Assessment Community of Practice Focus: Faculty Survey on Undergraduate Instruction

Posted on October 25, 2017 by Nancy Turner

Last week’s Assessment Community of Practice meeting focused on findings from the Ithaka S+R faculty survey, particularly those related to Undergraduate Instruction. Twelve librarians participated and we were lucky to be joined research project team members  (Rebecca Lloyd, Annie Johnson, Fred Rowland and Kristina De Voe). The full summary report is linked here:  Ithaka Survey Undergraduate Instruction_Final

Finding: A high percentage of faculty (72%) show video and their classroom and almost half (47%) assign the creation audiovisual or digital media projects.

Multimedia is used a good deal in classrooms, and increasingly, student assignments include a multimedia component. This finding prompts some further questions:

  • How do instructors find out about media offerings at the Libraries? Are they included in regular notifications of new library materials? 
  • Is it easy for instructors to embed library-licensed video or other media into course management systems? As easy as incorporating YouTube?
  • Do we, as librarians, need to be more savvy about the kinds of functionality available for use of multimedia in the classroom? Copyright restrictions? Technical barriers? 

Students are also required to create  “multimedia” projects as part of their course work.

  • What do these “audiovisual or digital media projects” look like? Are they Powerpoint presentations or podcasts?
  • Does the library provide sufficient support (technology-equipped spaces and services) for students working on these projects?
  • Do we have the information we need to make appropriate referrals to other services on campus that do provide support, and how might we partner with them?
  • What kinds of services and support will there be in the new library building for students as they develop digital technology projects? 

Finding: Materials that are openly available on the web are of interest for course content. 79% of faculty often or occasionally “give preference to assigning course text or materials that are freely available”.

This is a finding of real interest to the Libraries as we promote Open Educational Resources.

  • How do faculty understand “freely available”? Might this mean YouTube videos, or open access scholarly journals?
  • Are faculty aware of the Library’s Textbook Affordability Project?
  • How should we encourage faculty to use librarians help them locate quality resources for use in their courses?

Finding: A good percentage (50%) of faculty are strongly positive about the adoption of “new pedagogies or instructional approaches that take advantage of opportunities offered by digital technology.” For instructional support when introducing these new pedagogies, they rely most on their own ideas 72%, then on scholars in their personal network (52%), and then on the library (40%).

Faculty  tend to rely on their own devices when learning about new technologies to incorporate into the classroom and in spite of technology challenges in the physical classrooms,  many are interested adopting new approaches.

  • What support is currently available to faculty interested in learning about digital technologies for use in the classroom?
  • Are there technologies available to faculty through their schools that we should be aware of?
  • How might the Libraries provide more support for faculty in need of instructional support in these areas?

These Assessment Community of Practice meetings generate many good questions, and allow us to consider how research into practice can be challenging.  Surveys, no matter how well designed, do not always lead to clear answers or implications for library services. Did the respondent understand the question and the way that we, as survey designers, meant it?   How do we best write up our findings in a compelling, yet neutral and balanced way? As the research team can attest to, turning raw numbers into a meaningful and compelling story took hard work and a willingness to creatively translate findings into  action steps.

 

 

Posted in instruction and student learning, surveys | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Communities of Practice: People, Spaces, Services

Posted on September 26, 2017 by Nancy Turner

Last Wednesday 20+ library staff members came together to talk and learn about usability testing conducted here at Temple University Libraries. This discussion, part of our Assessment Community of Practice,  covered a range of topics, from how usability testing is defined,  how it is being used, what kinds of data we collect from this method,  particular challenges, and changes made based on the assessment.  The Community of Practice conversations facilitate us learning from one another, and also model the process of research leading to real changes in how we do library work. Assessment isn’t just evaluative – it leads to action, and new questions.

For me, the meeting fell on the heels the Designing Libraries conference held at the Hunt Library on the campus of North Carolina State University. The building is designed by Snohetta, and it was thrilling to see how the space and services come together to inspire and facilitate all kinds of work – I watched a student in the Hill Library makerspace designing and building an engine with a 3-D printer, and other students deep into reading while ensconced in some very colorful furniture.

Community of practice, to me, connotes mutual learning, shared values, and the sense of engagement and participation between members that is supportive and non-hierarchical. So can spaces foster a community of practice?  There were many examples at NC State — makerspaces, virtual reality labs, digital scholarship centers and music rooms, all serve  to bring people together for scholarly work that is creative, innovative, and often interdisciplinary.

