Santi Thompson, Jo Lambert, Ross MacIntyre, David Chaplin, H. Jones, Laura Wong, Joy M. Perrin, S. Rubinow, Katherine Kim, B. Nowviskie, P. Needham, Christa Williford, Wayne Graham
{"title":"Bringing IRUS to the USA: International Collaborations to Standardize and Assess Repository Usage Statistics","authors":"Santi Thompson, Jo Lambert, Ross MacIntyre, David Chaplin, H. Jones, Laura Wong, Joy M. Perrin, S. Rubinow, Katherine Kim, B. Nowviskie, P. Needham, Christa Williford, Wayne Graham","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.52","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.52","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121813505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction The University of Calgary is a four-year doctoral institution. In 2016–2017, there were 5,672 full time graduate students attending University of Calgary.1 While there are offices or work spaces in their departments for many graduate students, the space can vary greatly in terms of suitability, utility, access, and comfort. In fall 2016, in order to meet some of the need for space by graduate students, Libraries and Cultural Resources opened a newly renovated space, the Alan MacDonald Graduate Commons, a shared space intended to provide space for graduate students who are at the stage of intensive research and writing. Students registered late in the fall and were assigned swipe card access to the room to the end of April 2017. In order to determine the utility and effectiveness of the space and its features, students were surveyed in April 2017. Results showed that the students used the space to improve and enhance their learning, research and productivity output.
{"title":"Assessing a Graduate Commons in the Library: Graduate Students Need an Identified Third Space","authors":"S. Beatty","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.17","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The University of Calgary is a four-year doctoral institution. In 2016–2017, there were 5,672 full time graduate students attending University of Calgary.1 While there are offices or work spaces in their departments for many graduate students, the space can vary greatly in terms of suitability, utility, access, and comfort. In fall 2016, in order to meet some of the need for space by graduate students, Libraries and Cultural Resources opened a newly renovated space, the Alan MacDonald Graduate Commons, a shared space intended to provide space for graduate students who are at the stage of intensive research and writing. Students registered late in the fall and were assigned swipe card access to the room to the end of April 2017. In order to determine the utility and effectiveness of the space and its features, students were surveyed in April 2017. Results showed that the students used the space to improve and enhance their learning, research and productivity output.","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"133 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117266776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Designing Experiences What is the one question that comes up on nearly every library design project? How many seats do we need in our library? Libraries have evolved from solely places to access information into places to also connect, create, and collaborate. The balance of their space has shifted from primarily housing books to also providing ample seating for other programming. The balance shifts further as libraries incorporate fun learning activities, active learning classrooms, and academic services partners that transform into student success hubs. It shifts further still with the provision of distributed study space around campus in lobbies, lounges, and project spaces. Libraries are no longer the only game in town!
{"title":"Library Design: How Many Seats Do We Need?","authors":"Elliot Felix, Martha Kyrillidou","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.24","url":null,"abstract":"Designing Experiences What is the one question that comes up on nearly every library design project? How many seats do we need in our library? Libraries have evolved from solely places to access information into places to also connect, create, and collaborate. The balance of their space has shifted from primarily housing books to also providing ample seating for other programming. The balance shifts further as libraries incorporate fun learning activities, active learning classrooms, and academic services partners that transform into student success hubs. It shifts further still with the provision of distributed study space around campus in lobbies, lounges, and project spaces. Libraries are no longer the only game in town!","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"185 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114041603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Kansas State University collects survey data annually through a locally developed senior survey that includes questions about library use and satisfaction. The libraries use LibQUAL+® every three to four years, and the library instruction program collects data on what courses and programs use library instruction and how many students attend instructional sessions. What correlation might exist among these three data sets? Is there consistency between usage and satisfaction rates that can be linked with library instruction? From studying and comparing these results, there appears to be correlation in most instances. Further study of usage and impact of additional resources, such as customized online course guides, could provide additional insight, especially for areas with less formal library instruction but that still report a greater usage and satisfaction of the university libraries than areas with more library instruction. Examining the three sources of data broken down by college or discipline can also identify gaps in library contact and usage. These areas can be targeted for marketing and promotion of library services and resources.
