This slideshow describes 2 program outcomes assessment at Santa Rosa Junior College Libraries and relates these assessments to support of student equity. The presentation makes the case that program outcome assessment can be effectively woven into course-integrated instruction sessions to teach students habits of mind that will help them persist and succeed in college.

1. ACHIEVING EQUITY – HOW
LIBRARIES CAN HELP
FOSTER STUDENT EQUITY (or,
how Program Outcomes Assessment helps students succeed)
May 2, 2015
Nancy Persons, Reference and Instruction Librarian, Santa Rosa Junior College

2. Our Program Outcomes:
1. The SRJC Libraries provide effective instruction in a wide variety of contexts
to support our diverse range of learners and their needs.
2. The SRJC Libraries acquire, provide access, and deliver resources to
support the needs and enrich the lives of our diverse range of learners.
3. The SRJC Libraries provide a technology infrastructure and services that
facilitate academic achievement of our diverse range of learners and their
needs.
4. The SRJC Libraries provide a welcoming environment and facilities that
support our diverse range of learners and their needs.
(Program Outcomes reflect language of College’s and Libraries’ mission statement)

3. Student Equity: Student Categories
 SB 860 (2014) directs CCCs to maintain student equity
plans that address the extent of student equity for these
categories of students:
Current or former foster youth
Students with disabilities
Low-income students
Veterans
Students in specific ethnic categories as defined by
US Census Bureau

4. Student Equity: Success Indicators
 Access
 Course Completion
 ESL and Basic Skills Completion
 Degree and Certificate Completion
 Transfer

5. Achieving Equity: Resources
Program Outcome #2: The SRJC Libraries
acquire, provide access, and deliver
resources to support the needs and enrich
the lives of our diverse range of learners

6. Student Equity and Reserve Textbooks
Program: Background
 August 2014 SRJC Libraries identify librarian-administrator liaisons
 September, 2014 meeting between Librarian, Dean of Student
Equity and Success, Counseling Dept. Chair to describe student
need at Libraries
 Prior to SE funding, Reserve Textbooks funded only from annual
$1,000 Library Foundation funds
 October 2014 proposal submitted including textbook titles and
amount needed to Dean of DE&SS, marketing of service ready to
go
 January, 2015 proposal approved by VP of Student Services
 January, 2015 $16,000 funds allocated
 January, 2015 ordering of books begins

7. What We Purchased
 $16,000 allocated
 113 titles purchased at cost of $12,960 for Spring 2015 semester and
Summer 2015 term
 11 copies instructor editions of Math textbooks purchased at $2,000
(and 2 free copies from publisher) for a tutoring program
 $960 encumbered with SRJC Bookstore for purchases in advance of
Fall 2015 semester
 At average cost of $114 per textbook will have purchased
approximately 122 textbooks
 Provided additional copies to improve availability and lengthened
loan period on some titles from 2-hour “Library Use Only” to 2-day
use

8. Who’s Using Reserve Textbooks: Data
 Library Reserve Desk transactions at both libraries
captured between Jan 15 – Mar 11, 2015
 A snapshot of Reserve desk activity
 SRJC Fact Book 2013 and Chancellor’s Office Data Mart
Fall 2014 comparison
 SRJC Libraries transactions duplicated count
 Library Transaction data (SID) linked to student
demographics and socio-economic factors by IT
department

9. Hispanic Status
 Those declaring Hispanic status make up 38% of transactions
 SRJC general student population 30.3% Hispanic (Fact Book)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Hispanic Not Hispanic
Hispanic Status
Library SRJC

10. 1st Generation Attending College
 30% of duplicated Reserve desk transactions were by students claiming 1st
Generation attending college
 35% of SRJC general student population (CO Data Mart)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2555 988 1535
No Unknown Yes
1st Generation Attending College
Library SRJC

11. Eligibility for BoG Waiver
 44% of all transactions were by students eligible for the BoG waiver
 According to the SRJC Fact Book, for the year 2011-12, 32% of students received
the BoG
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Yes
BoG Waiver
Libraries SRJC

12. Ethnicity
 27% of transactions declared Hispanic/Latino, SRJC general
population from Fact Book: 30.3%
 7% of transactions declared Black Non-Hispanic, SRJC general
population from Fact Book: 2.4%
 40% transactions were by White Non-Hispanic, SRJC general
population from Fact Book: 53%
 6% of transactions were by Asian students, SRJC general population
from Fact Book: 3.7%
 18.5% of transactions declared Multiple Ethnicities, SRJC general
population from Fact Book: 3.7%
 1.5% declared unknown or Native American

13. Ethnicity
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Hispanic/Latino
Black Non-Hispanic
White Non-Hispanic
Asian
Multiple
Native American, Unknown
Ethnicity Comparing Library Reserve Transactions to SRJC
General Population
SRJC Library

14. Reserve Textbook Study: Takeaways
 The percentage of students declaring Hispanic/Latino ethnicity is higher
among Reserve desk transactions than among the general SRJC
student population
 The percentage of students eligible for BoG waiver is higher among
those using Reserve textbooks than the general SRJC student
population
 DSPS, EOPS, Veterans and Foster students are at low levels of Reserve
textbook usage – we need to follow up with these populations
 Students categorized as Basic Skills do not correlate to Reserve
textbook usage – we need to investigate further – and provide stronger
outreach to instructors of these courses

15. Achieving Equity: Facilities
Program Outcome #4: The SRJC Libraries
provide a welcoming environment and
facilities that support our diverse range of
learners and their needs