Lauren Di Monte (Data and Research Impact Librarian, University of Rochester) spoke of using programming to discover user needs, and using programming to drive the development of spaces. Versatile spaces allow for multiple uses, from study to exhibition space to presentation space. She suggests that people are drawn to spaces where something is going on, even when they just want to study.

Jane Alexander (Chief Information/Digital Officer at the Cleveland Museum of Art) provided vivid examples of how digital and physical objects create engagement and community as users are encouraged to experience art in new ways. An example is Gallery One , a 40-foot interactive MicroTile wall that displays over 4000 images of the collections, and users can organize these in multiple ways. (I’m trying to think how we could use this technology for browsing books!)

The conference generated lots of talk of intersections and boundaries, and how we mix pedagogy with fun, how we engage users with the physical through digital, interactive experiences. Spaces, technologies, and services can foster this community.  But ultimately, it is the people who share a sense of purpose that move these innovative programs forward.

Hunt Library, NC State University

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in conference reports, organization culture and assessment, usability | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

It’s All About Continuous Improvement

Posted on September 14, 2017 by Nancy Turner

Developing an organization-wide culture of assessment is a slow, incremental process. I  get frustrated by this fact at times, particularly when I imagine a perfect world of systematic, routine plans put into place for assessing and demonstrating the value of all we do here in the library and press – supporting faculty, students, and community. But there is more going on at Temple than first meets the eye; examples of assessment and program evaluation that taken together,  are pushing us towards a culture of continuous improvement.

For example, we’ve been using a paper form for collecting feedback on our public programs for years. This week I met with Kaitlyn Semborski, Sara Wilson and Steven Bell to discuss other ways of gathering feedback – creating an online form and tweaking our questions to get a better sense of how well the programs meet the needs of our many patron types – from students to friends in the community.  We talked of “tracking back” via email with instructors who send their students to these programs to get feedback on the effectiveness of the programs for their curricular needs.  This will be essential information as we shape the programs going forward.

I met with Ginsburg Instruction Librarian Natalie Tagge last week to brainstorm the assessment of instruction provided to first year medical students. The information literacy component utilizes flipped classroom, video, and a pre-test, and the Dean was enthusiastic about last year’s efforts. This year Natalie intends to build on that success by using a rubric to evaluate student presentations as students (we hope) demonstrate their grasp of the material. It’s a good method because it allows us to assess learning outcomes in an unobtrusive way, placing no undue burdens on the faculty or students.

RIS librarians are also having conversations about more systematically documenting the work they do with instruction and research consultations. Tracking back to faculty, recording repeat customers, insuring that we have more detailed information about research consultations. We know that numbers do not tell the whole story. Anne Harlow points out that real “effectiveness” is when students are able to locate quality information on their own, without intervention of library staff. This means that we may be supporting students even more, yet our transaction numbers may go down. But engaging in the conversation about meaningful metrics is a good start.

A final example. At Temple we collaborate across departments in many ways – planning the orientation of student workers for public services desks is no exception. Staff from Access & Media Services, Library Administration, Reference & Instruction, Library Technology Services, coordinated by Katerina Montaniel, worked hard to organize this year’s orientation. The effort was strengthened even more by the inclusion of 3 students in the planning. As it turned out, the student-produced video providing “tips” for working a desk was a highlight – it was informative, clever and funny. Another change to orientation this year was a simple assessment, an evaluation form entitled: “Please Help Us Continue to Improve”. On a scale of 1-5 (5 is the best), 30 students weighed in – with an average score of 4.48. Well done!

Including students in the planning of the orientation made a huge difference in developing a sound, but also fun, training session for our student workers. What else did we learn? Many students didn’t realize they have ready access to a panic button when they are working a public desk. Important information. And going forward, staff will know even more about what topics to emphasize to engage student workers in the essential aspects of work on the public service desks.

So although much of the work of assessment goes under the radar, it’s actually happening in a big way. Even more importantly, a growing number of staff members, from throughout the organization, are thinking about assessment and engaging in the process. Thanks for letting me brag about it!

Posted in organization culture and assessment | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Meet Mary Marissen: Swarthmore’s Emerging Library Assessment Professional

Posted on August 29, 2017 by Nancy Turner

The lovely McCabe Library at Swarthmore College

This summer, on a sweltering July morning, I had a Saxby’s coffee with Mary Marissen, librarian at Swarthmore College. She’s taking on some new roles in assessment at the library and we met to talk about emerging trends in this area. The “interview” below is based on our conversation, and pursuant email exchanges. It runs the gamut from overcoming resistance from faculty regarding “assessment”, to connecting initiatives to the strategic planning process.

NBT: How did you come to take on your new role of assessment?

