Guest Post by Emily Asch, St. Catherine University

Cooperating Libraries in Consortium, CLIC (St. Paul, Minnesota), hosted Megan Oakleaf for the grand finale of their Year of Assessment.  Dr. Oakleaf presented two sessions focused on the research and findings published in The Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report.   The morning session was entitled, “The Value of Academic Libraries: Research & Recommendations” and the afternoon session was, “The Value of Academic Libraries: Reframing, Reflecting, and Reporting Results.” The morning and afternoon sessions also engaged participants in applying assessment techniques through small group activities.

During the morning session entitled “The Value of Academic Libraries: Research and Recommendations”  Dr. Oakleaf presented on research findings about library value, assessment, and institutional accountability.  She also presented her recommendations for libraries in this time of transition and institutional scrutiny of all programs in higher education.

Overarching much of the need for assessing the value of the academic library is the higher education environment that is experiencing a large transformation and, as several have named it, crisis.  This transformation provides context as well as a need for all units within academic institutions to show the value and impact they have within their communities.

Key points from the morning session included a shift of focus on library’s stuff to the people affected by libraries.  These people include students, parents, future employers, librarians, administrators, faculty, and the list goes on.  This vision really extends the boundaries of physical, and even virtual, libraries and their impact (and thus value).  Examples of this shift as seen in the literature include focus on service instead of products, experiences instead of collections, enabling our users instead of mediating for our users, people instead of the facility, and sense-making of the information instead of access to information.

Exhibiting and maintaining the value of the library requires quality and well developed assessment.  The exhibited value must be placed within the context of the institution.  Data is a key element of assessment and Dr. Oakleaf expressed that much of the data libraries have collected and shared in the past, such as circulation data, visitors to the library, and satisfaction ratings are not as compelling to administrators in today’s higher education environment as other kinds of data.   For example, librarians may need to show correlations between our services and offerings and a positive impact within the institution rather than just reporting numbers and figures.  Librarians could show their impact and to prove the value by demonstrating correlation such as library instruction sessions have a positive impact on student grade or that the library’s new information commons increases student retention.

Dr. Oakleaf presented her recommendations to effect this change in how libraries present themselves and show their value.   She presented a concept that may seem obvious but bears repeating, that doing assessment without knowing what you are looking for is useless.  Assessment activities should be guided  by outcomes.  So, libraries must first determine what the library is trying to enable and identify the impact that is trying to be proven.

Find data that already exists is a simple recommendation but one that seems to be often overlooked.  There are many places on our campuses where useful data exists: institutional research offices, file cabinets, and the registrar’s office are just some of the key places that have useful data.  A very relevant point is that to truly do some meaningful assessment students need to be tracked longer than libraries normally do.  A pre- and post-test during an information literacy session does not elicit enough data to show true impact and value.  Data that gives libraries more information about individual library user behavior will provide rich data that can create the correlations needed to show value can be collected while maintaining privacy which seems to have concerned and stopped many librarians from pursuing this helpful data.

There were also very helpful recommendations that can be implemented much more quickly and provide a significant impact.  Some examples were providing a library liaison to administrators (or their assistants), providing meaningful accreditation information rather than just collection and instruction counts, and enhancing the library contribution to student job success.

Participants in the conference created a list of what they thought librarians needed to learn to be able to demonstrate/increase their contribution.

  • Statistical analysis
  • Know and articulate what is important to their institution
  • Learn the appropriate and contextual language of those to whom you are talking
  • What are other folks being assessed on
  • Who has the data that you need

 

“The Value of Academic Libraries: Reflecting, Reframing, and Reporting Results”

After presenting her research findings and recommendations, Dr. Oakleaf presented activities that would emphasize the importance of how library services and resources align with institutional goals and missions.

The participants worked with worksheets from Dr. Oakleaf’s  Academic Library Value: The Impact Starter Kit.  Participants broke into small groups to work on a matrix showing impacts on institutional goals and library services as well as a mock interview between a librarian and a key stakeholder of the library.

Discussion after each of the activities was helpful in re-emphasizing the value of the assessment that libraries must engage in.  The activities allowed librarians to implement the thoughts and ideas from the morning into familiar situations.  It also allowed the participants to engage in activities that may have been unfamiliar but created a time of exploration of the type of activities and thought processes that should be occurring in academic libraries.

