incentives may be necessary to obtain enough participants for the assessment to be considered reliable (Colborn & Cordell, 1998; Rabine & Cardwell, 2000)

Data Analysis What happens with the findings of an assessment is as important as how they were obtained. It is a misuse of time and money if an assessment is performed to determine the effectiveness of a service and the information is not used to try and improve it (Dugan & Hermon, 2002; Goebel & Peacock, 2009; Knight, 2002; Radcliff et al., 2007). It is also poor practice to end the assessment program after changes have been made (Fuseler Avery, 2003; LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review Goebel & Peacock, 2009). Assessment should be continuous to ensure that the changes made are actually beneficial.

It is important to note that negative results, or positive results for that matter, may not always be an accurate reflection of the service. Other factors may affect the results for learning outcomes such as poorly worded tests or instructions, or previous information literacy instruction the patron received (Veldof, 2006). That is why it is important to ensure validity and reliability. It can also be helpful to partner with a group or person who has expertise in social science research (Rabine & Cardwell, 2000; Riddle & Hartman, 2001). The literature does indicate that the data analysis of assessment in libraries is improving (Barclay, 1993). However, this can be a complex area depending on the assessment tool chosen and what is to be done with the results; therefore a background in data analysis can be an asset. LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review References

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2005). Guidelines for university library services to undergraduate students. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/ulsundergraduate.cfm

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2010). Introduction to information literacy. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/infolit/overview/intro/index.cfm

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm

Barclay D. (1993). Evaluating library instruction: doing the best you can with what you have. RQ, 33(2), 195-202.

Blum, R. E., & Arter, J. A. (Eds.). (1996). A handbook for student performance assessment in an era of restructuring. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Choinski, E., Mark, A. E., & Murphey, M. (2003). Assessment with rubrics: An efficient and objective means of assessing student outcomes in an information resources class. Portal, 3(4), 563-575.

Colborn, N. A. W., & Cordell, R. M. (1998). Moving from subjective to objective assessments of your instruction program. Reference Services Review. 26(3-4), 125-37.

Dugan, R. E., & Hernon, P. (2002). Outcomes assessment: Not synonymous with inputs and outputs. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(6), 376-380. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org.proxy2.lib.uwo.ca:2048/acrl/ilcomstan.html

Emmett, A., & Emde, J. (2007). Assessing information literacy skills using the ACRL standards as a guide. Reference Services Review, 35(2), 210-229. doi:10.1108/00907320710749146

Fuseler Avery, E. (Ed.). (2003). Assessing student learning outcomes for information literacy instruction in academic institutions. Chicago: American Library Association.

Goebel, N., & Peacock, J. (2009). Evaluation is the an who, what when where, why and how are the questions. Feliciter, 55(3), 95-97. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy2.lib.uwo.ca:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&A N=41553416&site=ehost-live LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review Hufford, J. R. (2010). What are they learning? Pre- and post-assessment surveys for LIBR 1100, introduction to library research. College and Research Libraries, 71(2) 139-158.

Knight, L. A. (2002). The role of assessment in library user education. Reference Services Review 30(1), 15-24.

Lym, B., Grossman, H., Yannotta, L., & Talih, M. (2010). Assessing the assessment: How institutions administered, interpreted, and used SAILS. Reference Services Review, 38(1), 168-186. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.proxy2.lib.uwo.ca:2048/info/journals/rsr/rsr.jsp

Meulemans, Y. N. (2002). Assessment city: The past, present, and future state of information literacy assessment. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 9(2), 61-74.

Murtha, L., Stec, E., & Wilt, M. (2006). Using assessment as a tool to improve learning: An IFLA workshop. IFLA Journal, 32(4), 294-309.

Oakleaf, M. (2008). Dangers and opportunities: A conceptual map of information literacy assessment approaches. Portal, 8(3), 233-253.

Oakleaf, M. (2009). The information literacy instruction assessment cycle: A guide for increasing student learning and improving librarian instructional skills. Journal of Documentation, 65(4), 539-560.

Ondrusek, A., Dent, V. F., & Bonadie-Joseph, I. (2005). A longitudinal study of the development and evaluation of an information literacy test. Reference Services Review, 33(4), 388-417.

Rabine, J. L., & Cardwell, C. (2000). Start making sense: practical approaches to outcomes assessment for libraries. Research Strategies. 17(4), 319-35.

Radcliff, C. J., Jensen, M. L., Salem, J. A., Burhanna, K. J., & Gedeon, J. A. (2007). A practical guide to information literacy assessment for academic librarians. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Riddle, J. S., & Hartman, K. A. (2001). But are they learning anything? Designing an instrument of first year library instruction. College and Undergraduate Libraries, 7(2), 59-69.

Scharf, D., Elliot, N., & Huey, H. A. (2007) Direct assessment of information literacy using writing portfolios. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 462-477.