I have been working in libraries as a paraprofessional for a number of years, first in the Boston area, and then at Swarthmore, starting in 2002. I eventually began working toward an LIS degree and graduated from the Drexel iSchool in 2012 while continuing to work in the technical services department in McCabe Library at Swarthmore.

In the summer of 2014, I was offered the opportunity to work on the first user experience research at Swarthmore for our online catalog, Tripod. I found myself really interested in and engaged with user research and I’ve become a bit of a proselytizer here ever since then. My work on the project helped launch me to a professional position and assessment was added to my new title and responsibilities.

NBT: Did you bring any special background, or education, to this – or is it an ongoing interest?

In a word, no. But responsibility for user research and assessment seem often to go together in professional responsibilities elsewhere and so it made sense when applying for the promotion to put them together. Swarthmore has always done assessment, but I began to take a more active role and have become the convener for our standing committee.

One of the many wonderful things about Swarthmore is the deep level of support for professional development. I’ve taken the six courses required for the certificate in UX from the Library Juice Academy and I’m currently enrolled in an excellent LITA course on Contextual Inquiry. I’ve received support to attend the Design 4 Digital conference for Library UX professionals and also the Library Assessment Conference in Washington last fall. I’m grateful for the time I’m provided for learning and thinking in addition to the expectations there are for planning and doing.

I think it’s fair to say that there is some faculty resistance to the word assessment here, so one of my interests is in how to begin to shift the perception from assessment being an imposed compliance responsibility to an appreciation for understanding and value — learning from meaningful assessments and making productive changes as a result.

NBT: How is the work of assessment organized at Swarthmore? Do you have a committee, or is it just you?

Swarthmore has had a standing Assessment Committee for a long while. When I began to take responsibility, I had the benefit of an excellent strategic plan already in place to provide a framework and orientation for what to do. Although that planning cycle is coming to a close, it has provided a great template for informing new work.

As someone who has taken on assessment or user experience studies as a new part of their job scope, how do you prioritize your work?

This has been one of my biggest challenges and steepest learning curve! I moved from very task oriented library work — highly detailed and interesting– but task oriented. I knew at the end of the day exactly what I had accomplished and what I should begin working on the next day. This is an entirely different world for me, albeit a more interesting one, in which there are big-idea projects I need to approach, involving much more thinking and strategic planning. I love that, but I sometimes struggle with setting priorities for myself. I’ve tried different organizational tools, Trello, a simple calendar, a bullet journal. None of these are magic. I’d love to hear how others answer this question!

NBT: What are the advantages of doing assessment at a small college?

I love working at a small college because I know everybody and can reach out to almost anyone for help or to talk through an idea. We’re a relatively flat organization and people are usually very willing to cross traditional departmental lines to work together on projects of interest. There is a lot of flexibility here as a result and it’s great.

NBT: Are there particular challenges?

I suppose the advantage of knowing everyone can also be disadvantageous. Many of us have been here a long while, and despite the flexibility, we may bump into some preconceived notions of what work ought to be done and by whom. But we’re lucky to be incredibly well resourced and supported. It’s difficult to think of disadvantages.

NBT: You’ve mentioned a couple of times how the strategic planning process connects up with assessment. Could you expand on that?

Swarthmore Library’s strategic plan was largely shepherded by a good strategic thinker at Swarthmore, Kate Carter, the Head of Digital Initiatives and Strategies. She pulled a team together with the Assessment Committee at the time. The plan was substantive and aspirational. I think the goals they identified are timeless in nature. In fact, we could probably just keep them all and substitute newer objectives and different approaches that continue to guide us and keep us current.

After looking back at the plan cycle coming to an end, we realized that there is a tension between the aspirational nature of it and finding ways to actually accomplish the things that are in it. We were getting bogged down keeping track of things and almost making things up, by simply doing some things and then going back to look for how they might fit the plan instead of the other way around, having the plan guide what we do. So we started to think of something shorter and more accomplish-able. We also consciously tied it to the priorities of Swarthmore College for the first time. This was made easier by the College also identifying three strategic areas for planning. But now that we’re finishing up work on the plan, I wonder if we are setting the bar high enough. I think so? But I’m not positive.

NBT: What are you most looking forward to in your new role?

I’m eager to launch our new strategic plan. The conversations we’ve had to identify priorities and articulate goals has been inspiring. I’ve also received approval to hire some student user experience workers beginning in the fall, and I’m really excited about training them, getting them to work and implementing changes as a result.

On that positive note – we’ll wrap up. Thanks very much for being so open with sharing your thoughts on assessment and planning. Good luck, and I’ll look forward to talking with you again next year.

