Ferguson JS. Using authentic assessment in information literacy programs: Tools, techniques, and strategies. 1st ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2018. Paperback: 170 p. ISBN: 978-1-5381-0481-1. Price: USD $45.00. Available from: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538104828/Using-Authentic-Assessment-in-Information-Literacy-Programs-Tools-Techniques-and-Strategies.

Academic librarians are under increasing pressure to empirically demonstrate the library's impact and commitment to student success by validating evidence of student learning and effective teaching in information literacy. Compounding the often limited amount of time allocated to information literacy, with the diversity in teaching and learning styles, truly “authentic” assessment could be especially challenging to achieve.

Under the well-established construct of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards in 2000 [1] and more recently the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in 2016 [2], several studies and books have reviewed, compared and made recommendations on the frequently used assessment methods [3-7], *without* explicitly exploring the concept or implications of authentic assessment. In a 2018 review article, Erlinger observed that there is “an overall shift in the type of assessments from lower-level surveys and questionnaires toward more authentic assessment” [8]. *Using Authentic Assessment in Information Literacy Programs: Tools, Techniques, and Strategies* is the first monograph that helps clarify what is meant by authentic assessment in the context of information literacy instruction, differentiates authentic assessment from more common modes of assessment, highlights exemplary case studies of how authentic assessment is being used, and offers step-by-step guidelines for implementation.

Author Jennifer S. Ferguson is the Team Lead for Arts and Humanities at Tufts University's Tisch

Library. She has a BA from UCLA, a MA from Rutgers University, and a MSLIS from Simmons College. Having collaborated with faculty and other librarians to design, implement, teach, and assess student success for undergraduate and graduate information literacy programs across different instructional settings, Ferguson is currently serving on the Tufts University Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee as the 2019-2020 Co-chair [9] to support strategic pedagogy and assessment initiatives. She has developed library instruction modules that address the ACRL's Framework and has been invited to speak at national and international conferences on authentic assessment.

What exactly is authentic assessment? According to Ferguson, to be considered authentic an assessment requires students to *analyze* information, * synthesize * knowledge, and *apply* what they have learned to perform relevant tasks. These tasks should be related to the subject matter that the students are studying and should ideally involve solving real-world information problems. By connecting information literacy directly with students' coursework, authentic assessment would not only activate students' intrinsic interest and facilitate knowledge transfer but would also empower students to think more critically about their own learning. Ferguson further emphasizes that, “[t]he key to an authentic assessment is to assign a relevant learning task, provide clear performance expectations [...], provide an opportunity for reflection, and offer meaningful feedback in order to foster deep learning.” Beyond just a measure for student learning, authentic assessment is also an instrument to improve information literacy instructional design and to demonstrate the library's value to the academic mission.

Overall, the book follows a logical flow in its organizational structure, is well researched, and curates illustrative case studies from the recent literature, including examples tailored for public health, pharmacy, nursing, and health sciences information literacy programs. These examples, however, are not indexed nor indicated in the table of contents so they

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
could be difficult to locate. With the reality of one-shot
information literacy sessions being the prevalent mode
of instruction, Ferguson makes every effort to showcase
exemplary one-shot authentic assessment techniques,
highlights their strengths in terms of student learning,
originality, and implementation, and suggests
alternative methods throughout the book.

In chapter 1, Ferguson examines the theoretical basis of authentic assessment within the larger educational context, while acknowledging some of the common challenges that make authentic assessment difficult to implement for academic librarians. From lack of training and recognition from the faculty, to practicality and self-doubt, the biggest barrier by far is time.

By exploring the current state of authentic
assessment in the most common information literacy
instructional settings, chapter 2 distinguishes between
formative assessment and summative assessment, and
situates authentic assessment in academic libraries. Its
concise summary and tables, outlining some of the most
frequently used authentic assessment methods and the
instructional settings in which they are implemented,
help lay the foundation for the rest of the book.

Chapter 3 groups the authentic assessment
techniques covered in this book into formative
assessment and summative assessment, and delves into
the advantages and limitations of each of those
techniques in order to aid academic librarians in
selecting the suitable ones. What is most valuable, and
where Ferguson's experience shines, are the author's
insights into the potential pitfalls of some of the
assessment tools. For example, owing to the separation
of time between information literacy instruction and
when an annotated bibliography is due at the end of a
semester, sorting out the librarian's contribution on a
student's final work could be tricky.

The sections of the book that readers will find most
practical are chapters 4 to 6, where Ferguson takes us
through some of the strongest cases of authentic
assessment in practice, contextualizes assessment in
terms of instructional design, then provides step-by-
step procedures and sample assignments or worksheets
for implementation. Each chapter is logically scaffolded
and built on the previous ones, just like some of the best
assessment strategies recommended by the author.
Along the way, Ferguson also suggests possible ways
to improve some of the selected studies. The summary

tables in chapter 4 and checklist-like figures in chapter
5 help underscore the key characteristics and strengths
of the selected cases, while the sample assessment tools
in chapter 6 are illustrative and adaptable for other
settings. These supplementary materials are designed to
support instructional librarians with teaching, learning
and assessment.

