Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Collaborating librarian acrl 2011 handout
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Collaborating librarian acrl 2011 handout


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. The Collaborating Librarian:<br />Partnering Across Campus to Assist Assessment Efforts<br />ACRL Poster Session -- 2011<br />Beth L. Mark<br />Beth M. Transue<br />Messiah College<br />Grantham, PA<br />Background:<br />We became collaborating librarians and campus stakeholders through initiating projects that simultaneously assisted assessment efforts across our campus (2800 FTE undergraduates). We cultivated partnerships, coordinated the projects, and presented the results to our partners: the Provost, Academic Policy Committee, schools, and academic departments.<br />Previous Assessment Efforts<br />
    • Library competency test for first year students (administered yearly following library instruction sessions in First Year Seminar classes). Collaboration partners: First Year Seminar faculty and with General Education Committee.
    • 2. Assessment of First Year Seminar papers (content and bibliographies). Collaboration partners: General Education Committee.
    • 3. Assessment of honors and other departmental papers (bibliographies). Collaboration partners academic departments.
    Campus-Wide Assessment Projects<br />Phase I: Syllabi Analysis Project <br />Meeting with Provost<br />
    • Provost was interested in budget and library resources usage
    • 4. Enthusiastic about the project
    • 5. Granted us access to the syllabi database (only). We could not directly contact faculty.
    • 6. Provost and Assistant Provost asked us to extract data of interest to their office. This was expanded to other campus groups (Writing Center, Learning Center, Disabilities Office)
    Syllabi Analysis Oveview<br />
    • Objectives:
    • 7. Evidence of information literacy in library-related assignments
    • 8. Collection development data (types of resources required)
    • 9. Data for other offices and department
    • 10. Method: Accessed all 2007/2008 syllabi in campus database, extracting a range of data.
    • 11. Findings from 1401 syllabi (2007-2008):
    • 12. 19050071755
    • 13. Findings for Provost and Other Offices
    • 14. 96% included course objectives
    • 15. 44% included academic integrity policy
    • 16. 69% included ADA or college disabilities statement
    • 17. 64% included some kind of grading scale
    • 18. .3% required use of Writing Center; 9% recommended it
    • 19. .1% required use of Learning Center; 8% recommended it
    • 20. Library – What We Looked for
    • 21. Library and library instruction
    • 22. Information literacy
    • 23. Reserves
    • 24. Websites and Databases
    • 25. Citation styles
    • 26. What we Found about Library Usage
    • 27. Syllabi were not adequate for complete assignment or collection development information.
    • 28. Solution
    • 29. Collect separate assignment information
    • 30. Unplanned Benefits
    • 31. Appreciation of Provost and other administrators
    • 32. Request to present data to Academic Council
    • 33. Subsequently, presented to two Schools
    • 34. Raised visibility of librarians as campus stakeholders in assessment
    • 35. Prepared the way for expanded project (assignment analysis)
    Phase II: Library Assignment Analysis Project (2009-2010)<br />
    • Meeting with the Provost – Take II
    • 36. Provost approved the library assignment collection project
    • 37. Asked us to present the proposal to school deans for their buy-in and for them to be the communication channel to department chairs
    • 38. Meeting with School Deans, Spring 2009
    • 39. Deans agreed that the project had value
    • 40. Recommended time line and changes in wording of memo prepared for faculty
    • 41. Agreed to communicate the project, with a time line, to department chairs
    • 42. Process
    • 43. One dean suggested creating a form that faculty could fill out in lieu of submitting written assignment directions (librarians created forms for each department – see Appendix below for example).
    • 44. September 2009, Deans asked department chairs to send the request for assignment information to their faculty (for AY 2010)
    • 45. About half of the departments submitted assignments by spring 2010
    • 46. With follow up reminders, the total return was good
    • 47. Extracted library reserve data by course
    • 48. Summer, 2010, data entered by students
    • 49. Results (see following tables)
    • 50. What we Learned from the Assignment Assessment Project
    • 51. In cases where forms only were submitted, some narrative information that would have benefitted the librarians was lost
    • 52. However, the forms provided information that was not included in some written assignments
    • 53. Individual follow up provided opportunities to raise awareness of faculty regarding unknown library resources
    • 54. What we envision
    • 55. Will use data to demonstrate use (or not) of library resources for class assignments
    • 56. Will provide liaison librarians with a good picture of what their department faculty are assigning – possible opportunity for discussion of information literacy and collection development
    • 57. Will continue to be invited to the table as a campus stakeholder
    Becoming a Stakeholder – A Snapshot<br /> “[The Provost] was quite taken with your preliminary report. Is it alright with you if he shows it to others? He would also like to invite the two of you to present at a future Academic Council meeting. … Messiah’s syllabus policy will be on the agenda this spring and he thinks your work is highly relevant to that discussion.”<br />Appendix<br />Library Assignment Collection Project Checklist – History<br />NOTE: You may submit an assignment description that you have already created OR complete one of these checklists each assignment which calls for use of library resources, either within the library or remotely (e.g., use of Library databases, etc.)<br />Course name ____________________________________ Course number_______Assignment name ________________________________  [e.g., paper on .....]Project type:  __ paper  <br />__ speech  <br />__ multi-media presentation <br />__ other (please describe):_____________________________________<br />Do you require books? Yes___ No___ Number of books required (if specified)___   Do you require journal articles? Yes___ No___ Number of articles (if specified) ___ <br />Are websites allowed as a resource?  Yes___  No___<br />Other resource required? Please specify _______________________________________<br />Approx. total number of sources expected/required____ If a paper, approx. number of pages expected/required ____<br />If a bibliography, approx. how many items? ____Specific databases required/recommended?  Yes__   No__<br />If yes, which databases?___ Access Newspaper Archive<br />___ America: History & Life<br />___ Asia Studies Humanities<br />___ Asia Studies Full-Text Online <br />___ Early American Imprints (Evans)<br />___ Early American Imprints (Shaw-Shoemaker)<br />___ Early American Newspapers<br />___ History Reference Center<br />___ Historic Documents<br />___ Historical Abstracts<br />___ JSTOR<br />___ WorldCat (books)<br />___ Other: ____________________________ <br />Other comments __________________________________________________________<br />Contact information<br />Beth L. Mark, Instruction Coordinator, bmark@messiah.eud<br />Beth M. Transue, Collection Development Coordinator,<br />