 

 

Posted in organization culture and assessment | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Assessment & Analytics Community of Practice “Kick Off” : A Recap

Posted on August 17, 2017 by Nancy Turner

Yesterday here at Temple University Libraries we kicked off a new approach to developing our culture of assessment, an Assessment & Analytics Community of Practice discussion to which all staff were invited.

The Kick Off  focused on two recent research projects conducted here: a qualitative interview project with religious studies faculty and the Ithaka S+R /Temple faculty survey. What I want to facilitate at these sessions is the opportunity for staff to think together about how we connect user research to strategic library practice. To that end, I asked the Ithaka Research Team members to consider these questions, provided here with some key points:

In terms of the work you do with faculty, what was the most significant finding?

  • Faculty (religious studies) are using social media to create informal communities to a greater extent than we thought. Many use Twitter to keep up with other researchers in their field.
  • Faculty are incredibly busy.
  • While faculty do want a wide audience for their scholarship, they perceive “open access” as less targeted than publication in more traditional vehicles.

In understanding faculty work practice, and how the library can support that, what were the particular benefits of the research method? What was problematic?

Interviews

  • Interviews provide robust data and good “story-telling” potential.
  • Processing that data take time; we were fortunate in having our audio interviews professionally transcribed.
  • Yet even with a small sample (12) we were able to discern themes.
  • In the end, a narrative actually was easier to write with the qualitative data compared to the quantitative.

Survey

  • Surveys are hard to design. While they provide a way of gathering from a broad group, the question format can be limiting, and we never know if respondents understand the question in the same way.
  • We worried about skewed results, i.e. respondents were mostly faculty who like and want to support the library.
  • Survey data takes time to analyze. We spent lots of time massaging the numbers, and it was not easy to turn those numbers into a good (and even-handed) narrative.
  • That said, the “hard numbers” may be more usable for “talking points” and advocating for the library’s value to the University, particularly as we compare our results with other research institutions.

In using the findings to consider next steps (actions, not additional research), provide an example. Connect something you learned to something you will do.

  • Services like document delivery to faculty offices are important as they save the time of scholars.
  • There is plenty of room for educational outreach. Areas like open access, open educational resources, institutional repositories  are not commonly understood. There is also room for educating faculty about how we can support their needs in scholarly communication, e.g. negotiating a license with a publisher
  • Providing liaison librarians with “talking points” related to survey findings would be helpful, particularly those that point to the librarians’ value towards improving student critical thinking and research skills.
  • There are implications here related to collection development as well, particularly as we see the extent to which faculty use media in their classrooms and assign media-related assignments to students.

Some thoughts in general:

No method provides ready “next steps” for action. And much of what we learned was not surprising, nor “ground-breaking”. Our faculty are, for the most part, like faculty at other research institutions. So it behooves us to pay attention to the literature – to other research. An example was the recent Ithaka S+R report on Rethinking Library Liaison Programs for the Humanities, and its insights into changing paths for library work with faculty.

Next steps:

We had a great turnout yesterday, with staff from Health Sciences, Research & Instruction, Outreach & Communications, Access & Media Services, Special Collections Research Center, Administration, Library Technology, Scholarly Communication, and Digital Library Initiatives.

We’re already planning the next few months’ session – there is lots to talk about and lots of interest in assessment activity – usability and undergraduate education are upcoming topics, as well as a working group for Alma Analytics skills-sharing.

Thanks especially to members of the Ithaka Research teams : Rebecca Lloyd, Justin Hill, Kristina DeVoe, Annie Johnson, and Lauri Fennell for sharing their thoughts to make this first program a success. (And Fred Rowland, present in spirit)

Posted in organization culture and assessment, qualitative research | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Improving our Understanding of Faculty Work: Two Research Projects

Posted on August 15, 2017 by Nancy Turner

Over the last couple of years, Temple librarians have engaged in two significant research projects with potential for informing our work with faculty. This week’s kickoff for the Libraries/Press Assessment Community of Practice provides an opportunity to discuss these projects with members of the research team, focusing on how assessment research can be turned into strategic “next steps”.

This post excerpts highlights from the summary research reports and I hope, provides a “teaser” for Wednesday’s session, when we’ll focus our attention on methods and implications for the research. That session is scheduled for Wednesday, August 16 at 3:00 in the Paley Lecture Hall. All are welcome to attend!

