Presentation on theme: "Use and Non-Use of Choice- Reviewed Titles: A Comparison between Undergraduate and Research Libraries Library Assessment Conference Seattle August 4, 2008."— Presentation transcript:
Use and Non-Use of Choice- Reviewed Titles: A Comparison between Undergraduate and Research Libraries Library Assessment Conference Seattle August 4, 2008 Margaret M. Jobe, University of Colorado at Boulder email@example.com Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver Michael.firstname.lastname@example.org
Collection Assessment Methods Based on: Peggy Johnson. Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management. Chicago: ALA, 2004. Collection-BasedUse- or User-Based Quantitative Collection size/growth Materials budget size/growth Collection size standards and formulas Interlibrary loan statistics Circulation statistics In-house use statistics Document delivery statistics Shelf availability statistics Qualitative List checking Verification studies Citation analysis Direct collection checking Collection mapping (assigning conspectus levels) Brief tests of collection strength User opinion surveys User observation Focus groups Comparisons with peer institutions: title counts, uniquely held titles, etc.
Why Choice? Important reviewing tool Selection tool for many libraries Books with characteristics that match undergraduate research patterns
Reviews as Predictors of Circulation John P. Schmitt and Stuart Saunders, “An Assessment of Choice as a Tool for Selection,” College & Research Libraries 44, no. 5 (1983): 375-80. –Choice-reviewed titles circulated at the same rate as the collection as a whole –Titles highly recommended for undergraduate audiences had higher circulation rates than those recommended for more specialized audiences –Small correlation between positive reviews and circulation of titles in the social sciences, but no correlation for titles in the humanities
Reviews as Predictors of Circulation 2 E. Stewart Saunders, “The Effect of Quality on Circulation in an Aging Collection,” Collection Management 20, no. 3-4 (1996): 149- 156. –No link between initial reviews and use of titles as they aged. Karen Carter Williams and Rickey Best, “E-book Usage and the Choice Outstanding Academic Book List: Is There a Correlation?,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (September 2006): 474-478. –No link between positive review and higher circulation of electronic books.
The Comparison Sets Eight Colorado Alliance Libraries –Four Doctoral Extensive –Two Doctoral Intensive –One Masters –One Liberal Arts (in both sets) Seven Liberal Arts Schools –Six entirely undergraduate –One with a small number of graduate students
The Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries Auraria Library –CU Denver –Metro State College –Comm. College of Denver Colorado College Colorado School of Mines Colorado State University Denver Public Library Regis University University of Colorado, Boulder University of Colorado, Colorado Springs University of Denver University of Northern Colorado University of Wyoming
The Undergraduate Libraries Bates College Bowdoin College Bryn Mawr College Colby College Colorado College Haverford College Swarthmore College
Undergraduate Library Use Library use is generally curricular Library valued as place –Leo Clougherty, John W. Forys, and Toby A. Lyles, "The University of Iowa Libraries' Undergraduate User Needs Assessment," College & Research Libraries 59, no. 6 (November, 1998): 572-584. –Dawn E. Talbot, Gerald Ray Lowell, and Kerry Martin, "From the Users' Perspective--the UCSD Libraries User Survey Project," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 24, no. 5 (September, 1998): 357-364. –Audrey F. Bancroft, Vicki F. Croft, and Robert Speth, "A Forward- Looking Library Use Survey: WSU Libraries in the 21st Century," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 24, no. 3 (May, 1998): 216-224.
Book Selection Criteria of Undergraduates Select books that facilitate quick extraction of a piece of information: detailed tables of contents, subheadings in text, good overall organization, and detailed index. –Thomas Stieve, and David Schoen, “Undergraduate Students’ Book Selection: A Study of Factors in the Decision-Making Process,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 ( November, 2006): 599-608.
Choice Selection Criteria Editors at Choice prescreen for “material [that is] is presented in a comprehensive, well-organized, and understandable manner. The work contains appropriate supporting apparatus, such as an index, illustrations, bibliography, notes, and appendixes.” –"Criteria for Selection." American Library Association. 2006. http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/choice/selectionp olicy/criteriaselection.htm
Library Use at Liberal Arts Schools Higher levels of library use More likely to check out library materials More likely to browse the stacks Greater care in judging the quality of information –Ethelene Whitmire, "The Relationship between Undergraduates' Background Characteristics and College Experiences and Their Academic Library Use," College & Research Libraries 62, no. 6 (November, 2001): 528-540. –George D. Kuh and Robert M. Gonyea, "The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning,” College & Research Libraries 64, no. 4 (July, 2003): 256-282. –Stanley H. Benson, Recorded Library use Statistics for Four-Year Liberal Arts Institutions, 1973/74. 1975, ERIC ED 119658.