{"title":"Tracking the Elusive Undergraduate Non-user: Triangulating a Senior Survey, Library Instruction Data, and LibQUAL+ Results","authors":"Laurel Littrell","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.62","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.62","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Kansas State University collects survey data annually through a locally developed senior survey that includes questions about library use and satisfaction. The libraries use LibQUAL+® every three to four years, and the library instruction program collects data on what courses and programs use library instruction and how many students attend instructional sessions. What correlation might exist among these three data sets? Is there consistency between usage and satisfaction rates that can be linked with library instruction? From studying and comparing these results, there appears to be correlation in most instances. Further study of usage and impact of additional resources, such as customized online course guides, could provide additional insight, especially for areas with less formal library instruction but that still report a greater usage and satisfaction of the university libraries than areas with more library instruction. Examining the three sources of data broken down by college or discipline can also identify gaps in library contact and usage. These areas can be targeted for marketing and promotion of library services and resources.","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116587222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction When assessment professionals in universities and academic libraries look past the methods and tools that they employ to the forces that motivate their work, they find three prime drivers. First is a motive for discovery. Opinions are held, behaviors are exhibited, and patterns exist within organizations that are unknown, yet we intuit that such knowledge would impact our decisions. Assessments of this type are commonly timeand resource-intensive, as the professional looks under many stones with the hope of gaining insight. The second driver is advocacy. Academic libraries compete for limited resources with other university departments. The university itself may compete for state funds against sister institutions. This competition engenders a motivation to advocate for stakeholder wants and needs and to gather compelling evidence to support them. The third and final driver is to demonstrate value. This motivation has become a dominant theme in the library assessment literature of recent years.1 It is related perhaps to the advocacy agenda, but it is also associated with demands for accountability. As providers of stateand university-level funds want assurances that these resources are being put to good use, so also do accreditation agencies seek to ensure quality educational experiences for students.
{"title":"Library Continuous Improvement through Collaboration on an Institution-Wide Assessment Initiative","authors":"Michael E. Luther, Jen Wells","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.5","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction When assessment professionals in universities and academic libraries look past the methods and tools that they employ to the forces that motivate their work, they find three prime drivers. First is a motive for discovery. Opinions are held, behaviors are exhibited, and patterns exist within organizations that are unknown, yet we intuit that such knowledge would impact our decisions. Assessments of this type are commonly timeand resource-intensive, as the professional looks under many stones with the hope of gaining insight. The second driver is advocacy. Academic libraries compete for limited resources with other university departments. The university itself may compete for state funds against sister institutions. This competition engenders a motivation to advocate for stakeholder wants and needs and to gather compelling evidence to support them. The third and final driver is to demonstrate value. This motivation has become a dominant theme in the library assessment literature of recent years.1 It is related perhaps to the advocacy agenda, but it is also associated with demands for accountability. As providers of stateand university-level funds want assurances that these resources are being put to good use, so also do accreditation agencies seek to ensure quality educational experiences for students.","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129434498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction Comparative Analysis Comparative analysis, or, as the industry calls it, “competitive analysis,” has always been a common practice in evaluating usability. By comparing features with competitors, we can determine the product’s strengths and weaknesses. In his usability engineering model, Nielsen stated that existing products are often the best prototypes at the predesign stage because they are already fully developed.1 So even before building the product, valuable information about what features support user needs and meet user expectations can be collected.2 Useful features can be incorporated into the new product and potential usability problems can be avoided.3
{"title":"Tell Me What You Want, What You Really, Really Want: Understanding User Perspectives with Comparative Analysis","authors":"Zoe Chao","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.70","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.70","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Comparative Analysis Comparative analysis, or, as the industry calls it, “competitive analysis,” has always been a common practice in evaluating usability. By comparing features with competitors, we can determine the product’s strengths and weaknesses. In his usability engineering model, Nielsen stated that existing products are often the best prototypes at the predesign stage because they are already fully developed.1 So even before building the product, valuable information about what features support user needs and meet user expectations can be collected.2 Useful features can be incorporated into the new product and potential usability problems can be avoided.3","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134049671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many academic libraries continue to face budgetary pressures and financial constraints, necessitating an examination of how they meet stakeholder needs. Consequently, academic libraries have seen greater attention given to assessment and student learning. Practically speaking, this laudable focus on student needs also directly connects to primary revenue streams. At higher education institutions that receive research grants, a certain amount of those funds is explicitly designated through Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) to go to library expenses. Since there are a limited number of ways that an academic library may receive monies, the fact that one of these revenue streams seems to have been almost completely unexplored in the library research literature is quite surprising.