Religious Studies Scholarship at Temple
In October 2015 Temple University Libraries joined 40 other libraries to explore the research practices of faculty in religious studies. Coordinated by Ithaka S+R, the project sought to understand the resources and services these scholars need to be productive and successful in their research. Here at Temple, we conducted 12 in-depth interviews. Members of the team included Fred Rowland, Justin Hill and Rebecca Lloyd. This “ethnographic” method of listening to faculty, offered us new and different insights into the perceptions of our users. It deepened our understanding of the many challenges scholars face in conducting research and establishing a secure place in the academic world. Some takeaways:

• The Temple University Libraries and academic libraries in general are strong advocates and supporters of open access publishing. However, librarians need to be sensitive to the institutional pressures that faculty face in the areas of tenure, promotion, and merit-based pay increases. The current academic reward system prioritizes selecting a publisher based on prestige and frequently on the speed of publication. In contrast to the sciences and social sciences, concerns about metrics related to citation count or social media impact were less evident in faculty decision-making. Selecting the correct target audience is very important.

• One inference we draw from our interviews is that faculty perceive open access publications as offering no meaningfully defined audience. It is easy to imagine the open web as a vast ocean of undifferentiated content. Traditional publishing serves as a locus of attention, a node on a network, in which a definable audience can be imagined. This is an area where education may come into play. As our outreach efforts foster a greater awareness of the open access institutional structures that promote discoverability and coherent research communities these options may become more attractive.

Faculty Survey
In the Fall of 2016 we also conducted a localized version of the national Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey , deployed to 3,678 faculty members with a response rate of 15% (548 responses). In many ways our survey overlapped with the content areas of the interviews, with questions related to scholarly communication and publication practices and attitudes towards open access in addition to perceptions of student research skills and undergraduate instruction practice. Members of the analysis team included: Fred Rowland, Kristina DeVoe, Rebecca Lloyd, Annie Johnson and Lauri Fennell.

Key Survey Findings
• 80% of faculty strongly agree in the importance of the library as it helps undergraduates develop research, critical analysis and information literacy skills. This figure is 10% higher than other research institutions responding to the national survey. Over half of faculty strongly believe that undergraduate students have poor skills related to locating and evaluating scholarly information, although improving those research skills is very important to the majority (70%).

• The roles librarians play are also highly valued. Less than 12% of faculty believe that “with easy access to academic content online”, the role of librarians at Temple University is less important.

• 90% of faculty respondents strongly agree that it is important the library pays for materials they need for their research and teaching. And while the library’s collections are still of prime importance for faculty research and teaching (89%), 71% are supplementing this with freely available online resources.

• Over 80% prefer the print format of a scholarly monograph for reading in depth. A smaller majority (65%) prefer the digital format for searching. This preference of format is significantly different for journals. Most faculty (70%) are “completely comfortable” with the cancellation of a print journal if the electronic format is available.

• And of interest as we consider our own institutional repository, more Temple faculty say that in the past five years they have shared their research via a preprint (65%) than via a blog post or social media post (50%). In addition, a majority (72%) of faculty support mandatory publicly funded research be made freely available online.

• 46% of Temple faculty respondents have received or are receiving government or other external funding for their research. This is of interest for our library in planning research data management services, when federal funding typically requires a plan for making research data more openly accessible. 83% of faculty report storing their research data on their local computer.

Final Thoughts on Survey
The survey data provides us with a head start in understanding faculty needs, as well as potential “gaps” in their awareness of library services related to open access, data management, as well as our rich multimedia collections. But a survey like this does not provide us with specifics or clear cut future directions. For those insights and ideas, we will continue to rely on our close relationships with faculty and understanding of changing work practice. While the survey provides us with a broad view across all disciplines, the survey method must be mixed with a more in-depth, nuanced, qualitative approach to understanding the research and teaching practices of our users.

Posted in qualitative research, surveys | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Library Assessment Repository Project

Posted on July 26, 2017 by Nancy Turner

Over the last several years, the American Library Association’s LLAMA (Library Leadership & Management Association) Assessment Community of Practice has been exploring community interest in a repository for library assessment resources. The repository would provide open access to survey instruments, case studies, raw data – providing the community with a single space for locating and sharing materials.

This spring I conducted a survey on behalf of LLAMA to gauge interest –  379 responses.The majority, 86.8% (n=329) of respondents were from academic libraries, and 7.7% from public.

I spent much of my ALA conference in June reporting on the survey findings, but I think they are of general interest and worth relating here as well. Particularly because some of the issues and concerns raised might apply to establishing other types of open access repositories – whether institutional or disciplinary.

The survey was short – just 11 questions. This may be a reason we received lots of comments from librarians who wanted to tell us even more!

Question: Please indicate how likely you would be to use these types of resources if they were part of a freely available online Library Assessment Repository:

By a large margin, the types of resource most likely to be used are assessment instruments (surveys, questionnaires, rubrics). Least likely to be used are raw data.  Raw data was also least likely to be deposited.

