Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment: Creating a Culture of Assessment Through the High Performance Programming Model of Organizational Transformation

Portland State University PDXScholar

Library Faculty Publications and Presentations University Library

2013 Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment: Creating a Culture of Assessment through the High Performance Programming Model of Organizational Transformation

Meredith G. Farkas Portland State University, [email protected]

Lisa J. Hinchliffe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ulib_fac

Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y

Citation Details Farkas, Meredith G., and Lisa J. Hinchliffe. "Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment: Creating a Culture of Assessment through the High Performance Programming Model of Organizational Transformation." Collaborative Librarianship 5.3 (2013).

This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Library Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment: Creating a Culture of Assessment through the High Performance Programming Model of Organizational Transformation

Meredith G. Farkas ([email protected]) Portland State University

Lisa J. Hinchliffe ([email protected]) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Abstract

In an environment in which libraries increasingly need to demonstrate their value to faculty and administrators, providing evidence of the library’s contribution to student learning through its instruction program is critical. However, building a culture of assessment can be a challenge, even if librarians recognize its importance. In order to lead change, coordinators of library instruction at institutions where librarians are also tenure-track faculty must build trust and collaboration, lead through influence, and garner support from administration for assessment initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to explore what it takes to build a culture of assessment in academic libraries where librarians are faculty through the High Per- formance Programming model of organizational change. The guidelines for building a culture of assessment will be exemplified by case studies at the authors’ libraries where instruction coordinators are using collaboration to build a culture of assessment with their colleagues.

Introduction analysis, and where services are planned and delivered in ways that maximize positive out- Providing evidence of the library’s contribution comes and impacts for customers and stake- to student learning through its instruction pro- holders.”1 In an assessment culture, assessment gram is critical in today’s era of quality concerns becomes part of the fabric of what the library and accountability. However, even if librarians does, just like buying materials and checking recognize the importance of assessment, build- them out, and its value is recognized across the ing a culture of ongoing assessment and contin- institution. It is not something that the library uous improvement can be a challenge. Doing so does in order to please accreditors or university is especially challenging when librarians are also administrators, but to appropriately target its faculty, due to competing priorities and the au- services and better serve its constituents. In spite tonomy that comes with faculty status. This pa- of the fact that many libraries strive to be user- per explores what it takes to build a culture of focused, many do not have a culture in which assessment through the High Performance Pro- assessment is a regular part of their practice. In a gramming model in academic libraries where recent survey of libraries at bachelor's-, master's- librarians are faculty and discusses what librari- , and doctorate-granting institutions in the Unit- ans can do to lead change processes with library ed States, only 59% reported having a culture of faculty. Case studies are provided of instruction assessment.2 programs in the libraries at the authors’ institutions: Portland State University and the Univer- In a true culture of assessment, negative assess- sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ment findings are treated as an opportunity for improvement, not evidence that an employee Lakos and Phipps provide an often-cited defini- has failed in a performance review. With respect tion of a culture of assessment: “A Culture of to an instruction program in an academic li- Assessment is an organizational environment in brary, a culture of assessment would mean an which decisions are based on facts, research, and organizational environment in which people

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 177 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment trust their colleagues and administrators suffi- • Quality of service is the highest priority, so ciently to be willing to risk discovering negative ideas designed to improve service are taken things about their teaching. For tenure-track li- seriously, regardless of who they come brarians, this might be perceived as particularly from.6 risky, as negative results could lead to a tenure • Communications are honest and transpar- denial. As such, developing a culture of assess- ent; information is neither kept from em- ment creates an environment for improving in- ployees nor from leaders. Leaders are open structional services and student learning. to feedback and criticism and invite it.

