The value of libraries perpun


Published on

Published in: Education, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • You can download one and buy the other
  • Claire Creaser and Valerie Spezi. Working Together. June 2012. UK: Loughborough University.Libraries are busy measuring activity and not measuring value
  • Richard Orr
  • Focus on outcomes not process
  • Not all impacts are positiveNot all impacts are intendedNot all impacts are immediateDifficulty in separating library impact from other influences
  • The How Questions
  • Allan Pratt and Ellen Altman. Live by the Numbers, Die by the Numbers
  • 2/3rds of managers responsible for library budgets have no idea of how to evaluate or value the library
  • How good is the library? Quality and capabilitiesWhat good does the library do? Benefits, Impacts - ValueHow well is the library managed? Efficiency - benchmarkingHow can we move from bad to good?
  • New Zealand Libraries, March 1990
  • What are some of the Tools for Assessment - Evaluation
  • Direct method – the financial savings method is used widely to monetize the direct use benefits of public libraries.As such, it undercounts benefits that have had an estimated value assigned to it Not so in academic libraries
  • Focus groups – open ended – standard, guided, exploratoryEthnography – work study, photo essays, mapping dairies, etc.University of Rochester –they “know” their customers
  • Survey - random sample best, set questions (no follow up), statistical analysis, representative sample, response ratesExplore - How was it?, What do you do?, What do you want?, What did you do?
  • TriangulationFlickeAGrinberg
  • Correlation does not mean cause-and-effect
  • Deborah Goodall & David Pattern . Academic library non/low use and undergraduate student achievement. Library Management, 32 (3), 2011, 159-170.p. 161
  • DefinitionsA nounExchange for or equivalenceMonetary or material worthUsefulness, utilityPrinciple, standard, or qualityToll, cost or priceDarkness or lightness of color A verbEstimate the worth of something (appraise)Regard highly (esteem)Assign a value to something Other definitions depending on the fieldRegardless of context, defining value is a complex issue with its own philosophical discipline; axiology (Cram, 1999, p.11). Axiology, or Value Theory defines three different dimensions of value; extrinsic value, systematic value and intrinsic value (Hartman, 1969, p. 114). Thus, there are a number of different value types, including personal value, aesthetic value, religious value, spiritual value; and ethical value. Bequest value – willingness to pay for the endowment of the good or service for future generationsGoogle images -
  • Adam SmithValue-in-exchangeValue-in-use (utility theory)Google image adam‑
  • Value is a moving targetWhat was valuable vs.What is valuable vs.What will be valuable
  • Eleanor Jo Rodger. Value & Vision. American Libraries, November 2002, 50-52.Ideas of value have changedMoving target, constantly needs assessmentUsefulness, quality, availability, imageHistoric is not valuableDoesn't’t correspond to staff ideas of importanceIs not about our professional valuesDoing wrong things well does not create value
  • Mobile technology is the needle, and social networks are the thread (materials being woven)
  • Libraries are so screwed Value of the local collections is being diminished
  • Douglas Badenoch et al
  • Robert Taylor
  • a result Discovery happens elsewhere
  • Hope College Library
  • A large local inventory was a hallmark of academic reputationWe no longer live in that world.
  • Photo Flickr.com401K College
  • Flickr Trinity College Library
  • Two different people receive different value when using the same item
  • Similar to Robert Orr’s Input-Process-Output-Outcomes modelImpact of any one characteristic of the University environment is clearly, at best, indirectInput are the entering student characteristicsOutput are the graduating student characteristicsSimilar to Orr’s Input, Process, Output, Process model
  • Richard Shavelson. Measuring College Learning Responsibility: Accountability in a New Era. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010, pg 13
  • Libraries building communities – 75% of users and nonusers agreed that the library is a good place for facilitating social interaction
  • Personal Perspectives
  • TefkoSaracevic and Paul Kantor
  • Gates Foundation
  • Organizational Perspective
  • NSSE results
  • Pascarella, Seifert, and Blaich. How Effective are the NSSE Benchmarks in Predicting Important Educational Outcomes? Change, January 2010.NSSE data is reliable yet there are still concerns about use of the data
  • N=380,000 NSSE dataGeorge Kuh and Robert Gonyea. The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Leaning. College & Research Libraries, July 2003, 256-282.