Scale Green=High; Red =Low

Question: What factors would contribute to your willingness to use these resources?

Prospective users are looking for quality resources that are relevant to their immediate research need. Out of 272 free-text comments, themes included:  quality, relevance to the work, peer-review, ease of access and free availability, robust search functionality, metadata and overall organization of the resources.

Question: How likely would you be to deposit the following types of materials?

Survey responses indicate somewhat less likelihood of deposit of assessment resources than the likelihood of use.  264 respondents would be likely or most likely to deposit assessment instruments.  This is highest ranking type of material for deposit, with case studies also ranking high for potential deposit.

Scale Green=High; Red =Low

Question: What factors would contribute to your willingness to share your resources?

Prospective contributors to the repository are also looking for ease of use and accessibility. Other themes from the 244 free-text comments: concerns that one’s own work would not be “worthy” of sharing, lack of permission from library administration or IRB (Institutional Review Board), and privacy concerns. There is fear that submitting raw data would result in misunderstanding or misusing it. How would that data be “framed” or annotated so that its analysis made sense?  Another concern:  “Why would I submit my work to a repository when that doesn’t count towards my tenure/promotion process?”

Next Steps:

What started as a great idea has taken on some “legs”, but has also turned into a complex project with high expectations. Our assessment community members would like lots of rich, quality, peer-reviewed content that meets their particular research needs for their particular library type. The repository must be easy to access and deposit must also be easy, yet resources must be described thoroughly with rich metadata to insure discoverability.

The need seems greatest for small libraries who may not have many opportunities for professional development. Librarians who are seeking support and information as they take on new responsibilities in assessment expressed a particular need for the resources and networking opportunities made available through a repository.

LLAMA Assessment is now looking at how best to more forward, particularly as it seeks partners for building technical infrastructure and soliciting deposits.  The survey confirmed the value and need for a repository of library assessment resources, but is just an impetus. Now the real work begins.

Note: To read the report: AssessmentRespositoryNeeds_SummaryReport

Posted in surveys | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Notes from the Field (and Lake) : ALA 2017 Chicago

Posted on July 5, 2017 by Nancy Turner

Photo: D. Lacy

This June many of us headed off to Chicago for the annual American Library Association conference. The weather was perfect – warm temperatures with great views of the sky and lake, enjoyed off hours, of course.   I asked for contributions to this post –  for colleagues to share a program that was particularly useful or provocative. I’ve excerpted from those accounts, but please do feel free to contact folks individually with questions, follow-ups.

Brian Boling reports on the session, How Are Our Instructors Truly Using Media? A Multifaceted Approach to Developing Departmental Course Media Use Profiles by Scott Spicer from University of Minnesota.  “Scott has developed a workflow for ingesting course syllabi into NVivo [a textual analysis tool] and coding the syllabi for mentions of required viewing and media production assignments.  He shares his analysis with subject liaisons with an aim towards informing their outreach to faculty – particularly important as faculty may not be aware of the rich offerings at the library (both collections and services).”

Steven Bell also reported on different ways librarians can reach out to faculty. He describes an ARL-sponsored program on changing liaison roles, Talk So Faculty Will Listen; Listen So Faculty Will Talk. “It addressed the common frustration liaisons face when it seems that faculty ignore efforts to build bridges that could lead to enhanced use of library services and resources for students and faculty. The gist of the program, and this might not come as a surprise, is that it takes more than informational email blasts and participating in orientations (good but low impact activities) to build productive relationships with faculty.” Four strategies for talking with faculty, suggested by panelists:

  • Mistakes to avoid: 1) You do most of the talking 2)Focusing on “We have a resource to solve that…” 3) Ignoring emotions/feelings
  • If these mistakes sound like you…you need to talk less and listen more. Start by developing open ended questions to engage faculty in a conversation where they do most of the talking.
  • Four enabling questions were suggested: 1) What are your challenges as a researcher and teacher? 2)How is your field changing? 3)What are the emerging areas of emphasis for the department? 4)What are your hopes for library services?
  • Be concise in messages to faculty that are informational. Emphasize time-saving and productivity aspects of resources/services.