Though Lakos and Phipps describe a desired Two key characteristics that distinguish the high end-state, a culture of assessment, it is not nec- performance model from other types of organi- essarily easy to enact this if an ideal organiza- zational frames described by Nelson and Burns tional culture does not exist. Changing culture are a clear sense of purpose and a wide-reaching requires effort and intentionality. Guiding prin- commitment to the organizational vision. Mem- ciples and frameworks for analysis can assist in bers of the organization not only have a strong thinking through process and evaluating pro- commitment to the vision, but the vision is so gress. The High Performance Programming clear that each of them, if asked to articulate it, model is one such framework for looking at or- would say virtually the same thing.7 Since ganizational culture and processes for building commitment to the vision is so pervasive in the trust, a compelling shared vision, and a user- organization, leaders can feel comfortable giving focused culture, all of which are critical elements employees the freedom to be creative in design- of building a culture of assessment. ing programs, products, and services in support of achieving that vision.8 This freedom makes The High Performance Organization employees feel comfortable taking risks and try- ing new things. In a learning culture, anything In 1984, Nelson and Burns published a book new, whether a success or failure, will lead to chapter that offered a compelling vision of the new learning that can improve service. Auton- high performance organization and provided omy and commitment to vision engenders an clear and concrete steps toward achieving it.3 energy that makes people excited to come to Since its publication, many authors have defined work. the high performance organization, with all of them sharing certain characteristics.4 The high performance organization sits in contrast to three other organizational frames de- • The high performance organization has fined by Nelson and Burns: reactive, responsive, moved from leadership via control to lead- and proactive. ership via commitment. Leaders build loyal- ty through their commitment to their em- • The reactive organization is characterized by ployees and developing employees’ sense of chaotic activity and a lack of any shared ownership in the organization. There is a sense of purpose. Employees in a reactive strong emphasis on ritual and the develop- organization do not know by what stand- ment of a strong, almost clannish, culture.5 ards they are being judged, which leads to a • Most high performance organizations have focus on self-preservation rather than the adopted a flat organizational structure and a good of the organization. participatory management model. Workers • The responsive organization has a strong tend to be organized into teams, and teams sense of purpose and is focused on short- have a great deal of autonomy, authority, term goals. Employees know what they and responsibility. Unlike many team-based need to do and managers are focused pri- organizations, silos do not exist in the high marily on coaching employees to meet those performance model and people from any well-defined goals. area of the organization can make sugges- • A proactive culture is focused more on the tions for areas outside of their direct respon- future and creating a shared vision for the sibility.

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 178 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

organization. In this frame, employees are tion cannot transform itself overnight, but the empowered to develop long-term goals that actions that leaders take now will help to pro- are consistent with the organizational vi- gram the organization of the future. After all, sion. Employees feel a sense of ownership of organizational culture is based upon shared his- and commitment to the organization. tory, and leaders must create the shared history of the future by programming changes today. Each of these frames has a very different focus This highlights the notion that truly transforma- and requires a different leadership style and tive change requires a significant investment of employee perspective.9 The characteristics of time focused on organizational development. each organizational frame are illustrated in Ta- Beer suggests that organizations should not ble 1. have ambitious performance goals during times of intensive organizational development be- Nelson and Burns use the term “programming” cause they will then feel obligated to focus on in their book to describe what has to happen to initiatives rather than on transforming culture.11 move from one frame to another.10 An organiza-

Reactive Responsive Proactive High Performing Organizational Past events and Short-term goals Long-term goals Programming the focus responding to and responding to and planning for future. There is an threats. There is an near-term realities. the future. There is internal locus of external locus of There is an exter- an internal locus control. control. nal locus of con- of control. trol.

Organizational Command and Hierarchical. Flat. Flat and structured structure control. around formal and informal teams.

Management and Enforcing rules Coaching employ- Creating a shared Empowering em- leadership focus and fixing blame. ees to meet their sense of purpose ployees and creat- short-term goals and motivating ing shared com- and solving prob- employees to fur- mitment. lems that prevent ther the mission of the organization the organization. from meeting its goals.

Employee focus Self-preservation. Specific short-term The organization A shared vision goals. and its mission. and a strong sense of organizational culture.

Communication Fragmented and Focused on Focused on em- Transparent with a within the organi- unclear. providing feed- ployees providing bi-directional flow. zation back to employees feedback to man- about their per- agement. formance.

Table 1. Characteristics of frames as identified by Nelson and Burns.

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 179 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