  • The Halo EffectGary Pike – The Constant Error of the Halo – For freshmen – halo error accounts for half of the explained varianceFor seniors – one quarter to one half of the explained varianceSelf-reported gains in student achievement and college experiencesPhil Rosenzweig – The Halo Effect – Jim Collins Good to Great
  • Richard Arum and JosipaRoksa. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.Almost half (45%) showed no improvement – using CLA before and after data – after 2 years35% showed no improvement over 4 yearsLiberal arts majors do better than other majorsTo gauge summative performance authentically, the CLA presents realistic problems that require students to analyze complex materials and determine the relevance to the task and credibility.  Students' written responses to the tasks are evaluated to assess their abilities to think critically, reason analytically, solve problems and communicate clearly and cogently.  Scores are aggregated to the institutional level to provide a signal to the institution about how their students as a whole are performing. Whether CLA actually measures what it says it measures is another matter
  • Pascarella et al. How Robust Are the Findings of Academically Adrift? Change, May-June 2011CAAP - Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency
  • Megan Oakleaf – RAILS Project
  • Wong Chan and Chu. JAL, July 2006More recently,Reinsfelder. Citation Analysis as a Tool to Measure the Impact of Individual Research Consultants. C&RL, May 2012, 263-277. Found that as number of sources improved, the grade improved yet other research found either no correlations or negative correlations.
  • Kuh & Gonyea. The role of the academic library in promoting student engagement in learning.College & Research Libraries, 64 (7), July 2003, 256-82.300,000 student respondents – NSSE data
  • Sept 2010
  • Megan’s categories – all her suggestions rely on indirect measures or surrogates
  • One study – Gary Reynolds. The Impact of Facilities on Recruitment & Retention of Students. New Directions for Institutional Research, 135, Fall 2007.– showed that the library was the 2nd or 3rd most important reason why a university was selectedPartnering with Student Affairs – campus tour offices – Connecting with parentsMore recently, Lombard The Role of the Academic Library in College Choice. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, July 2012, 237-41.62% lib. no factor, & another 29% the lib. Was only a minor factor. 9% either an important factor or deciding factorGoogle
  • ACRL Value Report possible surrogate measuresChoice of college (from the students perspective) has a big impact on how long it takes to graduate with a BA, onbeing accepted into a high quality grad schoolAs well as amount of income over your lifetime. Private vs public
  • Google
  • ACRL Value Report possible surrogate measures
  • Acculturation – learning how to function (and succeed) in their new environmentTechnology & bureaucracy are the biggest problems
  • So assessment of student learning is difficult So too is the assessment of the library’s contribution to student learning
  • Google 123RF Portrait of happy young people sitting in pub, drinking beer, looking at camera, smiling.
  • Standardized test – Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP)Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP)the Collegiate Leaning Assessment (CLA) test has three components:Make an argumentCritique an argumentPerformance task – prepare a briefing reportEssays are scored using a rubricThe institution is the primary unit of analysis
  • Derek Rodriquez – PhD uses rubrics to assess the impact of student capstone projects
  • De Jager 2002, Zhong & Alexander 2007, Julien & Boon 2004, Wong & Webb 2011Jim Self 1987 no correlation between use of reserve collections and gradesLibrary-related interactions – Dickensen 2006Behaviors – Poll 2003, Poll & Payner 2006
  • Good newsUK Library Impact Data Project
  • UK Library Impact Data Project
  • Book borrowing by students at Huddersfield University in the UK
  • University of WollongongData into the Library Cube – R squared = .91The Library Cube provides the information needed to support continuous improvement in three areas: collection development; academic relationships; and marketing.The Library has seen a positive correlation between borrowing activity and academic performance
  • Univ of Wollongong Aus School of CommerceAs use of library increases, grades go up
  • Reported in College & Research Libraries
  • Small study but interesting results
  • Regression Analysis -
  • led to $59 million expansion
  • Hong King Baptist University – Wong and Cmor CR&L Sept 2011
  • Melissa Bowles-Terry. Library Instruction and Academic Success: A Mixed-Methods Assessment of a Library Instruction Program. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(1), 2012.
  • 6,300 students in the sample ICT skills 2007
  • Many confusing terms to describe the same thingRetention rates range from 60 to 80%Do you know the retention rate for your university?
  • ACRL Value Report surrogate measures
  • In the 2005 book “College Student Retention” edited by Alan Seidman, Linda Hagedornhas a great chapter that explains the differences between various student retention concepts
  • Defined by US National Center for Education Statistics  institutionsretain; individualspersistPersistence: from entry to graduation? From first to second year?Completion: from entry to grad? What about student goals upon entering?Graduation rates: time period? What about transfers? Can only really belong to one institution – so transfer school X captures the student in their graduation rates; beginning school Y calls the student a non-persister or a dropoutAttrition: leaving the system? Leaving the institution?So just a few more things to think about when you are exploring the student retention literature.
  • Retention and drop out rates are NOT dichotomous – students might leave during one time period, but then come backStopout; Drop out; TransferVoluntary / Involuntary – how is this (IS this?) accounted for in student retention stats?Non-persistence is not always a bad thing. Retention theorist Alexander Astin believes student GOALS coming in, and INTENTIONS are most significant. (e.g. did that student only intend to pick up one language course at the community college? Did that student travelling far from home only intend to spend one year at the institution for the experience before transferring to a more affordable institution?