{"title":"Obligations and Intentions: An Exploratory Study of Indirect Cost Recovery Monies from Research Grants as a Revenue Stream for Funding Research Library Budgets","authors":"Devin Savage, Chad Kahl","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.37","url":null,"abstract":"Many academic libraries continue to face budgetary pressures and financial constraints, necessitating an examination of how they meet stakeholder needs. Consequently, academic libraries have seen greater attention given to assessment and student learning. Practically speaking, this laudable focus on student needs also directly connects to primary revenue streams. At higher education institutions that receive research grants, a certain amount of those funds is explicitly designated through Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) to go to library expenses. Since there are a limited number of ways that an academic library may receive monies, the fact that one of these revenue streams seems to have been almost completely unexplored in the library research literature is quite surprising.","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126156830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To determine which engagement factors contribute to student success at a large, public, research university in the southeast, the university library—along with representatives from Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and other academic and support units across campus—have agreed to collaborate on the alignment and analysis of student data and to contribute their data to a repository that will enable longitudinal study. The study indicates that library, co-curricular, and extracurricular activities have a significant and positive impact on student success in terms of GPA and months to graduation. The model developed for this study is one that is easily transferable to other organizations. Introduction Student engagement and success are critical, with more than 40% of individuals seeking a four-year degree dropping out within six years.1 Tinto’s social integration theory posits that students need integration into formal and informal academic and social systems of the university to be successful.2 Engagement strengthens students’ academic intentions, goals, and institutional commitment, thereby increasing the likelihood of graduation. While universities are implementing high impact practices to engage and retain students, myriad other factors may be at play.3 Through the lens of social integration theory, formal integration may also include (1) library engagement, (2) use of student support services, and (3) participation in coand extracurricular activities. To determine which engagement factors contribute to student success at a large, public, research university in the southeast, the university library—along with representatives from Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and other academic and support units across campus—have agreed to collaborate on the alignment and analysis of student data and to contribute their data to a repository that will enable longitudinal study. The joint project will not only allow the library to quantify its impact on student success, but also help university leaders identify other critical areas of student engagement. As such, the objectives for this study are threefold and align closely with key priority areas identified in the Association of College & Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Academic Library Impact Report, which calls for librarians and information professionals to conduct research that will demonstrate library contributions to student learning and success.4 The first objective of the study, which aligns with ACRL Priority 3, is to include library data in institutional data collection. The second objective, to quantify the library’s impact on student success, aligns with ACRL Priority 4. The third objective, which follows logically from the first two, is to create a transferable model for aligning and assessing university metrics. To meet these objectives, the university library at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNC Charlotte) is leading an initiative to assess student engagement and its impact on st
{"title":"Quantifying the Value of the Academic Library","authors":"Rebecca A. Croxton, Anne Moore","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.13","url":null,"abstract":"To determine which engagement factors contribute to student success at a large, public, research university in the southeast, the university library—along with representatives from Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and other academic and support units across campus—have agreed to collaborate on the alignment and analysis of student data and to contribute their data to a repository that will enable longitudinal study. The study indicates that library, co-curricular, and extracurricular activities have a significant and positive impact on student success in terms of GPA and months to graduation. The model developed for this study is one that is easily transferable to other organizations. Introduction Student engagement and success are critical, with more than 40% of individuals seeking a four-year degree dropping out within six years.1 Tinto’s social integration theory posits that students need integration into formal and informal academic and social systems of the university to be successful.2 Engagement strengthens students’ academic intentions, goals, and institutional commitment, thereby increasing the likelihood of graduation. While universities are implementing high impact practices to engage and retain students, myriad other factors may be at play.3 Through the lens of social integration theory, formal integration may also include (1) library engagement, (2) use of student support services, and (3) participation in coand extracurricular activities. To determine which engagement factors contribute to student success at a large, public, research university in the southeast, the university library—along with representatives from Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and other academic and support units across campus—have agreed to collaborate on the alignment and analysis of student data and to contribute their data to a repository that will enable longitudinal study. The joint project will not only allow the library to quantify its impact on student success, but also help university leaders identify other critical areas of student engagement. As such, the objectives for this study are threefold and align closely with key priority areas identified in the Association of College & Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Academic Library Impact Report, which calls for librarians and information professionals to conduct research that will demonstrate library contributions to student learning and success.4 The first objective of the study, which aligns with ACRL Priority 3, is to include library data in institutional data collection. The second objective, to quantify the library’s impact on student success, aligns with ACRL Priority 4. The third objective, which follows logically from the first two, is to create a transferable model for aligning and assessing university metrics. To meet these objectives, the university library at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNC Charlotte) is leading an initiative to assess student engagement and its impact on st","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128448138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Impact and Ethics: A Meta-Analysis of Library Impact Studies","authors":"M. Robertshaw, Andrew D. Asher","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.16","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127356373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：