While this framework has not been previously ing current organizational culture and pro- explored in the library literature, High Perfor- gramming for organizational transformation. mance Programming appears to be compatible with libraries and a useful model for organiza- The High Performance Organization and the tional development within libraries. The high Faculty-Driven Library performing organization is strikingly similar to the ideal organizational culture for building a Just as there are many shared elements of the culture of library assessment as described by High Performance Programming framework Lakos and Phipps.12 and a culture of assessment, there are many par- allels between library faculty status and the Building a culture of assessment requires much High Performance Programming framework, more than a change in behavior; it requires in- with shared governance and autonomy being ternalizing the value of assessment. Inherent in key examples. Hinchliffe and Chrzastowski this is a focus on service quality and openness to demonstrated how the autonomy that often feedback that could improve quality. At some comes with faculty status can empower librari- institutions, the primary impetus for doing as- ans to innovate and experiment without waiting sessment work is accreditation or administrative for administrative approval.14 The shared- mandate. This does not necessarily mean that governance model, which is in evidence at many faculty are not conducting assessments in a libraries with faculty status, gives every faculty meaningful way or that results are not used to member a voice in the administration and future improve services or teaching. However, in a cul- of their library.15 At the University of Arizona in ture of assessment, instructional assessment be- the 1990s, a new library dean helped restructure comes an integral part of teaching and is used to the library around teams and shared leadership. improve future instruction and plan new initia- In this model, administrators provide support tives. A culture of assessment is a culture of and guidance, but each team has the authority to learning, where librarians are curious about stu- make its own decisions.16 Shared governance dent learning and want to understand how to sits in stark contrast to hierarchical forms of li- improve their teaching. Ennis argues that brary governance, which are focused on admin- “ʻassessment culture’ is code for not just doing istrative control. In shared governance, all facul- assessment, but liking it.”13 This suggests that ty members must create change through influ- building a culture of assessment requires em- ence, rather than positional authority. Faculty ployee commitment and belief in its value rather models are also typically marked by relatively than simply a willingness to follow orders. flat organizational structures similar to those While this could happen in a proactive culture, described in the High Performance Program- the high performance culture is marked by a ming framework. strong sense of purpose and a deep commitment to service. There are other aspects of faculty culture that are less conducive to adopting the high perfor- Nelson and Burns’ organizational framework mance model and building a culture of assess- can be used as a tool to diagnose what needs to ment. Some authors have highlighted the indi- change in an organization for it to become high vidualistic focus of faculty17 and argue that it performing. Most organizations do not fit strict- stands in opposition to the collaborative nature ly into one of the frames listed above, but exhibit of librarianship.18 It is true that there are some characteristics from several of them. Knowing inherent conflicts between tenure expectations at what characterizes the high performance frame some institutions and the work of librarianship, and determining which elements of one’s own which includes teaching and assessment. The organizational culture do not fit can provide emphasis placed in some tenure and promotion clear guidance about what needs to change. For systems on scholarship can, at times, force facul- the library leader seeking to develop a culture of ty to prioritize publishing over public service assessment, the High Performance Program- work. For example, in their 2006 survey of prior- ming framework is a powerful lens for examin- ities in public services librarianship, Johnson

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 180 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

and Lindsay found a disconnect between job verno College, an institution well-known for its descriptions and tenure expectations among exceptional assessment work, as an ideal way to tenure-track librarians. While only nine percent get faculty to move towards creating a culture of of respondents said that publishing was given instructional improvement and assessment.24 weight in their job description, a full seventy- Loacker and Mentkowski, both from Alverno seven percent stated that publishing was the College, discuss the idea of a scholarship of as- most important priority for attaining tenure. sessment, in which faculty “actively pursue sys- Thirty-two percent of tenure-track librarians tematic inquiry on assessment as a member of a stated that reference and instruction work were community of professionals.”25 They argue that least important when being judged for tenure.19 the learning that comes from doing assessment At the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries, is greatly amplified by sharing and discussing teaching – a term meant to stand for the work of results with one’s peers. This allows for multiple librarianship – is only given 40% weight in ten- meanings to arise from looking at the same re- ure and promotion decisions, and librarians are sults and for results from multiple faculty mem- expected to spend as much time on scholarship bers to influence practice among each member as they do teaching.20 When the work of librari- of the group. anship is only one of several competing priorities, and expectations are focused on publishing, This model for building collaboration through encouraging librarians to find time to assess in- faculty learning communities is consistent with struction can be challenging. the High Performance Programming framework. According to Nelson and Burns, high per- Tagg examined the reasons behind faculty re- formance organizations recognize the value of sistance to doing assessment work and found informal groups in organizations and believe that the message of research being more im- that they can be harnessed to improve perfor- portant than teaching is communicated to facul- mance and commitment.26 ty early and often, to the point that junior faculty are sometimes actively discouraged from fo- The importance of building cohesive and sup- cusing on instructional improvement.21 The portive teams focused on instructional im- problem is not that faculty librarians do not care provement cannot be overstated, but creating to assess and improve student learning, but that such an environment among faculty can be diffi- reward systems disincentivize those efforts. cult. Phipps writes about team learning being Tagg argues that tying teaching more strongly to focused “on the learning of the team, not on in- tenure and promotion decisions is critical to mo- dividual contributions; a genuine thinking to- tivating faculty to improve instruction.22 In her gether, dialoguing, suspending assumptions, work applying John Kotter’s change model to discovering insights together.”27 In a faculty-led building a culture of assessment, Farkas argues library, where the focus is on the individual and that in order to anchor change in the culture, his or her work, this requires a significant cul- barriers to assessment must be removed, and ture shift. One way to spark that shift is through structures, such as promotion and tenure, collaborative learning. At the University of Wol- should be altered to encourage assessment longong, library leaders sought to create com- work.23 By not listing participation in assess- mitment to assessment and team cohesiveness ment activities as a key criterion for perfor- through staff development. This first step mance appraisal, libraries disincentivize assess- helped move the organization towards a strong- ment work for busy faculty members. er assessment program.28 Angelo states that faculty learning communities can only come about Learning Communities in the High Perfor- through trust, shared vision and goals, shared mance Model and in Assessment Cultures mental models, and shared guidelines for doing assessment.29 Similarly, Phipps highlights the Tagg argues that collaboration is vital to chang- importance of commitment to a shared vision ing attitudes amongst faculty around instruc- amongst members of the team to provide a tional improvement. He cites the collaborative sense of direction and energy. She argues that development work undertaken by faculty at Al-