  • On-campus undergraduate students
  • On-campus undergraduate students
  • Carroll et al – graduate distant education student Retention Model
  • Develop a personal connection with the university – especially in the first yearGlasgow Caledonia Univ – highest retention and fastest progression rates among students who have high use of eResources Crawford et al 2004Social integration, academic integrationTemple University – Reasons to drop outLost financial aid/change in financial situation reason for dropping outAlternative textbook project – eBooks
  • Association for the Study of Higher Ed (ASHE) report
  • 2008 AUSSE data – more you use the library more likely to NOT consider leavingDeparture intention“How libraries and librarians can support student engagement”
  • Curtin University – sample of 4,461 students66% had NOT borrowed an item were more likely to withdrawThose that HAD accessed eResources were more likely to remain in schoolStudents with low SES DO use computer workstations in the library
  • Early warning system! In the UK Compare Current vs Dropout
  • Engagement is particularly important for the first-year student
  • Why – data is easily accessibleJane E Hiscock, 1986Long Island UniversityLibrary Expenditures increased retentionHamrick, Schuh, and Shelley, 2004Iowa State University Predicting graduation rates based on resource allocation and other institutional characteristics.Found library expenditures (not counting materials) significantly related to graduation ratesCAUSAL RELATIONSHIP: very difficult to prove!! Focus instead on showing statistically significant differences.Mezick, 2007Long Island University (Brookville, NY)Analyze relationships to both library expenditures and number of professional library staff to student persistence. Strongest relationships:Library expenditures (overall) and retention at undergraduate institutionsLibrary professional staff and retention at doctoral institutions
  • Lloyd A. Kramer & Martha B. Kramer, 1968California State Polytechnic CollegeStatistically significant correlation between library use (in terms of book borrowing) and persistence from 1st to 2nd year<CLICK>Patricia B. Knapp, 1966Monteith College (Wayne State University, MI)Students involved in library skills program showed lower attrition, higher grades
  • Large body of work that supports the idea that campus jobs generally promote persistence – Astin, TerenziniStanley Wilder, 1990; Darla Rushing & Deborah Poole, 2002Louisiana State University & Loyola University, New OrleansRelationship between employment in the library and student completionWill Weston San Diego State Univ 2010
  • The problem however is that almost all studies make the library the focus of the investigation and not student retention (and student success)
  • NSSE - Students tend to over-report their experiences and their skills
  • ACRL Value Report surrogate measures
  • What is the impact of the library on the faculty?Flickr AKMA Seabury Faculty
  • Creaser & Spezi. Working Together: Evolving value for academic libraries. June 2012.
  • Tenopir and Valentine 2012Back files are important
  • Time spent reading represents an exchange value – about 25 days per yearCarol Tenopir ALA Midwinter 2012
  • Ithaka plus Cluff & Murrah 1987 JALFlickr Ben Heine We All Disappear Someday
  • ACRL Value Report surrogate measures
  • Creaser & Spezi. Working Together: Evolving value for academic libraries. June 2012.For researchers - Help with lit searching – huge opportunity
  • Jason Priem – Univ of North Carolina – Chapel Hill Altmetrics– use social media
  • US News & World ReportStudents from better schools get into better graduate schoolsWeiner JAL Jan 2009 Total library expenditure is related to US News Peer Assessment ScoresBudgets down from 3.7% to 2.5% over 10 years
  • Work together to …
  • AustraliaLibrary provides access to information resources that are:
  • Outsell report 2007Avg time saved per interaction – 9.5 hours (35% of all library interactions)Money saved – projects + centralized purchasing to reduce duplication – Avg $3,000 per interaction (20% of lib interactions) Revenue generated - $7,000 per interaction (19% of all lib interactions)Decisions supported – 68% of the respondentsConfidentiality – in-house serviceLibrary as a revenue generatorContribution to decision makingImproved productivityImproving qualityFacilitating communication (honest broker)Role in risk managementTimeliness of information
  • Frank Portugal. Valuing Information Intangibles. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, 2000.Knowledge-Value Add – helps managers create value. Uses a surrogate measure for intangible value to determine how a sub-process contributes to the final product or service (time required to learn a sub-process, number of words needed to describe a sub-process). Value is determined by assessing the cost of each sub-process.Intranet Team Forums – The use of forum and chat software – track how information evolves into knowledge and gets incorporated in products and services. Estimate information and knowledge costs and compare to expected revenues (cost savings). Identify library’s contribution.Intellectual Capital Valuation – Measures are developed for four areas:Customer FocusProcess FocusRenewal & Development FocusHuman Focus
  • The Value of Corporate Libraries
  • Public Library Assets
  • Australian project
  • Top 5 OutcomesAverage time less than 30 minutes. Attracted by the collections.
  • Top 5 Contributions2008. Average time less than 30 minutes. Attracted by the collections and services.
  • Urban Libraries Council. Making Cities Stronger: Public Library Contributions to Local Economic Development, 2007.
