Library assessment conference lac 2010 report 12 16 2010


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

No notes for slide

Library assessment conference lac 2010 report 12 16 2010

  1. 1. Library Assessment Conference LAC 2010 Report<br /><br />Elizabeth Brown<br />Ronnie Goldberg<br />Binghamton University Libraries<br />December 16, 2010<br />
  2. 2. Conference Tracks<br />Organizational Performance (4) Ronnie<br />Value and Impact (3) Beth <br />Library Space (2) Ronnie<br />Teaching and Learning (2) Beth <br />Assessment in Practice Beth<br />Collections Beth<br />Information Services Ronnie<br />Marketing and Advocacy Ronnie<br />Research in Progress Beth<br />Qualitative<br />Data and Libraries<br />Digital Libraries<br />Service Quality (LibQUAL®)<br />Usability <br /><br />
  3. 3. Plenary Sessions<br />Fred HeathLibrary Assessment: The Way We Have GrownKeynote paper<br />Megan Oakleaf on Learning Outcomes and the LibraryAre They Learning? Are We? Learning Outcomes & the Academic LibraryDanutaNitecki on Assessment of Library SpacesSpace Assessment as a Venue for Defining the Academic LibraryKeynote Papers<br />Stephen Town on Value and ImpactValue, Impact and the Transcendent Library: Progress and Pressures in Performance Measurement and EvaluationJoe Matthews on Performance Measures & Balanced ScorecardAssessing Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of FrameworksKeynote papers<br />David Shulenburger, Association of Public and Land-grant UniversitiesThe Relationship Between University Assessment and Library Assessment<br />
  4. 4. Thoughts and Impressions<br />Everyone is emphasizing different areas of library practice and service<br />Level of engagement and commitment varies <br />All talks focused on areas similar to our assessment activities<br />Instruction/Collections/Library Services/Use of Library Spaces<br />Less emphasis on campus assessment activities and collaboration<br />
  5. 5. Organizational Performance<br />Measurement Tools and Techniques<br />Library scorecards<br />Performance model that ties strategy to performance in the areas of finance, learning & growth, customers and internal processes<br />Goals of this tool: Improve alignment between strategic goals & assessment, create a culture of assessment, be more responsive to change, link data gathered to strategy<br />Balanced scorecard - ARL initiative: Johns Hopkins, McMaster, University of Virginia, University of Washington – a work in progress<br />
  6. 6. Organizational Performance<br />Measurement Tools and Techniques (cont.)<br />Blended Scorecard – attempt by University of Minnesota Health Science Libraries <br />MISO Survey<br />Web-based, quantitative survey. Gathers input from faculty, staff & students about the importance, use of and satisfaction with campus library and computing services<br />Used by small liberal arts colleges: Haverford, Earlham, Brandeis, University of Richmond, Bryn Mawr<br />
  7. 7. Organizational Performance<br />Measuring effects of organizational change<br />Annual staff survey<br />Assess performance outcomes of strategic plan goals <br />University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center<br />
  8. 8. Value and Impact<br />Using LIBQual data to measure access to online collections and meeting faculty research expectations (Columbia)<br />Create equivalent service expectations for online and print content <br />UK report on the Value of Libraries (UK RIN)<br />measure library costs vs. impact on the university<br />ROI on Journal Use and Cost (U Tennessee)<br />How are faculty getting to sources?<br />
  9. 9. Value and Impact<br />Measuring usage, outreach, intensity of use for special collections materials (U Michigan)<br />Measuring use of licensed content with MINES (York U)<br />Summary of ACRL Assessment Activities<br />Literature review of academic library impact on teaching and learning (U Tennessee)<br />MetriDoc infrastructure for collaborative assessment (UPenn)<br />
  10. 10. Library Space<br />Assessing the use of library space<br />Types of spaces: stacks, study, information/learning commons<br />Institutions: Georgia Tech, Buffalo State College, University of Virginia<br />Methodologies: surveys (including Lib QUAL), focus groups, head counts, gate counts, sweep counts, observations<br />Conclusions: students prefer new areas, well-lighted spaces & flexible spaces, group areas<br />
  11. 11. Library Space<br />Some thoughts<br />Need to measure the impact of library space on learning<br />For group study – difference between sitting together and working together<br />Focus of traditional learning/information commons is the undergraduate; graduate commons is also needed – different services<br />
  12. 12. Teaching and Learning<br />Information Literacy practice emphasized (UNCG, Loyola Marymount U, St. Mary’s College)<br />Speakers discussed development of:<br />Rubrics for assessment<br />Course outcomes:search strategies, distinguishing resources, using citation styles correctly<br />Quantifiable benchmarks for library instruction: class/section/program/curricula<br />
  13. 13. Assessment in Practice<br />Telling the Library’s Story by:<br />Using the university IR to store assessment data (UBC)<br />Creating a User Studies Initiative to learn more about student research habits (Duke U)<br />Forming a library assessment committee emphasizing student learning, user services, building facilities (U Richmond)<br />
  14. 14. Collections<br />Access to electronic content with link resolver logs (OHSU)<br />Creating user profiles from circulation data (Cornell)<br />Consortial collection analysis using YBP’s GOBI database(UMass-Amherst)<br />
  15. 15. Information Services<br />Three case studies<br />University of Utah – analysis of reference statistics to evaluate expertise necessary for in-house and online service points<br />Iowa State University – assessment of instant messaging services<br />Royal School of Library and Information Science (Denmark) – explore changes in renewals and ILL – both have grown attributed to technological changes; growth of ILL results from increase in renewals<br />
  16. 16. Marketing and Advocacy<br />Studies<br />Marketing electronic resources – advocates for use of formal marketing plan <br />Need for use of strategy by the library assessment community to promote best research and data analysis practices<br />
  17. 17. Research in Progress<br />Becoming a process-focused library: emphasize high level processes (Emory)<br />Developing Library Value Indicators for specific disciplines (UNLV)<br />Assessing Interdisciplinary Collections (U Alberta)<br />Assessing job ads and position descriptions for assessment skills (Syracuse/Illinois)<br />
  18. 18. Next Steps/Recommendations<br />Form a Libraries’ Assessment Team<br />Make assessment activity documentation availablewith aweb page/intranet resources for library and campus staff<br />Eliminate unnecessary activities and data gathering among units <br />Determine if there are additional assessment needs/activities <br />