16. Group Study Room Survey
 Administered March 9-12, 2015 (week 9 of semester) at
both libraries
 33 study rooms @ Doyle Library, 8 @ Mahoney Library
 232 surveys returned at Doyle, 28 at Mahoney
 Library staff handed out paper surveys, then swept
through again to pick up a few minutes later
 Survey conducted prior to implementation of any room
reservation system
 Only some rooms (approx. 50%) have whiteboards

17. Q1: To what degree are you satisfied with the ease of
finding an available group study space?
5= Very Satisfied, 3= Neutral, and 1= Very Dissatisfied
 Students are dissatisfied with availability of group study space. 38%
expressed some level of dissatisfaction, 28% were neutral, and 34%
expressed they were somewhat or very satisfied. Several responses
also expressed desire for a way to reserve rooms.
 The lack of whiteboards in many rooms prompted many complaints.
57% of respondents specifically commented on lack of rooms with
white boards. Many of these complaints were on the response forms
from those indicating somewhat or very dissatisfied with room
availability.
 3% complained about single user occupancy and want staff to
monitor room use.

18. Q2: “what subject or activity are you involved in right now
in this room? Include class name (e.g. Math 155)
 Over 304 responses recorded (some students indicated more than 1
subject being studied)
 Among the top 5 disciplines reported, Math accounted for 22%,
English 9%, and Chemistry, Physiology and Nursing 5% each. For all
other disciplines, 4 or fewer responded indicating they were working
on a subject. Only 11 responses indicated a Basic Skills level course
was being studied.

19. Q2: “what subject or activity are you involved in right now
in this room? Include class name (e.g. Math 155)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Q2: Disciplines Reported Studying - Doyle Library

20. Q3: How satisfied are you with the furnishings
and/or equipment in this room?
 Students at both libraries are largely satisfied with furnishings and
equipment.
 70% of Doyle Library respondents and 74% of Mahoney respondents
indicated satisfaction with furnishings and equipment.
 Only 8% at either library expressed any level of dissatisfaction.
 From reading individual responses, it is apparent that students did
not consider white boards a type of furnishing or equipment, or held
off mentioning them until they answered Q4.

21. Q3: How satisfied are you with the furnishings
and/or equipment in this room?
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Very Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Q3: Satisfaction with Furnishings/Equipment in Rooms
Mahoney Doyle

22. Q4: What would make this room more useful to
you as a learner at SRJC?
 57% indicated lack of Whiteboards limits options for some students
 Students want some room(s) with projector(s) for practicing PowerPoint
presentations – there currently is no place for students to practice
PowerPoint presentations without securing permission to use a room
from a faculty member with their presence
 More power outlets. It’s possible the power outlets comments were
prompted by the fact that our aging laptops require external power to
function. In addition, the building was built before the mobile device
era exploded –students may be trying to recharge/use personal
devices such as phones/laptops. Several students requested that
computers be available in group study rooms, so these factors are
probably related.
 One student noted that there is no disability seating in any of the group
study rooms which forces that student to be very uncomfortable when
working with classmates in a group.
 Several students complained about lack of computers installed in
rooms – workstations are all in carrels, none in rooms (laptops available)

23. Group Study Survey - Takeaways
 Students want to reserve rooms (reservation system will be
implemented this summer)
 We need more outreach and marketing to faculty and
administrative liaisons:
 Very few Basic Skills students, or Basic Skills coursework,
represented in use of group study rooms
 Heavy users tend to be traditionally successful students or those
from programs with high levels of support and guidance
(Nursing, Mathematics, Life Sciences)
 Lack of awareness that Libraries supply markers, erasers, etc.
 Rooms need more than chairs
 Whiteboards
 Projectors
 Group study use tends to mirror Reserve Textbook usage disciplines

24. Underserved and Underachieving:
Unaware?
 Low usage of Library resources, services indicated by Basic Skills
Students
 Percent of 1st Gen students using resources and services lower than
general student population
 1st Gen definition needs standardization: 1st Gen attending
college in this country? In family? College culture different in U.S.
 Lack of awareness that resources exist

25. Scaffolding the Library: The Southwest
Center experiment (ESL)
 Start early
 Introduce strategies that help students achieve, instill expectations
 Non-credit ESL at remote site isolated from college culture, resources and services
receive visit from Librarian for general introduction – heavy on visuals with
accompanying glossary
 Bring students onto campus
 Follow-up session at Library with hands-on experience and tour to reinforce
welcoming presence, etc.
 Explain opportunities, identify barriers overcome through services
 3-tiered approach (ESL)
 700-level: introduction at site, tour on campus, hands-on search & retrieve
 300-level: welcome, introduction to academic conversation, searching, citation
 100-level: more complex searching, reinforce and review academic
conversation, citation

26. Takeaways
Increased Access
 Reserve Textbooks: Follow up with
Basic Skills instructors,
administrators of Foster/Kinship,
EOPS, and DSPS
 Get more Basic skills materials into
Reserve Collection
 Close loop by marketing survey
results (action)
 Incorporate library services and
resources into course-integrated
instruction
 Assess Outcome 3: How do our
tech infrastructure & services
serve student equity?
Underserved Populations
 Group study usage: Basic Skills low
representation
 Focus on Basic Skills, ESL classes
for course-integrated instruction
 Group study assessment: moving
beyond discipline-based
reporting
 Outreach to Foster/Kinship, etc. to
inform of opportunity
 Assess Outcome 1: how do our
instruction context address
diverse learners?