  • Urban Libraries Council 2006represent a step towards a more ethnography based approach to measuring the value of public libraries and digital services.
  • Scotland<CLICK>
  • 6 point scale 1 = inadequate, 6 = excellentEthos & values = high quality services to allLeadership – innovative & entrepreneurial
  • List your take aways
  • LC
  • 85% of US population HS grads; 50+% some college1980 data AA = 6%; College degree = 19% no degree – 75%2010 data AA = 8%, College degree – 19%,
  • The value of libraries perpun

    1. 1. The Value of Libraries Morning Session Universiti Malaysia Sarawak Joe Matthews September 28, 2012
    2. 2. Megan Oakleaf
    3. 3. Outline• Performance Measures• Value• Value of Information• Value of Information Services
    4. 4. Outline• Value of a Library – Personal value • Direct measures • Indirect measures – Organizational value • Academic libraries • Public libraries • National libraries – Financial impacts (Afternoon))
    5. 5. Few libraries exist in avacuum, accountable only to themselves. There is thus always a larger context for accessing library quality, that is, what and how well does the library contribute to achieving theoverall goals of the parent constituencies? Sarah Pritchard
    6. 6. There is no systematic evidencecollected which shows the value of academic librariesfor teaching and research staff. Claire Creaser and Valerie Spezi
    7. 7. Performance Measures Library Individual Society Services Input Proces Output Outcome Outcome s s sResource Capability Use Beneficial effectss Efficiency Effectivenes s Cost Impact Effectiveness Cost benefit VALUE
    8. 8. Start with the end in mind: work backwards Refocus from the activity to the impact
    9. 9. Impact
    10. 10. Library ControlHow much? How many? How economical? How prompt?Magnitude Magnitude Resources used Cycle times% of change last Change Units processed Turnaround timeyear Anticipatory% of overall changeCost
    11. 11. Library & Customers DecideHow valuable? How reliable? How accurate?Effort expended Dependability CompletenessCost Access ComprehensivenessBenefits obtained Accuracy Currency
    12. 12. Customers DecideHow well? How courteous? How responsive? How satisfied?Accuracy Attentive Anticipatory Expectations metPromptness Welcoming Helpful Materials obtainedCourtesy Empathetic Personal interactionExpertise Ease of use Environment Comfort Willingness to return
    13. 13. Live by the numbers, ….
    14. 14. Challenges Lack of consensus about what should be measured and how Lack of understanding of performance measurement and metrics Organizational structural issues Lack of precision in measuring performance, and alignment issues Determining the “bottom line” is too far away Majority of stakeholders are too far away Library staff find it difficult to see the “big”
    15. 15. And the survey said ….
    16. 16. Lack of a Connection• Budget and outputs (and outcomes) are separated• No “bottom line” measure for libraries• Decision-making process is bigger than the library• Library has neither champions nor foes• Library benefits are not widely self-evident
    17. 17. Orr’s Fundamental Questions • How good is the library? • What good does the library do? • How well is the library managed?
    18. 18. We should be a bit wary of the “little library” …For when it is good, it is very, very good and when it is bad,it’s a “pretty good library for a town this size.” Eleanor Jo Rodger
    19. 19. Levels of Assessment … • Individual student • Course • Departmental/Program • College or University
    20. 20. Types of Measures• Direct – Provide tangible, visible and self-explanatory evidence of what students have & have not learned• Indirect – Capture students’ perceptions of their knowledge & skills; supplement direct measures; sometimes called surrogates
    21. 21. Qualitative Tools• Focus groups – open ended• Biography• Phenomenology – capture the “Aha!” moment• Grounded theory• Ethnography• Case study
    22. 22. Qualitative Assessment• Provides in-depth understanding of user responses and interactions• Represents part of a long-term strategy of formative evaluative
    23. 23. Quantitative Tools • Surveys • Transaction logs • Statistics from systems • Observations (count)
    24. 24. Quantitative Assessment• Analyses to determine library impacts on academic performance, retention rates• Describe retention rates and GPAs in defined populations over semesters and users• Compare users & non-users of library services while adjusting for academic preparation and background differences• Conduct quasi-experimental designs employing multivariate analysis of covariance & hierarchical regression
    25. 25. Useful Assessment
    26. 26. Be cautious about cause-and-effect relationships
    27. 27. The Issue• Is it: Use library resources/services and you will get better grades.• Or: I want to do well and so I work hard to achieve better grades (and one way I do that is to use library resources/services).