All of the participants were able to leave with at least one thought out step to take after leaving.  These were shared among the group and were very enlightening and energizing.


If your library or consortium has engaged in similar activities and workshops, please share with the group.  Any successes to report or lessons learned?

 

We value assessment for the purposes of improving teaching and learning, but there is no denying that accreditation drives many assessment efforts at our various institutions. How do libraries contribute to accreditation efforts?

In an article based based on a paper presented at LILAC 2013, Cara Bradley looks at “Information literacy in the programmatic university accreditation standards of select professions in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.” The study finds “significant variation in the language used in the professions to describe the concept of IL, highlighting the alternative language used in the various professions to describe this ability. The study also maps outcomes outlined in the accreditation documents to the Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL’s) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (ACRL 2000) in order to identify areas of overlapping concern.”

In other research on information literacy, libraries, and accreditation, Laura Saunders has published several items of interest:

  • Saunders, L. (2007). Regional accreditation organizations’ treatment of information literacy: Definitions, collaboration, and assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(3), 317-326. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.01.009
  • Saunders, L. (2008). Perspectives on accreditation and information literacy as reflected in the literature of library and information science. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(4), 305-313. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.05.003
  • Saunders, L. (2011). Information literacy as a student learning outcome :The perspective of institutional accreditation. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Libraries Unlimited.

For other thoughts about library value and accreditation, see the Value report, pages 54-55.

 

Whether or not you were able to attend ACRL in Indianapolis last month, you can check out lots of the great conference content through the proceedings, now available online. Here are a few contributed papers that present Value-related projects. The authors of these papers respond to the research agenda of the Value report in interesting ways.

Academic and Public Library Collaboration: Increasing Value by Sharing Space, Collections, and Services by Daniel Overfield and Coleen Roy

This project, from Cuyahoga Community College (CCC), is in the very early stages of working to demonstrate correlations between a popular reading collection and student engagement. CCC is collaborating with neighboring public library systems to install a small popular reading collection in the college library and hopefully increase student engagement. The CCC librarians plan to assess the impact and value of the popular collection by tracking circulation, visitor counts, and public library card applications. They believe that student success, student retention, and even graduation rates may be aided by the presence of a more diverse and interesting library collection. We hope to hear results from the project sometime soon!

Answering “How” and “Why” Questions of Library Impact on Undergraduate Student Learning by Derek Rodriguez

The author of this paper suggests that one of the most important questions asked in the Value report is “How does the library contribute to undergraduate student learning?” He presents the Understanding Library Impacts (ULI) protocol, which is designed to help libraries detect and communicate their impact on undergraduate student learning. There are two instruments in ULI: 1) a questionnaire to gather quantitative and qualitative data about student use of library resources, services, and facilities during academic work and 2) a “Learning Activities Crosswalk” that supports connections between library use and student learning outcomes. The ULI protocol has been used in ten library assessment projects over the past two years and examples from those projects are used in this paper.

Choosing and Using Assessment Management Systems: What Librarians Need to Know by Megan Oakleaf, Jackie Belanger, and Carlie Graham

The Value report highlighted the need for libraries to assess their information literacy instructional activities and programs and to demonstrate how their instructional activities contribute to student learning as well as the wider educational and research missions of their parent institutions. As a result, many academic libraries now face the challenge of assessing student learning and determining the best ways to collect, manage, and report assessment data. In order to support these efforts, the Value report highlights the potential usefulness of assessment management systems, or AMSs.

The aim of this paper is to inform librarians about various features and uses of AMSs in order to help them participate in conversations about the adoption and use of AMSs at their own institutions. Previous work on this topic within the LIS field has identified a number of significant benefits that libraries can reap in using an institution-wide AMS. This paper endeavors to forward this conversation by providing a more detailed discussion of specific features of a number of commercial AMSs, and by offering examples of how these systems are being used by academic librarians. This paper provides librarians with key selection criteria for choosing an AMS and explores the benefits and challenges faced by libraries and their institutions in using AMSs.

 

If you know of more research on this topic, please let us know in the comments.

Site Admin

© 2010-2012 Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha