Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report an academic library's efforts to introduce course-integrated assessment into its library instruction program. Applying a leadership change model to the process allows for a step-by-step examination of both organizational change and the creation of cultures of assessment. Design/methodology/approach – Over a period of three years, course-integrated assessment was introduced into an academic library's instruction program. Rather than implementing rapid, superficial change, the process focused on transforming librarians' thoughts and feelings about their teaching and student learning. Dr John P. Kotter's eight-step process for leading organizational change is applied to explain the methodology. Findings – Kotter's leadership change model provides a suitable framework for organizing and implementing organizational change within an academic library. However, the use of his method to create and sustain cultures of assessment proves questionable. This may not be fault of his method, but a combination of a less than perfect application of his process and unrealistic expectations of how cultures of assessment develop and function. Research limitations/implications – The paper focuses on one unit within an academic library, rather than an academic library as a whole. Practical implications – Changing organizational culture, creating cultures of assessment, and/or implementing course-integrated assessment exemplify some of the challenging tasks academic libraries face in their mission to prove value. This case study provides a candid discussion of both successes and obstacles encountered in using a change leadership model to address each of these. It may also inspire other possible uses of such a model within academic libraries. Originality/value – According to Meredith Farkas, investigations into the application of leadership change models to build and sustain cultures of assessment within academic libraries do not exist in the literature.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to share a practical approach to formative, authentic assessment of Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) outcomes within individual sessions of course-integrated information literacy. This method does not require extra class time and assists librarians in modifying their teaching techniques to improve student learning. Design/methodology/approach -By implementing authentic assessment of worksheets already integrated into library instruction sessions, librarians measure student learning of ACRL outcome 2.2.b "identify keywords, synonyms, and related terms for the information needed." Findings -Librarians consider this initial foray into authentic assessment a success, with the methodology only requiring a few adjustments. Results of student learning revealed an overall understanding by students of how to identify keywords and synonyms, but uncovered a weakness in topic development.Research limitations/implications -This study is based on a three-class sequence of information literacy for freshman composition students. Because of this, librarians can limit the number of outcomes per class, not always an option in one-shot sessions. Practical implications -This technique provides a realistic means of assessing student learning of outcomes. Due to the popularity of active learning, many librarians should already have in-class activities they could easily convert into assessments. Originality/value -Much research exists on the value and results of authentic assessment. Fewer studies focus on formative, authentic assessment of a specific ACRL outcome, particularly at the individual session-level.

No abstract

the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncsa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. AbstractObjective -The study has two aims. The first is to identify words and phrases from information literacy and rhetoric and composition that students used to justify the comparability of two sources. The second is to interpret the effectiveness of students' application of these evaluative vocabularies and explore the implications for librarians and first-year composition instructors' collaborations.Methods -A librarian and a first-year composition instructor taught a class on source evaluation using the language of information literacy, composition, and rhetorical analysis (i.e., classical, Aristotelian, rhetorical appeals). Students applied the information learned from the instruction session to help them locate and select two sources of comparable genre and rigor for the purpose Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2016, 11.1 24 of an essay assignment. The authors assessed this writing assignment for students' evaluative diction to identify how they could improve their understanding of each other's discourse. Results -The authors' analysis of the student writing sample exposes struggles in how students understand, apply, and integrate the jargon of information literacy and rhetoric and composition. Assessment shows that students chose the language of rhetoric and composition rather than the language of information literacy, they selected the broadest and/or vaguest terms to evaluate their sources, and they applied circular reasoning when justifying their choices. When introduced to analogous concepts or terms between the two discourses, students cherry-picked the terms that allowed for the easiest, albeit, least-meaningful evaluations.Conclusion -The authors found that their unfamiliarity with each other's discourse revealed itself in both the class and the student writing. They discovered that these miscommunications affected students' language use in their written source evaluations. In fact, the authors conclude that this oversight in addressing the subtle differences between the two vocabularies was detrimental to student learning. To improve communication and students' source evaluation, the authors consider developing a common vocabulary for more consistency between the two lexicons.