    28. 28. “Not surprisingly, librarians are keen to show that the use of expensive, scholarly materials positively correlates with higher grades, although they cannot prove that this is so.” Deborah Goodall & David Pattern
    29. 29. “There is growing pressure on all academiclibrary managers to be more accountable for how they use limited resources and to achieve institutional outcomes perceived as important by college and university stakeholders….” Elizabeth Mezick
    30. 30. Value of Information• Expect value-in-use• Library’s collection reflects a “potential value”• Collection also reflects a “future value”• Value of local collection is declining
    31. 31. Valuable is not about our professional values;in the paradigm of the value of public libraries, we are the producers, not the consumers of services. Our sense of what is valuable really doesn’t matter much at all unless it matches that our our customers.
    32. 32. Fundamental ChangesLibraries have changed more in the past twodecades than in the prior two centuries.Technology is the major driver . . .We need to recognize that all this changehas only begun, and that change isirreversible.
    33. 33. Increasingly it is important to remember that librariesprovide few unique services.
    34. 34. Information is woven into our lives
    35. 35. Quality of InformationThis fast food approach to information consumption driveslibrarians crazy. “Our information is healthier and tastesbettertoo” they shout. But nobody listens. We’re too busyGoogling.” Peter Morville
    36. 36. Key Characteristics of InformationUncertainty Knowledge Ambiguity IndeterminacyRedundancy System dependency Sharing TimelinessCompression Presentation Stability Multiple life cycles Leakability Substitutability
    37. 37. Criteria for Judging Value Customer Criteria Value Added by the Service Ease of use Browsing, formatting, mediation service, orientation service, ordering, physical accessibility Noise reduction Access (item identification, subject description, subject summary), linkage, precision, selectivity Quality Accuracy, comprehensiveness, currency, reliability, validity Adaptability Closeness to problem, flexibility, simplicity, stimulatory Time savings Response speed Cost savings Cost savings
    38. 38. Collections are disrupted Atoms to bits
    39. 39. Nature of Information is Changing InformationInformation was …. is ….Scare, controlled All around us Expensive Cheap or freeShaped by elites Shaped by consumersOne-way, mass Designed for sharing, consumption participation & feedback Slow moving Immediate External to our worlds Embedded in our worlds
    40. 40. Value of the Academic Library
    41. 41. If the physical proximity ofprint collections had a demonstrable impact on researcher productivity, no university would hesitate to allocate prime real estate to library stacks.
    42. 42. Traditional Value PropositionWithout a greatlibrary, there canbe no greatuniversity. David Kinly, President of The University of Illiniois 1929
    43. 43. Universities Provide• Private goods & services – Courses exchanged for tuition – Research completed for funding• The value proposition The value to an individual or an organization determines
    44. 44. Academic Libraries Provide• Public goods and services Print and online resources are shared by all, usually without the exchange of payment• Value proposition The collective value of all users must be estimated to determine if a good or service should be
    45. 45. Value is determined by the user and the use of information
    46. 46. Astin’s IEO Model Programs Institutional characteristicInput s Output Library Fellow students Faculty Place of residence Environment
    47. 47. Student Learning Outcomes ModelAbstract,Process IntelligenceOriented General Reasoning Broad Abilities Knowledge, Understanding, and ReasoningConcrete,Content-Oriented
    48. 48. Define, develop, and measure outcomes that contribute toinstitutional effectiveness ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education
    49. 49. ChallengeIt is not how much a library is used that matters,rather how does the libraryimpact or benefit the customer?
    50. 50. Perspectives on Value Impacts Direct Personal Organizational Use Indirect FinancialBenefits Option – Preservation of option for future use by me Nonuse Existence – Perceived value and significance to the community Legacy – Value of preservation for future generations
    51. 51. Personal
    52. 52. Why Use the Library? Reasons Interactions ResultsFor a TASK Access COGNITIVE results RESOURCESFor PERSONAL AFFECTIVE resultsreasons Use of RESOURCES or ACCOMPLISHMENTSTo get an SERVICESOBJECT or EXPECTATIONS metINFORMATION OPERATIONS TIME aspectsTo perform an ENVIRONMENTACTIVITY S MONEY estimates
    53. 53. Generic Learning OutcomesKnowledge & Understanding SkillsAttitudes Enjoyment, Inspiration, CreativityActivity, Behavior, Progression
    54. 54. Organizational
    55. 55. Student Learning is Affected by … • Full-time students • Live on campus • Interact more with faculty • Study more • Collaborate with their peers
    56. 56. NSSE• 5 benchmarks of effective educational practice – Level of academic challenge – Active & collaborative learning – Student-Faculty interaction – Enriching educational experiences – Supportive campus environment• Student self-reported gains in intellectual & personal development• No overlap between self-reported data & standardized objective tests
    57. 57. NSSE – Use of the Academic Library• 50% never used the library• Use of libraries at small, academically challenging liberal arts colleges are correlated with other purposeful activities• Library use less intensive at larger universities• Students who work harder use library
    58. 58. Assessing Student Achievement • Direct measures – Capstone experience – Use of a portfolio – Standardized exam (Collegiate Learning Assessment) • Indirect measures
    59. 59. Assessment of Higher Ed • Gains in student performance are quite low • Individual learning is characterized by persistence • Notable variation within and across institutions
    60. 60. Wabash National Study• Different instrument – CAAP• 2,212 students• Nearly identical results to Academically Adrift• 44 percent no gains in the first year• 33 percent no gains in 4 years• Students only study about 15 hours per week
    61. 61. • Opinion surveys• Skills testing• Observed behaviors
    62. 62. Bibliographic Instruction• Improvement in basic library skills is the means and not the end• Yet the means is the focus for evaluation efforts• Evaluation efforts focus on – Opinion surveys – Skills improvement – Pre-test & post-test knowledge• Not the impact on student achievement
    63. 63. Library experiences do not seem todirectlycontribute to gains in informationliteracy,to what students gain overall in college,orto student satisfaction. Kuh & Gonyea
    64. 64. “One way to demonstrate the library’scontribution is to assess whether students’ experiences with the library directly or indirectlycontribute to desired outcomes of college.” George D. Kuh & Robert M. Gonyea
    65. 65. How to Demonstrate Impact in … • Student enrollment • Student experiences • Student learning • Student grades (GPA) & achievement • Student retention & graduation • Student career success • Faculty productivity • Institutional reputation • The environment
    66. 66. Student Enrollment
    67. 67. Student Enrollment• Recruitment of prospective students• Matriculation of admitted students• Recommendation of current students
    68. 68. StudentLearning
    69. 69. Student Learning • GPA • Professional/educational test scores • Learning assessments • Faculty judgments
    70. 70. Meta-analysis• Entering student characteristics – SES – High school GPA – ACT/SAT scores• Environment - Psychosocial and study skill factors – Academic goals, skills and self-confidence – Social support & engagement (acculturation)
    71. 71. Student Learning Occurs … • in the classroom • in the laboratory • with peers • in the student union • in the dorm • in the library (for some) • online • and
    72. 72. Direct Measures • Capstone Experience • Portfolios • Standardized Test • Locally-developed test
    73. 73. Capstone Projects
    74. 74. Indirect Measures• Surveys• Retention, graduation rates• Grades• Acceptance rates into graduate programs• Job placement rates• Exit interviews• Alumni surveys
    75. 75. StudentGrades
    76. 76. Non/Low Use
    77. 77. Usage of Electronic Resources WAM = Weighted Average Marks (Grades)
    78. 78. Other Studies• Hong Kong Baptist University• Georgia State University
    79. 79. Hope College
    80. 80. University of Minnesota Gym Bags and MortarboardsUse Campus Recreational Facilities At least 25 times, first- year retention increased 1% & 5-year graduation rates increased 2%
    81. 81. University of Minnesota Library• 5,368 first-year non-transfer students• Use of library was associated with a .23 increase in students GPA• More use of the library, GPA also goes up
    82. 82. University of Minnesota Library
    83. 83. Library Instruction and GPA• Surveys of student opinions & habits• Assessing student work for specific skills• Analysis of grade point average• Mixed results
    84. 84. Library Instruction and GPAHong King Baptist University• 45 sample groups – N=31 to 1,223, study majors• Pairs of data• One-fourth (11) had a positive relationship• Results: – 1 or 2 workshops – little impact on GPA – 3 or 4 workshops – ½ show a positive impact – 5 workshops (1 sample group) – 100% had a higher GPA
    85. 85. Library Instruction and GPAUniversity of Wyoming Libraries• Analysis of 4,489 transcripts• Slight positive relationship between upper- level library instruction courses and GPA – 0.075 GPA difference – that’s less than 1/10th of 1 percent
    86. 86. • Research statement – 44%• Evaluate Web site – objectivity – 52% – authority – 65%• Presentation to persuade – 12%
    87. 87. How scalable is library instruction?
    88. 88. Student Retention & Graduation Persistence Attrition RetentionGraduationRates Completion
    89. 89. Student Retention• Fall-to-fall retention• Graduation rates
    90. 90. Retention Concepts• Institutional retention – Enrolling & graduating from the same institution• Program retention – Enrolling & graduating with the same major/department/school• System retention – Students who leave one university yet continue and complete post-secondary studies elsewhere
    91. 91. Measures of Retention• Persistence (Continuation rate) – From first to second year? Entry to graduation?• Completion rate – From entry to graduation (Student goals?)• Graduation rates – Are transfers included? Time period?• Attrition – Leaving university? Leaving higher ed?