Adam Shambaugh also cites a program on emerging roles for librarians, ALCTS’ Creating the Future of Digital Scholarship Together. “Laurie Allen spoke about the digital initiative that began at the Penn Libraries to preserve federal climate data in the wake of the 2016 presidential election. This initiative—known as Data Refuge—would eventually include librarians, preservationists, and scholars from across the country. Laurie’s presentation, showcasing a variety of emerging roles for librarians and information professionals, was one of the most interesting and insightful talks I attended at ALA this year. “

Justin Hill attended a meeting of the SHARES group to discuss interlibrary loan practices and concerns. “Among the topics discussed was the investigation of the viability of allowing on-site access to visiting scholars from member institutions.  This conversation is indicative of the types of things being explored by consortia to reinvent what’s possible within groups of like-minded institutions. Where activities within consortia has traditionally been limited to just supplying ILL to members, the discussion has now shifted to begin discussing other possibilities like on-site access, shared programming, consortial collection building activities, and group purchasing powers.”

David Lacy attended pre-conference focusing on Search Engine Optimization with the “ambitious” theme: “If someone is searching Google for something that our Library holds, it should be at the top of the list”. Dave says, “the session provided me with an abundance of ideas that we can apply to our new online environment.”

Joe Lucia  attended a session presented by Chicago YWCA Chief Executive Officer Dorrie McWhorter, [formerly a CPA and management consultant for a Big Ten accounting firm. “Her theme was ‘the business of social impact’ and her focus was on how she’s worked over the past four years to build a workplace environment for the YWCA staff that is emotionally healthy, supportive & positive. Her intention in fostering that environment is to enable people to deal with the stresses and demands involved in bringing services to women and girls who are often in situations of critical need. Much of her presentation focused on interpersonal dynamics, relationship-building, and the core perception that people who feel valued, recognized, and respected are likely to carry those traits into the field in their daily work. She talked about a commitment to self-care for her staff and the benefit of regular (weekly) check-in meetings between managers and their team members that addressed current challenges, recent successes, continuing problems, and emotional well-being. Sounds touchy-feely, of course, but she reported a fundamental change in workplace culture in the direction of continuous connection and continuous professional growth that has allowed the organization to completely eliminate performance reviews.”

That would be nice.

I asked for some “fun facts” as well. Justin gets the prize for most weird hotel, rumored  to be haunted by the ghost of Al Capone, and Dave’s meal sounds most interesting:  at Maude’s Liquor Bar,  he enjoyed “ liver pate, steak tartar, roast duck salad, and Sazarac.” Me,  I had the mixed popcorn special at the airport – half caramel and half cheese – sounds gross but it was quite good!

Thanks to everyone for contributing.

Photo: N. Turner

Posted in conference reports | Tagged | Leave a comment

Assessment for Planning: Special Collections Research Center Uses Data to Drive Location Decisions, and More

Posted on June 20, 2017 by Nancy Turner

Planning to move the Special Collections Research Center  from its current space to the new library building takes careful planning, with different challenges than the general collections. For one, there are manuscripts AND books to be stored, with collections that vary in size from a few pages to many, many boxes. Not every item is described at the same level. Much is very rare, and much is fragile. And yet, through our robust discovery systems and extensive finding aids, an item could be requested at any time.

Fortunately, the Special Collections Research Center (SCRC) staff including Jessica Lydon (a member of the Libraries’ Assessment Group), and the rest of the “Mapping the Move” team, have already started to collect and analyze data that will inform the decision making as to what materials go where.

For instance, SCRC collections will be housed the new library in two separate compact shelving installations, open shelving in the reading room, and in a dedicated aisle  within the Automated Storage Retrieval System (ASRS), as well as off-site at the library depository.  Each of these locations has strengths and challenges in terms of proximity, accessibility, access, and time to retrieval.

Jessica and the team are using reports from AEON (the SCRC registration, circulation, and tracking  system) and DB/TextWorks (the collection management database), as well as other reference and cataloging statistics to help map material to appropriate storage. A collection that is frequently used, but not too large, might  go to onsite storage. A collection that is extensive and housed in many, many boxes, may go to the depository  where contents can be searched by staff prior to delivery, or to the ASRS. Any material heading to the ASRS will need to be listed at the box level, with each box added as an item to the collection’s catalog record.

While data is useful, it also must be reviewed with a human eye to make meaningful decisions. For instance, the Albert Einstein Medical Center records received lots of use this last year, but that demand was influenced by their 150th  anniversary and planning that went into an online exhibit and a history of the center.  That collection may now be stored in a less accessible space.  The Philadelphia Special Investigation Commission (MOVE) Records receive constant use from many types of patrons (students, community, media) so this will be housed onsite.  The Science Fiction book collection, which is used less frequently and cataloged at the item level  will go to the off-site vault.

Data also will inform decisions about public services. The move to the new library may  necessitate closing the reading room for some periods. Data shows us that the type of patrons using special collections in the summer (visiting scholars) have a different use pattern than the heavy afternoon use when classes are in session (Temple undergraduates).  This kind of information will be useful as well when the communication plan is put into place.