Out of the 141 references cited in this book, the
majority (111, 79%) Ferguson selects and reviews were
published between 2010 and 2017. With the ACRL
Framework having officially been adopted only since
2016 [2], this body of references might not be explicitly
compliant to the Framework. However, in the final
chapter, Ferguson recognizes the framework's concept-
driven flexibility and potential, and connects authentic
assessment to the framework, albeit only at a high-level
by suggesting possible ways to implement for each
frame. As information literacy instruction's focus is
shifting away from standardized competencies, further
research is warranted to discover how exactly authentic
assessment as outlined by Ferguson is being utilized
under the ACRL Framework.

Requiring students to “analyze, synthesize, and
apply” what they have learned is Ferguson’s central
thesis regarding authentic assessment. Noted by the
author, this premise stems from a blogpost written by
Professor of Psychology, Jon Mueller at North Central
College [10]. While Ferguson makes a convincing case,
and I completely agree with the proposition, I also find
the author belabours the point at times, making reading
the book cover-to-cover feel repetitive. A better way to
use the book is to select the sections pertaining to your
instructional settings or assessment methods of interest,
which are clearly laid out throughout the book.

Demands for accountability and curricular outcomes
from legislative bodies and accrediting stakeholders are
driving assessment in post-secondary institutions. It is
especially true for learners and educators in medicine in
North America with the implementation of
competency-based medical education (CBME) [11,12].
At its core, CBME focuses on outcomes, emphasizes
learner abilities, and promotes self-directed learning
[13]. *Using Authentic Assessment in Information
Literacy Programs* aligns with CBME’s mission and is
an indispensable resource for academic librarians in
health sciences.
**Statement of Competing Interests**

No competing interests declared.

Siu Hong Yu

Health Sciences Librarian
Queen's University Library
Kingston ON

Email: shy@queensu.ca

**References**

1. Association of College and Research Libraries. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education [Internet]. Chicago (IL): American Library Association; 2000 [cited 2019 Sep 29]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11213/7668

2. Association of College and Research Libraries. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education [Internet]. Chicago (IL): American Library Association; 2016 [cited 2019 Sep 29]. Available from: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

3. Neely TY. Information literacy assessment: standards-based tools and assignments. Chicago (IL): American Library Association; 2006. 218 p.

4. Radcliff CJ, Jensen ML, Salem JA Jr, Burhanna KJ, Gedeon JA. A practical guide to information literacy assessment for academic librarians. Westport (CT): Libraries Unlimited; 2007. 180 p.

5. Walsh A. Information literacy assessment: where do we start? J Librariansh Inf Sci [Internet]. 2009 Mar [cited 2019 Sep 29];41(1):19-28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000608099896

6. Schilling K, Applegate R. Best methods for evaluating educational impact: a comparison of the efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction. J Med Libr Assoc [Internet]. 2012 Oct [cited 2019 Sep 29];100(4):258-69. Available from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PM
C3484955/

7. Bowles-Terry M, Kvenild C. Classroom assessment techniques for librarians. Chicago (IL): American Library Association; 2015. 140 p.

8. Erlinger A. Outcomes assessment in undergraduate information literacy instruction: a systematic review. Coll Res Libr [Internet]. 2018 May [cited 2019 Sep 29];79(4):442-479. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.4.442

9. Ferguson JS. Curriculum vitae [Internet]. Academia; c2019 [cited 2019 Oct 1]. Available from: http://tufts.academia.edu/JenniferFerguson/CurriculumVitae

10. Mueller J. Authentic assessment toolbox [Internet]. Naperville (IL): Jon Mueller; c2018. What is authentic assessment? 2016 Jul [cited 2019 Oct 1]. Available from: http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whatis.htm

11. Frank JR. The CanMEDS 2005 physician competency framework: better standards, better physicians, better care. Ottawa (ON): The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2005. 27 p.

12. Swing SR. The ACGME outcome project: retrospective and prospective. Med Teach [Internet]. 2007 Sep [cited 2019 Oct 1];29(7):648-54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701392903

13. Frank JR, Snell LS, Ten Cate O, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, Harris P, Glasgow NJ, Campbell C, Dath D, Harden RM, Iobst W, Long DM, Mungroo R, Richardson DL, Sherbino J, Silver I, Taber S, Talbot M, Harris KA. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach [Internet]. 2010 Jul [cited 2019 Oct 1];32(8):638-45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.501190