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 181 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

this vision must come from the team itself rather staffing is low relative to comparable institu- than being imposed by leaders.30 tions, with 15.6 FTE librarians providing instruction to a population of nearly 30,000 students. A These ideas about forming learning communi- strong and successful subject liaison model has ties are predicated on the idea of the faculty de- existed for decades at the Portland State Univer- termining the vision and direction of assessment sity Library and has resulted in strong relation- work, a notion quite consistent with a faculty ships between librarians and academic depart- governance model. Many articles in the litera- ments on campus. The subject librarians are ture of higher education about building a cul- deeply engaged with their assigned depart- ture of assessment stress the importance of the ments and have historically operated as inde- direction of the assessment push coming from pendent actors in their instruction work. Librar- faculty and their concerns. Giving library faculty ians at Portland State are also tenure-track facul- and staff ownership over the program will al- ty and, while working in full-time 12-month po- most certainly increase buy-in. Many of the sitions, are expected to adhere to the same common faculty concerns about assessment – standards for scholarship and service as tradi- that it runs counter to academic freedom, that tional teaching faculty. Until 2011, when a head results could be used against faculty or depart- of instructional services (Farkas) was hired, ments, and that it is focused on accountability31 there was no formal coordination of the instruc- – would be significantly mitigated by a faculty- tion program and each librarian determined his led assessment effort. or her own goals. There also was no group or forum within the library to discuss pedagogical This model of faculty teams or learning commu- issues and assessment. Those wanting to im- nities requires time to develop. Creating a sense prove their teaching had to take the individual of cohesiveness, commitment, and shared values initiative to do so, which in a tenure track envi- does not happen overnight. Assessment teams ronment took time away from research and ser- are often tasked with specific activities as soon vice. While a few liaisons conducted assess- as they are formed without the opportunity to ments of their teaching and student learning, develop their own culture. Rather than take that any coordinated assessment pushes over the route, the assessment committee at Queensbor- years had been focused on assessing faculty and ough Community College spent two years learn- student satisfaction rather than learning. ing about and discussing assessment theories and techniques together. By becoming a learning Concurrent with the hiring of a head of instruc- community first, they were able to build trust tional services came several ambitious goals re- cohesiveness and a collective sense of responsi- lated to instruction and assessment in the li- bility for assessing student learning.32 Learning brary’s strategic plan for FY 2012-2014.33 While about assessment as a group can help faculty the team involved in strategic planning included and staff develop a common vocabulary and representation from library public services, the common frame of reference, both of which can strategic plan did not go through a thorough help build consensus in the development of an internal vetting process, stemming primarily assessment program. Assessment by its very from the departure of the interim university li- nature is collaborative, but building true collab- brarian who had been leading the process. As a oration takes time. Like building a high perfor- result, many instruction librarians did not feel a mance organization, an immediate focus on re- strong sense of ownership for some of the stated sults will not build a culture of assessment; a goals. While a number of the goals were met in focus on creating a learning culture and group the first year, it was sometimes difficult to se- cohesiveness is key. cure faculty involvement or buy-in. Coupled with unclear administrative expectations regard- Building a Learning Community at the Port- ing instruction and assessment at a time when land State University Library most of the library administrators had interim status, there were undercurrents of anxiety Portland State University is a large urban uni- around these topics. At the time, with a lack of versity that serves a diverse population. Library clear expectations and a focus on individual

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 182 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

goals and welfare, the library exhibited some goals and charting their own course, the librari- characteristics of a reactive organization. ans took some ownership of instructional improvement. One important goal was to create a Not surprisingly, in this organization-in- repository of learning objects and assessment transition, the new head of instruction ran up tools that librarians could share and reuse. This against barriers in developing learning out- repository, created in winter 2013, added signifi- comes and working toward other goals in the cantly to the instruction librarians’ tool-kit. strategic plan. While the instruction librarians all expressed a desire to do more assessment, the In subsequent instruction meetings, librarians lack of a clear and shared vision tacitly encour- were more willing to share their experiences and aged the tenure-track librarians to focus on discuss both good and bad instructional experi- those things on which they knew they would be ences. The meetings included lively discussions judged. Since the head of instruction, a middle on topics such as formative assessment and management position, could not effect change at teaching critical thinking. Farkas also initiated a the administrative level, she could only work on voluntary reflective peer coaching program, those areas that were within her limited reach based on the model articulated by Vidmar,34 and try to develop an instructional culture sepa- which helped instruction librarians develop rate from the larger library culture. By the end of more of a practice of self-assessment. The ten her first year, Farkas had realized that faculty librarians who participated in this program over development, rather than moving toward exter- two academic quarters reported learning a great nally identified targets, was the focus that deal from the activity and wished to continue would build capacity for lasting change. The the program. In summer 2013, half of the in- High Performance Programming framework struction librarians conducted their first pro- suggested that focusing on empowerment, cul- gram-level assessment, using a rubric to assess ture-building, and visioning within the instruc- freshman research papers. These small steps tion program might help create more cohesive- toward collaboration, trust-building, and exper- ness among the instruction librarians and more imentation around assessment and improve- of a focus on achieving programmatic goals. ment of student learning are vital and should Knowing that in the reactive frame the focus is form the foundation for further improvements on self-preservation, focusing on supporting the in assessment. instruction librarians in their work also became a key goal. Instead of piling on more initiatives This case study highlights the importance of and expectations, what the instruction librarians developing a shared vision and of forming in- needed was support, a sense of community, and formal communities to support organizational a feeling of agency over the goals for library in- priorities, especially in the absence of a larger struction. institutional vision. When leadership is in transition, vision can be in short supply, and this can Building a cohesive learning community became lead to characteristics of a reactive organization, an important goal for Farkas, and she instituted where employees are focused more on their in- monthly instruction meetings designed to pro- dividual work than on programmatic goals. vide a forum in which to discuss issues related Forming informal or formal teams around in- to instruction. While the instruction librarians struction and assessment can help to bring the expressed interest in discussing teaching and focus back to the big picture and create shared assessment, early meetings were marked by few vision at the level of the instruction program. In contributions and much silence. In June 2012, a faculty environment especially, those provid- the instruction librarians met in an all-day re- ing instruction should be empowered to develop treat to discuss pedagogical issues, develop their goals as a team, so long as they are con- questions they had regarding student learning sistent with the organizational vision and mis- that could be answered through assessment, and sion. Buy-in is not enough in an environment determine the group’s goals for the following with so many competing priorities. Without a year. This retreat signaled a turning point for the sense of ownership and commitment to a goal, instruction librarians. By determining their own librarians will prioritize those things that they

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 183 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