Samson, S. (2000). What and when do they know? Web-based assessment. Reference Services Review, 28(4), 335-342. LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review Stueart, R. & Moran, B. (2007). Library and information center management (7th ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Sutherland, K. (2009). Librarians as literacy sponsors: A critique of information literacy assessment tools. Progressive Librarian, (33), 18-25.

Walsh, A. (2009). Information literacy assessment: Where do we start? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(1), 19-28.

Warner, D. A. (2003). A disciplinary blueprint for the assessment of information literacy. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Veldof, J. (2006). Creating the one-shot library workshop: A step-by-step guide. Chicago: American Library Association.

Wong, G., Chan, D., & Chu, S. (2006). Assessing the enduring impact of library instruction programs. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(4), 384-895. LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review Appendix A

Standards, Performance Indicators, and Outcomes Standard One The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed.

Performance Indicators:

1. The information literate student defines and articulates the need for information.

Outcomes Include:

a. Confers with instructors and participates in class discussions, peer workgroups, and electronic discussions to identify a research topic, or other information need b. Develops a thesis statement and formulates questions based on the information need c. Explores general information sources to increase familiarity with the topic d. Defines or modifies the information need to achieve a manageable focus e. Identifies key concepts and terms that describe the information need f. Recognizes that existing information can be combined with original thought, experimentation, and/or analysis to produce new information 2. The information literate student identifies a variety of types and formats of potential sources for information.

Outcomes Include:

a. Knows how information is formally and informally produced, organized, and disseminated b. Recognizes that knowledge can be organized into disciplines that influence the way information is accessed c. Identifies the value and differences of potential resources in a variety of formats (e.g., multimedia, database, website, data set, audio/visual, book) d. Identifies the purpose and audience of potential resources (e.g., popular vs. scholarly, current vs. historical) e. Differentiates between primary and secondary sources, recognizing how their use and importance vary with each discipline f. Realizes that information may need to be constructed with raw data from primary sources 3. The information literate student considers the costs and benefits of acquiring the needed information.

Outcomes Include: LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review a. Determines the availability of needed information and makes decisions on broadening the information seeking process beyond local resources (e.g., interlibrary loan; using resources at other locations; obtaining images, videos, text, or sound) b. Considers the feasibility of acquiring a new language or skill (e.g., foreign or discipline-based) in order to gather needed information and to understand its context c. Defines a realistic overall plan and timeline to acquire the needed information 4. The information literate student reevaluates the nature and extent of the information need.

Outcomes Include:

a. Reviews the initial information need to clarify, revise, or refine the question b. Describes criteria used to make information decisions and choices

Standard Two The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently.

Performance Indicators: 1. The information literate student selects the most appropriate investigative methods or information retrieval systems for accessing the needed information.

Outcomes Include:

a. Identifies appropriate investigative methods (e.g., laboratory experiment, simulation, fieldwork) b. Investigates benefits and applicability of various investigative methods c. Investigates the scope, content, and organization of information retrieval systems d. Selects efficient and effective approaches for accessing the information needed from the investigative method or information retrieval system 2. The information literate student constructs and implements effectively-designed search strategies.

Outcomes Include:

a. Develops a research plan appropriate to the investigative method b. Identifies keywords, synonyms and related terms for the information needed c. Selects controlled vocabulary specific to the discipline or information retrieval source d. Constructs a search strategy using appropriate commands for the information retrieval system selected (e.g., Boolean operators, truncation, and proximity for search engines; internal organizers such as indexes for books) LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review e. Implements the search strategy in various information retrieval systems using different user interfaces and search engines, with different command languages, protocols, and search parameters f. Implements the search using investigative protocols appropriate to the discipline 3. The information literate student retrieves information online or in person using a variety of methods.

Outcomes Include:

a. Uses various search systems to retrieve information in a variety of formats b. Uses various classification schemes and other systems (e.g., call number systems or indexes) to locate information resources within the library or to identify specific sites for physical exploration c. Uses specialized online or in person services available at the institution to retrieve information needed (e.g., interlibrary loan/document delivery, professional associations, institutional research offices, community resources, experts and practitioners) d. Uses surveys, letters, interviews, and other forms of inquiry to retrieve primary information 4. The information literate student refines the search strategy if necessary.

Outcomes Include:

a. Assesses the quantity, quality, and relevance of the search results to determine whether alternative information retrieval systems or investigative methods should be utilized b. Identifies gaps in the information retrieved and determines if the search strategy should be revised c. Repeats the search using the revised strategy as necessary

5. The information literate student extracts, records, and manages the information and its sources.

Outcomes Include:

a. Selects among various technologies the most appropriate one for the task of extracting the needed information (e.g., copy/paste software functions, photocopier, scanner, audio/visual equipment, or exploratory instruments) b. Creates a system for organizing the information c. Differentiates between the types of sources cited and understands the elements and correct syntax of a citation for a wide range of resources d. Records all pertinent citation information for future reference e. Uses various technologies to manage the information selected and organized LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review Standard Three The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.