Library Use at Liberal Arts Schools 2 “The character of experiences with academic libraries at small, academically challenging baccalaureate liberal arts colleges sets them apart from other types of institutions.” –George D. Kuh and Robert M. Gonyea, "The Role of the Academic Library in Promoting Student Engagement in Learning,” College & Research Libraries 64, no. 4 (July, 2003): 266-267.
The Data: Differences with Earlier Data Multiple years of data 100% slice rather than sample data Data from multiple institutions Result: more accurate and nuanced results.
Institutional Data - Alliance InstitutionCarnegie Class Enrollment (2005) Volumes (2005) Annual Circulation (2005) Volumes per Student Annual Circ per Student AurariaDoc Int.33,000647,937276,470208 CO CollLib Arts1,998501,23467,47525134 CSUDoc Ext.25,5001,896,848233,810749 RegisMasters16,800267,79155,229163 CU-BDoc Ext.32,3623,554,286691,49911021 DUDoc Ext.7,3901,325,641310,21917942 UNCDoc Int.10,4841,035,975218,9539921 WyomingDoc Ext.10,4371,366,006128,66513112 Volumes/student = 77 Circulations/student = 14
Institutional Data - Undergraduate InstitutionCarnegie Class Enrollment (2005) Volumes (2005) Annual Circulation (2005) Volumes per Student Annual Circ per Student BatesLib Arts1,746591,63088,09733950 BowdoinLib Arts1,642995,50757,93760635 Bryn MawrDoc Int.1,478891,443111,85160376 ColbyLib Arts1,871500,84894,72726851 CO CollLib Arts1,998501,23467,47525134 HaverfordLib Arts1,126573,76246,74351042 SwarthmoreLib Arts1,428762,74790,69053464 Volumes/Student = 427 Circulations/Student = 49
Spectra Dimension Collection analysis tool http://sirius.librarydynamics.net/dimension/ http://sirius.librarydynamics.net/dimension/ Holdings from fourteen libraries –Bib and item records, including circ data –1999-2005 or 2006 –Ability to compare usage across different types of libraries –Data formatted to allow analysis of usage on an annual basis Choice data (1998-2005) Choice OAT (2002-2005)
Number of Titles AllianceUndergraduate Overall421,882189,157 Choice40,528 (93.77%) 34,020 (78.71%) Choice OAT2,969 (97.95%) 2,845 (93.86%)
Average Number of Copies Per Title AllianceUndergraduate Overall2.282.08 Choice4.013.12 Choice OAT4.883.82
Annualized Use Per Title AllianceUndergraduate Overall0.460.16 Choice0.480.16 Choice OAT0.530.17
Annualized Use by Discipline HumanitiesOverallChoiceChoice OAT Alliance0.490.400.45 Undergraduate0.190.12 Social Sciences Alliance0.400.520.56 Undergraduate0.130.180.20 History Alliance0.430.470.49 Undergraduate0.15 0.17 Sciences Alliance0.490.500.56 Undergraduate0.17 0.20
Percent of Titles with Zero Usage AllianceUndergraduate Overall39.30%68.64% Choice15.42%50.69% Choice OAT13.20%44.89%
Conclusions Undergraduate books used at a lower rate overall, but at a much higher rate per student. AllChoiceChoice OAT Undergraduate0.16 0.17 Alliance0.460.480.53 Alliance Adjusted*0.080.090.10 * Divided by a factor of 5.5. On average the liberal arts colleges have 427 volumes per student. The Alliance Libraries have an average of 77 volumes per student. 427 ∕77 = 5.5
Conclusions 2 Choice-reviewed books not used at a higher rate than the rest of the collection for either group Choice OAT used more, but significant only for Alliance
Conclusions 3 In both sets of libraries, books reviewed in Choice are much more likely ever to be used –A worthwhile investment
Conclusions 4 Choice books meet many criteria that undergraduates find important BUT Undergraduates do not use them more than the collection as a whole.
Further Reading Levine-Clark, Michael and Margaret M. Jobe, “Do Reviews Matter? An Analysis of Usage and Holdings of Choice-Reviewed Titles within a Consortium,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 33, no. 6 (2007): 639-646. Jobe, Margaret M. and Michael Levine-Clark, “Use and Non-Use of Choice-Reviewed Titles in Undergraduate Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34, no. 4 (2008): 295-304.
Questions? Margaret M. Jobe, University of Colorado at Boulder email@example.com Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver Michael.firstname.lastname@example.org