know count most towards tenure, which rarely value their autonomy and flexibility, which ena- include assessment. ble them to pursue opportunities and innova- tions with minimal bureaucratic processes or Infusing Assessment into Instruction at the layers of administrative approval and oversight. University Library of the University of Illinois All faculty report to the dean of the library, re- at Urbana-Champaign gardless of their unit affiliation, and are evaluat- ed annually by the Faculty Review Committee, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign which is comprised solely of library faculty is an internationally preeminent research uni- members. versity,35 serving more than 30,000 undergraduate students and 12,000 graduate/professional Until 2002, the User Education Committee, students. The university library is highly- made up of library faculty, coordinated the uni- ranked36 and has over 300 FTE professional and versity library’s instruction programs. As the support staff, of which approximately one- programs grew in size, complexity, and strategic fourth participate in programs that provide importance, the members of the committee de- about 1,500 instruction sessions to 25,000 partic- termined that they had accomplished all they ipants each year. The organizational structure of could with just a committee and advocated to the University Library at the University of Illi- establish a central coordinator for information nois at Urbana-Champaign is complex and mul- literacy services and instruction (Hinchliffe). ti-faceted. This faculty position is in the Office of the Asso- ciate University Librarian for User Services and Like the Portland State University Library, the is advised by the User Education Committee. On University of Illinois Library has a long tradition a related note, the creation of the coordinator for of subject-specialty librarianship. Responsibili- library assessment position followed the same ties of subject librarians evolved over time; they path – a faculty committee that advocated the once included technical services duties as con- creation of a permanent position. ceptualized in a “holistic librarianship” model, but currently focus on engagement, reference, The coordinator for information literacy services instruction, collection development and man- and instruction conducted an initial needs as- agement, and professional development.37 Sub- sessment by meeting with all faculty during ject librarians have strong relationships with the their division meetings (e.g., Physical Sciences faculty and students in the departments that and Engineering Division, Social Sciences Divi- they serve, in many cases built up through years sion, Technical Services Division.) as well as of communication and cooperation. Subject- analysis of library reports and planning docu- specialty librarianship, however, comprises only ments. The needs assessment revealed a de- one part of the university library’s organization- mand for basic instructional infrastructure, with al profile. Equally important are the librarians in hands-on classrooms at the top of the list for the central public services and technical services Main and Undergraduate Libraries, as well as a units, who have responsibility for somewhat desire for models of instruction programs at re- defined functional areas, as well as those in spe- search libraries and professional development cial collections units, who have public and tech- opportunities. The library faculty repeatedly nical services responsibilities for unique collec- emphasized, as well, that the instruction pro- tions of archives, rare books, or other materials. grams currently offered were uniquely developed by library units or teams in response to The university library also has a long history of user group needs and should not be homoge- faculty status for librarians. With librarians hav- nized lest they lose their effectiveness. In other ing had faculty rank since the 1940s and full fac- words, library faculty wanted a supportive envi- ulty status since the 1970s,38 the library’s organi- ronment for continuing to innovate and develop zational culture as well as administrative and responsive instructional programs but saw the work practices reflect the principles of shared value in doing so collectively and cooperatively. governance, collegiality, and individual entre- The High Performance Programming frame- preneurship as one would expect. Librarians work suggests that the library faculty were in a

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 184 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

high performing mode but lacked resources; as relevant assessment data from the library’s Itha- such the coordinator focused on the manage- ka S&R Faculty Survey results and these data ment roles of garnering resources and building were then incorporated into the library’s execu- infrastructure in order to empower librarians. tive summary of findings. Subsequent discussions and opportunities for librarians to share Library faculty also raised questions about their pilot approaches are resulting in an emerg- whether the instruction programs were as effec- ing informal group of librarians who are leaders tive as the librarians would like them to be and for instructional assessment through their work whether students were achieving the learning and scholarship, facilitated and supported by outcomes that were intended. Paralleling the the coordinator. This emergent “team” is pre- development of a coordinated information liter- dicted by the High Performance Programming acy program in the university library has been model. the development of its assessment program. The university library’s path to developing a culture As interest grows in learning assessment, so too of assessment has been described elsewhere in does the desire to share information and re- detail by Hinchliffe and Chrzastowski.39 Of par- sources in transparent and multi-directional ticular relevance to this case study is the lesson ways, demonstrating an increased interest in of the importance of attending to organizational working collaboratively across the library. The culture and, in particular, faculty culture and the User Education Committee is exploring mecha- emphasis on publication as a very important nisms to respond to librarian requests for a re- criterion for tenure and promotion in develop- pository for sharing instruction and assessment ing the university library’s assessment initiative. resources, particularly those that might be easily As the assessment program developed and adapted for other user groups. Creating a sys- strengthened, it served as a backdrop for infus- tem that allows flexibility and autonomy while ing assessment into the university library’s in- standardizing procedures and workflow is a struction programs and supporting librarians’ difficult task, but doing so also ensures growing desire to determine if those programs are effec- adoption and use of the system once it is put in tive and achieving their intended outcomes. place.

