1 / 24

Karen Jensen Collection Development Officer karen.jensen@uaf.edu Anne Christie BioSciences Librarian anne.christie@uaf.e

Under New Management : Developing a Library Assessment Program at a Small Public University Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment Seattle, WA: Aug. 4-6, 2008. Karen Jensen Collection Development Officer karen.jensen@uaf.edu Anne Christie

chanel
Download Presentation

Karen Jensen Collection Development Officer karen.jensen@uaf.edu Anne Christie BioSciences Librarian anne.christie@uaf.e

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Under New Management : Developing a Library Assessment Program at a Small Public UniversityLibrary Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical AssessmentSeattle, WA: Aug. 4-6, 2008

  2. Karen Jensen Collection Development Officer • karen.jensen@uaf.edu Anne Christie BioSciences Librarian • anne.christie@uaf.edu

  3. Contents • Overview of UAF • Planning an assessment program • Why, what, who and how • User surveys • Planning, marketing, implementing, results • Action items • Recommendations for user surveys

  4. University of Alaska Fairbanks

  5. UAF Librarieshttp://library.uaf.edu • 65 library employees, including 13 librarians • $2,110,000 materials budget • Specialties: Alaska and Polar Regions collections • Unique content products: • Alaska Digital Archives • Alaska and Polar Periodical Index • Project Jukebox • Wenger Eskimo Database • Library Science 101 required for all undergraduates

  6. Planning a new assessment program – why? • New library and university leadership • Change in library service methods • Need for fresh, relevant user and collection data • Goal of aligning spending and staffing with priorities • Timing • Budget picture changing • New University of Alaska Fairbanks Strategic Plan • Last library-wide strategic plan: 2001 • Last comprehensive patron survey: 1995 • Need for new library plan and data to guide it

  7. Planning a new assessment program – what? Data-centered decisions – exploring ways of gathering and using data More measurable outcomes Need for “performance measures” to satisfy funders

  8. Library Assessment: Data-Centered Decision-Making

  9. Building the assessment program: who and how? • Library Assessment Task Force Librarians from: • Collection development and patron services • Library science instruction • Reference • Outreach • Taskforce charge: gather user feedback • Method: meetings, tasks, library wiki

  10. Building the assessment program: who and how? (2) • Constraints • Minimal funding for survey research • No additional staffing for survey administration and analysis

  11. Planning the survey • Content • Campus-wide surveys of faculty and students • Survey topics • Logistics • Easy to distribute • Easy for users to respond • Easy to analyze • Easy to repeat • Timeline short

  12. Choosing a survey Choosing a survey instrument • University of Washington Libraries Assessment: Field tested • Choosing a survey tool • Past success with online survey response using incentives • “Survey Monkey”

  13. Preparing the survey • Timeline • Question adaptation • Question scoring • Testing • IRB • Budget

  14. Getting the word out • Encouraging participation • University administration, including Provost, Deans, Directors • Faculty Senate • Graduate School • S tudent government association • Advertising • Incentive prizes

  15. Implementing the survey • Email distribution via Computing Dept listservs • Web page links • Response rates • Faculty – 25% (243/943) • Grad students – 19% (143/750) • Undergrads – 8% (431/5086)

  16. Compiling results - library • Aggregate results posted to library web page and staff wiki • Comments distributed to service areas: Interlibrary Loan, Circulation, Media, Reference • Comments for collection managers, Library Science head, analyzed to create action items • Detail results possible, need for patron privacy

  17. Communicating results to campus • Summary reports for specific administration and governance groups • Research Working Group • Graduate School • Provost • Deans and Directors • Student Leadership • Faculty Governance Group- Faculty Senate • Summaries posted to web site • Promotion for Fall, 2008 – Student newspaper ads, staff newsletter, etc.

  18. Analyzing results • Analysis • Further analysis needed • Follow-up with non-participants needed • Surprises • Key findings

  19. Selecting action items • Number of responses • Time and effort • Library control

  20. Taking action • Collection development • Electronic content • Specific subjects • Service-related issues • Library space • Strategic plan - Reference review - LS101 - Institutional repository

  21. Looking to the future • Revising survey • Refining distribution methods • Reassessing our marketing strategy • Analyzing results • Managing the surveys

  22. Starting an assessment program: recommendations • Consider purpose • Assess local funding, expertise, time • Research survey tools • Examine campus communication options • Get buy-in and input from all library staff • Plan, plan, plan

  23. Thank you.Questions?

More Related