    92. 92. Measures of Retention• Stopout – Leave university with the intention (and action) of returning later to complete a program• Dropout – Leave university with intention (and action) of NOT returning• Transfer – Change institutions yet persist in higher education – May change type of institution
    93. 93. Why Students Leave?• Students’ decision to leave University is influenced by many personal factors – Financial reasons – Family responsibilities – Lack of academic ability – Poor fit, etc.• Foundational Theories from Education / Psychology: – Tinto’s “Model of Student Integration” – Bean’s “Model of Student Attrition”
    94. 94. Tinto’s Model of Student IntegrationPre-entry Goals / Institutional Integration Goals / OutcomeAttributes Commitment Experience Commitment s s s Academic System Performance AcademicSES Integration Intentions Engagement Intentions StaySkills & Goal orAbilities Institutional Leave Extra- Institutional Commitment Curricular MatchQuality s Socialof Peer group IntegrationEducation Social System
    95. 95. Bean’s Model of Student Attrition Loyalty Attitudes Practical Certainty ValuePersonal OrganizationVariables al Variables Grades Courses Educational Goals Intent Major & Job Certainty Environment Opportunity to Transfer Variables Dropout Family Approval al
    96. 96. Student Retention & Graduation • Important because … rankings, revenues, educational achievement, emotional well-being • Many reasons for drop-outs are not under the control of the university • Engagement is the key
    97. 97. Indicators• Student goal • Transfer rate & success attainment • Employer assessment• Course retention • Academic value add• Subsequent course • Student satisfaction work • Professional growth• Fall-to-fall persistence • Student involvement• Time to degree • Citizenship &• Degree completion engagement• Grad school enrollment
    98. 98. Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE)
    99. 99. Curtin University
    100. 100. University of Huddersfield
    101. 101. “A high rate of attritionis indicative of a failureon the part of an institution to achieve its purpose.” Elizabeth Mezick
    102. 102. Student Engagement“many studentsdon’t develop apersonal connectionwith their institution.And when theydon’t, they leave” Gonzales 2010 NSSE & CSEQ
    103. 103. Library Retention Studies• Statistically significant relationships between library expenditures, or staffing levels and student retention  E.g. Hiscock, 1986 Hamrick, Schuh, & Shelley, 2004 Mezick, 2007
    104. 104. Graduation Rates & Library Expenditures• Used IPEDS data on institutional characteristics & resource allocations• Library expenditures was strongly correlated with graduation rates – 1.77 percent increase in graduation rates• Greatest payoff is attributable to enhanced library expenditures (+0.92) and instruction (+0.80) while increased non-library contributions were quite modest (+0.27) Hamrick, Schuh & Shelley
    105. 105. Library Retention Studies• Relationships between library use (collections) and student retention – Student who borrowed books = more likely to persist • E.g. Kramer & Kramer, 1968• Impact of instruction – Students involved in library skills programs showed lower attrition rates • E.g. Knapp, 1966
    106. 106. Library Retention StudiesUniversity of Minnesota – 77% of undergrads made use of the libraries, 85% of grad students made use of the libraries – Students who used the library at least once were 1.54 times more likely to re-enroll
    107. 107. Library Retention Studies• Some library involvement in first year experience programs; specific programs for “at risk” groups – NOT proven to have significant effect • E.g. Hollis, 2001 Colton, et al, 2002 Aguilar & Keating, 2009 Love, 2009
    108. 108. Library Retention Studies• Relationship between library employment & retention – Higher completion rate among library student workers • E.g. Wilder, 1990 Rushing & Poole, 2002
    109. 109. “If strong linkages between libraries and student retention can be made,then the perceived value of the library may indeed rise.” Steven Bell
    110. 110. • Some groups, some majors & seniors engage in more library-related activities• Academic support expenditures tend to correlate with increased engagement• Institutional academic challenge correlates with library use
    111. 111. Student Career Success Grad School ExamsAlumni Surveys
    112. 112. Student Success • Job placement rates • First-year job salaries • Professional/graduate school acceptance • Internship success • Marketable skills
    113. 113. Faculty Teaching• Integration of library resources and services into course syllabi, Websites, lectures, labs, reserve readings, etc.• Faculty/librarian collaborations; cooperative curriculum, assignment, or assessment design
    114. 114. Perceived Benefits for Teaching • Savings – Of own time – Of own money – Of other resources • Improvements – Teaching – Course-related materials – Student performance
    115. 115. Impact on Faculty• Library is the source for most journal articles (individual subscriptions are way down)• If library subscriptions were unavailable – productivity would decrease 17%• Library is not the source of book readings• 42% of reading material is library provided
    116. 116. Time• Academics spend a lot of time reading• Article reading inspires new thinking, improved results, changed focus• Award-winning academics read more• Academics who publish more use more library resources
    117. 117. Ithaka Studies• Library services not understood• Library services not valued• The Library is disappearing
    118. 118. Faculty Research Productivity• Number of publications, number of patents, value of technology transfer• Tenure/promotion judgmentsFaculty Grants• Number of grant proposals (funded or unfunded)• Value of grants funded
    119. 119. Assessment of Research• Payback model – form of ROI• Research impact• Research utilization ladder• Lavis decision-making impact model• Weiss logic model• HTA organization assessment framework• Societal impact framework• Research assessment exercise• Becker medical library model
    120. 120. For Most Impact Models• Indicators of research output• Indicators of knowledge transfer• Indicators of implementation• Indicators of community benefit
    121. 121. Faculty Productivity
    122. 122. Institutional Reputation & Prestige • Faculty recruitment • Institutional rankings • Community engagement
    123. 123. Institutional Reputation• Changes in reputational rankings affects student & faculty recruitment• University budget allocations to libraries have decreasedSince the library absorbs a very small percentage of auniversity budget, the contribution of the library isdisproportionately high relative to its cost to the institution. Sharon Weiner
    124. 124. University & the Library Can • Attract outstanding faculty • Retain outstanding faculty • Foster innovative research • Align library activities with university goals
    125. 125. • Indispensable for their research• Maintain a high-level overview of their field• Value for money is good• Library not available, costs would increase 40%• Take 31% longer to locate same information
    126. 126. Value of Special Libraries• Time saved• Money saved• New revenues• Other outcomes
    127. 127. In addition, to ROI• Knowledge-Value Add• Intranet Team Forums• Intellectual Capital Valuation
    128. 128. Measurements of value were, in fact, a key differentiator between successfuland unsuccessful corporate libraries James Matarazzo
    129. 129. Value of Public Libraries
    130. 130. (Rooney-Browne, 2009b).