Harking back to the initial needs assessment This case study highlights the success that conducted by the coordinator and the focus on comes from working within one’s organizational empowerment, the key to infusing assessment in culture and capitalizing on its values and instruction has been professional development. strengths. Though a great deal remains to be Two librarians have attended ACRL’s Assess- done, much has been accomplished in infusing ment Immersion Program and one attended assessment in the university library’s instruction ARL’s Service Quality Evaluation Academy program. Continuing to use the High Perfor- with particular attention to how she might apply mance Programming framework as a lens for her new skills to teaching and learning efforts. reflecting on faculty culture and the culture of The library has held an annual spring infor- assessment will help guide future actions and mation literacy workshop, which has focused on development. assessment for a number of years – featuring Debra Gilchrist in 2011 on the assessment cycle Conclusion and Megan Oakleaf in 2012 on rubrics. The User Education Committee has also hosted a number The High Performance Programming model of webinars and speakers. Over time, more and provides a valuable framework for library in- more librarians are participating in the profes- struction coordinators looking to infuse assess- sional development opportunities and an in- ment into their instructional programs, particu- creasing number are attending multiple ses- larly at institutions where librarians are faculty. sions. The High Performance Programming model may also be valuable in any area of librarianship In 2013, the User Education Committee worked where managers and leaders seek to build a with the coordinator for assessment to extract strong shared vision and commitment, regard-

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 185 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

less of faculty status. Future case studies could 2 Meredith Gorran Farkas, Lisa Janicke and hopefully will explore this. What these two Hinchliffe, and Amy Harris Houk, “Creating a cases demonstrate is that the notion of empow- Culture of Assessment: Determinants of Suc- ered employees structured around formal and cess” (presentation, Association of College informal teams and focused on service quality is and Research Libraries 2013, Indianapolis, IN, facilitated by the affordances of faculty govern- April 12, 2013). ance and the ideal conditions for building an assessment culture. Creating learning communi- 3 Linda Nelson and Frank L. Burns, “High Per- ties around teaching and assessment can help formance Programming: A Framework for build a sense of shared vision and purpose Transforming Organizations,” in Transforming among library faculty and further a library’s Work: A Collection of Organizational Transfor- path to achieving the high performing organiza- mation Readings, ed. John D. Adams, (Alexan- tional frame. dria, VA: Miles River Press, 1984).

4 Michael Beer, “How to Develop an Organiza- For those who are convinced of the value of the tion Capable of Sustained High Performance: High Performance Programming model for or- Embrace the Drive for Results-Capability De- ganizational change, we end with some practical velopment Paradox,” Organizational Dynamics advice for getting started based on our experi- 29, no. 4 (2001): 233–247; Rob Cross, Jane ences at Portland State University and Universi- Linder, and Andrew Parker, “Charged Up: ty of Illinois. The comparison chart of the reac- Managing the Energy That Drives Innova- tive, responsive, proactive, and high performing tion,” Management Quarterly (2007): 14–30; organizational frames is a powerful diagnostic Howard M. Guttman, “The Accountable tool for assessing a library’s current approach to Leader,” Leader to Leader (2009): 47–51; Noreen the various dimensions (e.g., management focus Heraty, and Michael Morley, “The High- and communication). Noting areas of weakness Performance Organization: Developing and strength relative to the high performing Teamwork Where It Counts,” Management De- frame will give a library leader insight into areas cision 33, no. 2 (1995): 56–65; Gail A. Wolf and for focused organizational development efforts. Pamela K. Greenhouse, “A Road Map for Cre- For libraries characterized primarily as reactive ating a Magnet Work Environment,” Journal of or responsive, organizational development Nursing Administration 36, no. 10 (2006): 458– might first start with administrative self-review 462. focused on the most relevant organizational frames. Though it can be tempting to focus on 5 Nelson and Burns, “High Performance Pro- areas of weakness, it is equally important to note gramming”, 240 areas of strength and consider strategies for continuing to nurture those strengths, perhaps even 6 Guttman, “The Accountable Leader,” 47-48. using them to catalyze growth in weak areas. While no framework can direct specifically the 7 Peter B. Vaill, “The Purposing of High- steps one must take to achieve organizational Performing Systems,” Organizational Dynamics transformation, the High Performance Pro- 11, no. 2 (1982): 26. gramming model offers insights for leading change via commitment rather than administra- 8 Ibid., 240-241 tive control and capitalizing on the values and 9 characteristics of faculty culture. Ibid., 228-235.

10 Ibid., 226. Endnotes 11 Beer, “How to Develop,” 244. 1 Amos Lakos and Shelley E. Phipps, “Creating a Culture of Assessment: A Catalyst for Organi- 12 Lakos and Phipps, “Creating a Culture of As- zational Change,” Portal: Libraries and the sessment,” 350-356. Academy 4, no. 3 (2004): 352.

