• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Building and evaluating LibGuides
 

Building and evaluating LibGuides

on

  • 403 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
403
Views on SlideShare
403
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Building and evaluating LibGuides Building and evaluating LibGuides Presentation Transcript

    • BUILDING ANDEVALUATINGLIBGUIDESChelsea Jordan-MakelySeptember 2012What do the information professionals of tomorrow think oftoday’s research guides? A usability study of the Universityof Denver’s Library and Information Science LibGuidehttp://libguides.du.edu/lis
    • The rise of LibGuides • 42,000 LibGuide users worldwide • 236,735 LibGuides • Pacific University: 72 subject guides
    • Benefits of using research guides• Alleviate library anxiety (Cox, 1996)• Facilitate access (Cox, 1996)• Cut through excess of information (O’sullivan & Scott, 2000; Bunnell & Byerly, 2000)• Showcase library’s resources and librarians’ expertise (Cox, 1996; Morville & Wickhorst, 1996; Sugarman & Demetracopoulos, 2001)• As a curriculum tool (Sugarman & Demetracopoulos, 2001)• Reduce cognitive load (Little, 2010)• Checklist (Richardson, 2001, as cited in Vileno, 2007)
    • Shortcomings of research guides• Guides may be more beneficial to librarians than to students (Reeb & Gibbons, 2004; Neilson, 2004; Vileno, 2007, 2010)• Difficult to use (Morris & Grimes, 1999; Reeb & Gibbons, 2004; Courtois, Higgins & Kapur, 2005; Vileno, 2010)• Questionable content and organizational schemes (Dahl, 2001; Dunsmore, 2002; Reeb & Gibbons, 2004; Neilson, 2004; Jackson & Pellack, 2004; Courtois, et al., 2005; Morris & Del Bosque, 2010; Vileno, 2010)• Time consuming to build and problematic to maintain (Morville & Wickhorst, 1996; Sugarman & Demetracopoulos, 2001; Morris & Del Bosque, 2010)
    • Evaluating research guides• Content analysis • Need • Organization • Content• Analytics • Usage• Usability Testing • “Provide data on whether participants can accomplish the tasks (effectiveness); do so in a reasonable amount of time and effort (efficiency); show how [it’s used] (context), and . . . their reaction to the product or service (satisfaction)” (Ward & Hiller, 2006, p. 154)• Surveys • Information-seeking behavior • Satisfaction
    • Usability Testing with MoraeMorae software • Video of users’ computer screen • Audio and video of students themselves • Tasks: • Time on task • Mouse clicks per task • Success per task • Optimal path • Real-time observations and markers • Pre- and post-test questionnaires • Interview questions
    • Interview data Times a theme was mentioned Scope 50 Likes 48 Information-seeking behaviors 24 Suggestions 23 Dislikes 18Themes Organization 16 Penrose Library 14 Naming 12 LibGuides 10 Appearance 7 Navigating/browsing 6 Subject Librarian 3 Other 1
    • Suggestions for LibGuide creators• Begin by researching other LibGuides• Ensure that guide can be easily found• Get student input in regards to naming and organization; avoid jargon• Define scope (main page)• Use multiple access points to “signpost”• Create a new tab to bypass scrolling• Keep content to the center pane• Collaborate with faculty• Use resources with live links• Incorporate multimedia• Utilize tools for student and faculty feedback
    • THANK YOU!Questions?ChelsJMakely@gmail.com