Staff in SCRC are asking questions of other services as well.   In October 2016, they  conducted an analysis of their reference transactions, applying a READ (Reference Effort Assessment Data) scale to understand the complexity of the reference work they were doing. This month they are doing that exercise again, in order to compare the two time frames, when different types of patrons use SCRC. While the READ scale was not difficult for staff to include in their record-keeping, they admitted that a generic tool like READ does not adequately reflect transactions in special collections — reference requiring a combination of expert knowledge of the collections as well as complex strategies for addressing questions, and specialized interview skills.

Using special collections data to guide decision-making is never a straight path, and seemingly straight-forward questions may require multiple data sources.  “What is the time frame between the creation of a finding aid, or the cataloging of a rare book, to its subsequent use?” We have anecdotal evidence, but not concrete numbers. To get at this answer, SCRC staff members  consulted reference statistics and in-house use documented in the  AEON system, technical services processing data, and looked at Google Analytics for web use information. And there may be no discrete dates to compare:  the processing of a collection can take months.

This kind of fuzziness in addressing questions would make most of us throw up our hands in frustration and despair! Fortunately, in SCRC, we have dedicated folks who are willing to handle the complexities as we consider the special nature of their collections move.

 

Posted in data-driven decision making | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

LACUNY 2017: What’s Next for the Academic Librarian?

Posted on May 25, 2017 by Nancy Turner

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the LACUNY 2017 Institute, a small conference sponsored by the Library Association of the City of New York at  LaGuardia Community College. The theme was The Future of Librarianship: Exploring What’s Next for the Academic Librarian. I was drawn to the conference anticipating several lively panel discussions of interest to me: the application of organizational development towards more inclusive environments at work, egalitarian teams for grassroots organizing, and building the post-collection library (i.e. no physical books at all).

What a wonderful professional development opportunity for librarians.

In this post I want to share the themes from Barbara Rockenbach’s rich keynote address, Thinking about IMPACT on Research, Teaching and Learning. Rockenbach currently serves as Interim Associate Director for Collections and Services at Columbia; her talk drew upon broad experience,  from computational methods applied to humanities scholarship to undergraduate research and instruction. I especially liked how she  connected the themes of space, collections, partnership and context to both current research and  real life examples from her home institution.

The library can be a space that puts the user front and center, preparing spaces that are flexible, that facilitate conversations, that are moving from passive to active space in support of student success. The space may be quiet, social or collaborative. For instance,  Studio @ Butler is “co-owned and co-programmed by faculty” and provides open labs, instruction in tools like R and Python, and “talk shops” that incorporate both formal presentation and experiential workshop.  A great example of David Lankes’ “library as conversation” with the community.

Rockenbach used Lorcan Dempsey ‘s ideas to talk of the future of library collections – valuing less what a library “owns” to the service a library facilitates.  We will be thinking less about “our collections, our systems, our buildings” to considering the communities we serve. Thinking less about the life of the library towards thinking about the library in the life of the user.

The library is a partner in the work of scholars. Columbia participated in a collaborative Librarian Liaison Institute pilot with Cornell, ARL, and the University of Toronto. Its much discussed report (here at Temple too!) on the evolving role of liaison librarians had this  as one conclusion:  librarians need to focus away from the work of librarians to that of scholars, and to develop engagement strategies based on their needs and success factors.

The April 2017  US Library Survey suggests a disconnect between university administration and library leadership, in terms of how the library contributes to the teaching and research mission of the institution.

Library directors are pursuing strategic directions with a decreasing sense of support from their institutions. There is evidence across the survey that library directors feel increasingly less valued by, involved with, and aligned strategically with their supervisors and other senior academic leadership.

Pointing to Columbia’s efforts, Rockenbach says that libraries engaged with strategic planning efforts are less likely to suffer this fate. Libraries need to commit its values as well as its objectives to the larger institutional context.  For instance, what does it mean to be a diverse and inclusive library?

The library provides space for learning, but also serves as  an alternative to the formal classroom. The idea was captured eloquently by Ta-Nehisi Coates’ in his Between the World and Me :

I wanted to pursue things, to know things, but I could not match the means of knowing that came naturally to me with the expectations of professors. The pursuit of knowing was freedom to me, the right to declare your own curiosities and follow them through all manner of books. I was made for the library, not the classroom.

And, a big thank you to Barbara Rockenbach for allowing me to re-cycle her perspective on the  future of academic libraries.

Posted in conference reports | Tagged , , | Leave a comment