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 186 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

13 Daniel J. Ennis, “Contra Assessment Culture.” 26 Nelson and Burns, “High Performance Pro- Assessment Update 22, no. 2 (2010): 1. gramming”, 240.

14 Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe and Tina E. 27 Shelley E. Phipps, “Transforming Libraries Chrzastowski, “Getting Started with Library into Learning Organizations,” Journal of Li- Assessment: Using Surveys to Begin an As- brary Administration 18, no. 3 (1993): 19-37. sessment Initiative,” in Proceedings of the Li- brary Assessment Conference: Building Effective, 28 Margie H. Jantti, “Developing a Culture That Sustainable, Practical Assessment, Charlottesville, Values the Need for Assessment and Continu- VA, September 25-27, 2006. ous Improvement: The Growth of a Learning http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/proce Organisation,” in The Performance Measurement edings-lac-2006.pdf, 64-67. for Libraries and Information Services Conference, Sydney, AU, 21-22 March 2005. 15 Ibid., 64 http://ro.uow.edu.au/asdpapers/21/.

16 Shelley E. Phipps, “The System Design Ap- 29 Thomas A. Angelo, “Doing Assessment as if proach to Organizational Development: The Learning Matters Most,” AAHE Bulletin 51, no. University of Arizona Model,” Library Trends 9 (1999): 3-4. 53, no. 1 (2004): 73. 30 Phipps, “Transforming Libraries,” 32-33. 17 John Tagg, “Why Does the Faculty Resist Change?” Change: The Magazine of Higher 31 Don Haviland, “Why Are Faculty Wary of Learning 44, no. 1 (2012): 11-13. Assessment?” Academic Leadership Journal 7, no. 3 (2009). 18 Steve McKinzie, “590: Local Notes - Tenure For Academic Librarians: Why It Has to Go,” 32 Robert Becker, “Implementing an Assessment Against the Grain 22, no. 4 (2010): 60. Program: A Faculty Member’s Perspective.” Academic Leadership Journal 7, no. 1 (2009). 19 Corey M. Johnson and Elizabeth Blakesley Lindsay, “Why We Do What We Do: Explor- 33 Portland State University Library, “Strategic ing Priorities Within Public Services Librari- Plan 2012-2014,” Accessed August 28, 2012, anship,” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 6, no. http://library.pdx.edu/strategic_plan.html. 3 (2006). 34 Dale Vidmar, “Reflective Peer Coaching: 20 Janet Hill, “Wearing Our Own Clothes: Librar- Crafting Collaborative Self-Assessment in ians as Faculty,” Journal of Academic Librarian- Teaching.” Research Strategies 20, no. 3 (2005): ship 20, no. 2 (1994): 71. 135-148.

21 Tagg, “Why Does the Faculty,” 11-13 35 The University of Illinois ranked #33 in the Times Higher Education World University 22 Ibid., 13-14 Rankings in 2012-2013 (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/wo 23 Meredith Farkas, “Building and Sustaining a rld-university-rankings/2012-13/world- Culture of Assessment: Best Practices for ranking) and #56 in the U.S. News and World Change Leadership.” Reference Services Review Report’s World’s Best Universities 2012 41, no. 1 (2013), 13-31. (http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds -best-universities-rankings/top-400- 24 Tagg, “Why Does the Faculty,” 13-14. universities-in-the-world?page=3). 25 Marcia Mentkowski and Georgine Loacker, 36 In 2012, the University Library ranked #12 in “Enacting a Collaborative Scholarship of As- the ARL Investment Index (interactive version sessment,” Building a Scholarship of Assessment, of the ARL investment index is available ed. Trudy W. Banta, (San Francisco: John online at Wiley & Sons, 2002), 83. http://www.arlstatistics.org/analytics).

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 187 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment

37 University Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Template/Menu of Core Roles and Responsibilities: Subject Spe- cialist Librarians,” (2012), Accessed August 30, 2012, http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/e xec/supplement/s2011- 2012/Template_MenuofCoreRolesandRespon sibilitiesSubjectSpecialistLibrarians.html

38 Robert G. Sewell, “Faculty Status and Librari- ans: The Rationale and the Case of Illinois.” College and Research Libraries 44. No. 3 (May 1983): 212-22.

39 Hinchliffe and Chrzastowski, “Getting Started with Library Assessment,” 64-67.

Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 188