Performance Indicators: 1. The information literate student summarizes the main ideas to be extracted from the information gathered.

Outcomes Include:

a. Reads the text and selects main ideas b. Restates textual concepts in his/her own words and selects data accurately c. Identifies verbatim material that can be then appropriately quoted

2. The information literate student articulates and applies initial criteria for evaluating both the information and its sources.

Outcomes Include:

a. Examines and compares information from various sources in order to evaluate reliability, validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness, and point of view or bias b. Analyzes the structure and logic of supporting arguments or methods c. Recognizes prejudice, deception, or manipulation d. Recognizes the cultural, physical, or other context within which the information was created and understands the impact of context on interpreting the information

3. The information literate student synthesizes main ideas to construct new concepts.

Outcomes Include:

a. Recognizes interrelationships among concepts and combines them into potentially useful primary statements with supporting evidence b. Extends initial synthesis, when possible, at a higher level of abstraction to construct new hypotheses that may require additional information c. Utilizes computer and other technologies (e.g. spreadsheets, databases, multimedia, and audio or visual equipment) for studying the interaction of ideas and other phenomena 4. The information literate student compares new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value added, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information.

Outcomes Include: LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review a. Determines whether information satisfies the research or other information need b. Uses consciously selected criteria to determine whether the information contradicts or verifies information used from other sources c. Draws conclusions based upon information gathered d. Tests theories with discipline-appropriate techniques (e.g., simulators, experiments) e. Determines probable accuracy by questioning the source of the data, the limitations of the information gathering tools or strategies, and the reasonableness of the conclusions f. Integrates new information with previous information or knowledge g. Selects information that provides evidence for the topic 5. The information literate student determines whether the new knowledge has an impact on the individual’s value system and takes steps to reconcile differences.

Outcomes Include:

a. Investigates differing viewpoints encountered in the literature b. Determines whether to incorporate or reject viewpoints encountered 6. The information literate student validates understanding and interpretation of the information through discourse with other individuals, subject-area experts, and/or practitioners.

Outcomes Include:

a. Participates in classroom and other discussions b. Participates in class-sponsored electronic communication forums designed to encourage discourse on the topic (e.g., email, bulletin boards, chat rooms) c. Seeks expert opinion through a variety of mechanisms (e.g., interviews, email, listservs) 7. The information literate student determines whether the initial query should be revised.

Outcomes Include:

a. Determines if original information need has been satisfied or if additional information is needed b. Reviews search strategy and incorporates additional concepts as necessary c. Reviews information retrieval sources used and expands to include others as needed

Standard Four The information literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose. LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review Performance Indicators: 1. The information literate student applies new and prior information to the planning and creation of a particular product or performance.

Outcomes Include: a. Organizes the content in a manner that supports the purposes and format of the product or performance (e.g. outlines, drafts, storyboards) b. Articulates knowledge and skills transferred from prior experiences to planning and creating the product or performance c. Integrates the new and prior information, including quotations and paraphrasings, in a manner that supports the purposes of the product or performance d. Manipulates digital text, images, and data, as needed, transferring them from their original locations and formats to a new context

2. The information literate student revises the development process for the product or performance.

Outcomes Include:

a. Maintains a journal or log of activities related to the information seeking, evaluating, and communicating process b. Reflects on past successes, failures, and alternative strategies 3. The information literate student communicates the product or performance effectively to others.

Outcomes Include:

a. Chooses a communication medium and format that best supports the purposes of the product or performance and the intended audience b. Uses a range of information technology applications in creating the product or performance c. Incorporates principles of design and communication d. Communicates clearly and with a style that supports the purposes of the intended audience

Standard Five The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally.

Performance Indicators: 1. The information literate student understands many of the ethical, legal and socio- economic issues surrounding information and information technology. LINC Library Instruction and Assessment June 16, 2010 Literature Review Outcomes Include:

a. Identifies and discusses issues related to privacy and security in both the print and electronic environments b. Identifies and discusses issues related to free vs. fee-based access to information c. Identifies and discusses issues related to censorship and freedom of speech d. Demonstrates an understanding of intellectual property, copyright, and fair use of copyrighted material

2. The information literate student follows laws, regulations, institutional policies, and etiquette related to the access and use of information resources.

Outcomes Include:

a. Participates in electronic discussions following accepted practices (e.g. "Netiquette") b. Uses approved passwords and other forms of ID for access to information resources c. Complies with institutional policies on access to information resources d. Preserves the integrity of information resources, equipment, systems and facilities e. Legally obtains, stores, and disseminates text, data, images, or sounds f. Demonstrates an understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and does not represent work attributable to others as his/her own g. Demonstrates an understanding of institutional policies related to human subjects research 3. The information literate student acknowledges the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance.

Outcomes Include:

a. Selects an appropriate documentation style and uses it consistently to cite sources b. Posts permission granted notices, as needed, for copyrighted material

(ACRL, 2000)