Download to read offline
Uploaded byUCD Library
On the shelf in time : developing a strategy to improve reading list support. Authors: Lorna Dodd, Hugh Murphy
This document discusses strategies to improve support for reading lists at University College Dublin. It outlines traditional problems with supporting reading lists, as well as new challenges. In 2009, changes were implemented including a targeted reading list fund, new submission deadlines and procedures, and centralized ordering. A 2010 review found the changes were successful, processing 15% of offered modules, but recommended further revisions to forms, guidelines, and statistics tracking. The conclusion is that continual review and transparency are needed to support reading lists in the evolving university context.
More Related Content
Similar to On the shelf in time : developing a strategy to improve reading list support. Authors: Lorna Dodd, Hugh Murphy
On the shelf in time : developing a strategy to improve reading list support. Authors: Lorna Dodd, Hugh Murphy
- 1. On the shelf,in time Developing a strategy to improve reading list support Lorna Dodd Hugh Murphy Liaison Librarian, Deputy Head, Academic Services, Information Resources Management University College Dublin, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland Ireland Lorna.dodd@ucd.ie , Hugh.Murphy@ucd.ie
- 2. Even in 2010, ReadingLists remain invaluable – for academic, student and librarian
- 3. Reading List Support • Traditional problems • New problems & solutions • Changes – 2009 • Review - 2010 • Recommendations • Conclusion
- 5. Traditional Problems -Academic Services • Complexity of University administration • Getting the lists – communication with academics • Access to VLE • Legacy of individual practice – in Schools, in library – sites, departments etc. • Difficult to identify number of reading lists received • Interdisciplinary nature of university teaching
- 6. Traditional problems -Technical Services • Reading list items not tackled as ‘priority’ orders • No distinction between Semester 1 and Semester 2 orders. • Reading List items don’t get to shelf more quickly • Consequences of academic services issues • Lack of transparency • Duplication of work
- 7. Number one driverfor current change
- 8. New Problems • Morebooks needed, but less money • Need for centrally organised system/business plan • Lack of clearly articulated University wide policy
- 9. Solution..? • Creation ofTargeted Reading List Fund • Submission form for each reading list • Specific deadlines for submission • New work procedures for both Academic & Technical Services • Available money strictly tied into Reading Lists items
- 10. APPLICATION FORM FORTARGETED FUNDS FOR READING LISTS 2009-10 Part 1 Module and Lecturer Details Complete as many fields as possible. Fields with an * are mandatory. Incomplete forms will be returned, causing a delay in purchase. School Name* Module name Module code* Lecturer’s name* Lecturer’s contact details* Module co-ordinator’s name (e-mail, extension or other phone number) (where known) Year/Level* Programme Name Expected nos. of students* Semester/s taught in* Postgraduate course (Please tick relevant option) 1 2 Both (please tick)
- 11. TARGETED FUND FORREADING LISTS 2009-10 •All requests for new resources on your 2009/2010 reading lists MUST be entered on this application form. •If you already have a reading list prepared, please attach it when returning this application form. •To ensure that the material is ordered and invoiced in this financial year, these forms must be returned by the 22nd May 2009. Due to budgetary constraints, where forms are received after 22 nd May we cannot guarantee the material will be purchased. Part 2. Book Details Please list by category, and in order of priority. Note: It may not be possible to purchase all materials 1. Mandatory Textbook – refers to a textbook formally proposed to the students as the one you would recommend for purchase if possible. i.e. core reading for the module Author Title Year Publisher ISBN For Office use only 1 2 3 4 5
- 12. 2. Essential Reading– refers to more specialized reading on top of any mandatory textbooks that you regard as fundamental for adequate study of the module Author Title Year Publisher ISBN For Office use only 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- 13. 3. Additional backgroundreading – refers to books which amplify the scope and depth of the course but are not required reading Author Title Year Publisher ISBN For Office use only 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- 14. Changes in 2009 Academic Services • Change in work practices for support staff and Liaison Librarians • Traceability create new order form each school has one targeted fund solely for Reading List • Amount allocated = total cost of orders requested by School Academics. Move away from FTE model
- 15. Changes in 2009 Technical Services Acquisitions Cataloguing • Ring fenced funds – • Priority given to no wiggle room! Reading Lists • Bulk ordering • Enhanced communication with • Online ordering Academic Services (Humanities and Social Sciences) • Continued use of shelf-ready process • Everyone becomes an accountant!! • No change in level of Priority given to resource description • Reading List Targeted Funds
- 16. Review 2010 • Identify exact amount • More centralised spent on reading lists approach material • Enhanced • Online ordering communication with academic community • Prioritisation Need more consistency Semester 1 & 2 • Statistics • Deadline for academics 15% of 4997 offered • Ordering– one library one modules system Accurate record Form Process
- 17. Total Total Reading Modules Lists Offered Received Arts & Celtic Studies 213 980 22% Business & Law 117 1089 11% Engineering, Mathematical & Physical Sciences 90 770 12% Human Sciences 207 849 24% Life Sciences 16% TOTAL 766 4997 15%
- 18.
- 19. Report 2010 Recommended Changes • Revised Targeted Reading List order form Online web form • Timelines • Guidelines for Liaison Librarians How to target academic community Number of copies, collections etc. • More changes to fund management • Online ordering • Strict statistical record keeping for future reviews • Continual Review
- 20. Conclusions • Wider universitycontext VLE, Registry etc., student demands • Enhanced Transparency / Accountability via Annual Reporting • Some changes developmental (which we would have probably made anyway) • Some changes due to changed economic circumstances • Origin of change not important – changes themselves very successful. • Highlighted areas ripe for reform. • More work to do, for liaison staff and technical staff • More efficient, more transparent
- 22. What if we are100% successful?... … …and get 4997 reading lists!!!!