    131. 131. Social Capital• Bonding social capital• Bridging social capital• Linking social capital
    132. 132. Libraries/Building/Communities• Developing social capital – Providing a welcoming environment – Creating a pride of place – Attracting users from all walks of life – Reaching out to the community – Appreciation of cultural differences – Building bridges to government – Encouraging collaboration across the community
    133. 133. Libraries/Building/Communities• Overcoming the digital divide – Making technology accessible – Exploiting technology to benefit the community• Creating informed communities – Community information – Government information – Providing a gateway to the world of information
    134. 134. Libraries/Building/Communities• Convenient and comfortable places of learning – Developing information skills – Stimulating ideas and discussion – Supporting vulnerable learners – Supporting students
    135. 135. OutcomesEnhanced quality of lifeEnhanced enjoyment fromhobbiesAble to obtain informationFacilitates lifelong learningSupport for children’s education
    136. 136. ContributionsSafe and pleasant placeSupporting educational facilitiesFacilitating lifelong learningEncouraging responsible socialbehaviorEnsuring access to the Internet
    137. 137. Social Benefits• Basic reading literacy • Local history & genealogy• Business/career • Health & well-being• Information literacy • Social cohesion• Library as place • General information• Summer reading • Empowerment
    138. 138. Making Cities Stronger• Building a stronger local economy• Improving early literacy & school readiness• Building workforce participation• Supporting small business• The power of place
    139. 139. Tracking ValueThe Engaged Library:Chicago Stories of Community Building•Prove that public libraries build social capital•Identify & connect the library’s assets to thecommunity•Assess & strengthen the library’s connections withand use of community assets•Produce a toolkit for other libraries to adopt to•Mapping tools to perform an inventory services,identify areas for improvement and highlight library’scontribution to the community’s wider social,educational, cultural and economic goals.
    140. 140. PLQIM• Access to information• Community & personal participation• Meeting readers’ needs• Learners’ experiences• Ethos & values• Organization & use of resources• Leadership
    141. 141. Valuing the CollectionDewey Subclass 2010-2011 Avg Number of Titles List Total Value ($)001 - Knowledge $76.71 $0.00002 - The book $62.45 $0.00003 - Systems $129.77 $0.00004 - Data processing. Computer science $89.82 $0.00005 - Computer programming, programs, data $69.14 $0.00006 - Special computer methods $83.60 $0.00010 - Bibliography $73.65 $0.00011 - Bibliographies $69.46 $0.00012 - Bibliographies of individuals $0.00 $0.00013 - Of works by specific classes of authors $0.00 $0.00014 - Of anonymous and pseudonymous works $55.95 $0.00015 - Of works from specific places $184.99 $0.00016 - Of works on specific subjects $134.87 $0.00017 - General subject catalogs $0.00 $0.00018 - Catalogs arranged by author, date, etc. $0.00 $0.00019 - Dictionary catalogs $0.00 $0.00020 - Library and information sciences $56.06 $0.00021 - Library relationships $62.60 $0.00022 - Administration of the physical plant $65.50 $0.00023 - Personnel administration $56.00 $0.00025 - Library operations $77.02 $0.00026 - Libraries for specific subjects $89.99 $0.00027 - General libraries $66.25 $0.00
    142. 142. Joe@JoeMatthews.Org Joe Matthews Library Consultant
    143. 143. What Are the ResultsFour YearCollegeFull-time College degree – 19%Four Year Graduate degree –College Stopout/Transfer 11%Part-time AA degree – 8%Two Year CollegeNo college No college degree – 60%