1. Georg Romero Library Director Cabrillo College Library December 3, 2010 (libwww.cabrillo.edu/staff/slo/carldig2010.ppt)

2. Or, How we eagerly embraced service assessments from the start…

3.  They’re not serious about assessing services!  This will only apply to the classroom, right?  Another fad – it’ll pass…

4.  How can they possibly expect us to assess our services?  It’s impossible – we can’t do it!  Those meddling dunderheads at WASC…

5.  What if we just say we’re going to do it?  Couldn’t we just describe how much we benefit students?  Could I at least use all these wonderful library statistics, somehow?

6.  We’re never going to figure this out.  We’re going to lose our accreditation, and I’m going to lose my job…

7.  OK. Fine.  So, how could we assess our services? This is when it got interesting…

8.  What kinds of student learning could we definitely claim a causative role in?  How much time do we want to spend on this?

9.  How to attribute specific learning outcomes to transaction services?  Can we separate what we teach outside the classroom from what classroom faculty teach?  Do library service users succeed because of the library, or do successful students simply know the benefits of the library?

10.  Is it worth the time and effort to produce potentially very tenuous findings?  Should we focus on simple, practical approaches, but risk not meeting the requirements?

11.  Leave the detailed studies for another day  Streamline, and focus on the practical and immediately relevant  We will make this useful for us Community college librarians are a pragmatic bunch!

12.  Narrative descriptions  Statistical measures  Student self-assessment  Focus groups  Post-transaction sampling surveys/interviews  Surveys

13.  Easy to write – we know this stuff  Widely used among academic institutions (example)example  Descriptive, not usually very measurable  Tend to be global, and not as relevant to individual transactions  Useful for internal communication and mindset

14.  We have lots of these…lots  Reflect quantity and usage, not quality or effectiveness  Most likely useful statistics would need to be created and cross-correlated: ◦ Track reference service users, compare GPA or semester success to non-users ◦ Compare users vs non-users on a required bibliography for a specific class research project

15.  Easy to fold into a survey, interview, or focus group  But – do students really know what they know?  Perceived value is informative, especially in an information void

16.  Potentially rich source of detailed information  Examples: Austin Pea S.U., Univ. of PittsburghAustin Pea S.U.Univ. of Pittsburgh  Small sample size  Most often used for specific goals: assess effectiveness of a catalog redesign, etc.  Heavily dependent upon personalities, both interviewers and interviewees  Possible focus group: How does the library assist your learning processes?

17.  Very “fresh” assessment  Somewhat intrusive  Heavily dependent upon student perceptions  Potentially small sample size  Home-grown, e.g. Cuyamaca, LinscheidCuyamacaLinscheid  Or, professionally available, e.g. WOREPWOREP  Influenced by student’s mood and the “feel- good” aspects

18.  Familiar  Many models out there, can fold almost anything into a survey  Home-grown, e.g. Cabrillo, Southern Illinois (survey of IM service)CabrilloSouthern Illinois  Professionally available, e.g. LibQUALLibQUAL  Multi-purpose

19.  Paper or online, each with merits & drawbacks  Dependent upon student self-assessment  Typically very actionable results  Can have multiple surveys for different population groups

20.  Multiple approaches: ◦ Some narrative descriptions, used in our accreditation self-study and program planself-studyprogram plan  Annual survey, incorporating student self- assessment on campus “core competencies” Annual survey  No specific assessment for any specific service  Leave the door open for different future approaches

21.  Students self-assessed positively on all four campus core competenciesfour  Established a process of collecting survey data and discussing it annually, then acting upon any key findings  Passed accreditation in 2007, with a commendation for the library

22.  Focused Circulation staff more on teaching and learning, less on punishing  Increased team mindset across the board  Increased attention to action and experimentation, not just measurement

23.  Don’t be afraid to try – if it doesn’t work out, try something else  Most important: do something with your findings  Use the new requirements to help meet old goals: ◦ Service improvements ◦ Staff training and evaluations ◦ Awareness building across all campus groups ◦ Mentoring for a ubiquitous service-mindset

24.  “Assessment of student learning from Reference Service,” G. Gremmels & K. Lehmann, Wartburg College (crl.acrl.org/content/68/6/488.full.pdf)crl.acrl.org/content/68/6/488.full.pdf  CSU Northridge, Oviatt Library, Objectives for Library Services (library.csun.edu/kdabbour/assessment.html#services)library.csun.edu/kdabbour/assessment.html#services  Community college survey on library SLOs, J. Turner, Palo Verde College (pages.paloverde.edu/staff/library/slosurvey.doc)pages.paloverde.edu/staff/library/slosurvey.doc  Conducting Focus Groups in Libraries, Sara Aerni, Special Projects Librarian, Univ. of Pittsburgh, 8 April 2005 (www.lib.whu.edu.cn/dzpx/files/5Focus_Groups.ppt)www.lib.whu.edu.cn/dzpx/files/5Focus_Groups.ppt  Cuyamaca College Library Questionnaire (www.cuyamaca.edu/slo/PDF/Ref%20Card/RefDeskCard_Fall2010.pdf)www.cuyamaca.edu/slo/PDF/Ref%20Card/RefDeskCard_Fall2010.pdf  “Instruction via Instant Messaging Reference: What’s Happening?” C. Desai & S. Graves, Southern Illinois University (opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=morris_arti cles)opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=morris_arti cles

25.  Linscheid Library, East Central University; Reference Assessment Plan (www.ecok.edu/siteContent/1/documents/library/reference/reference_asses sment_plan.pdf)www.ecok.edu/siteContent/1/documents/library/reference/reference_asses sment_plan.pdf  “Use of focus groups in a library’s strategic planning process,” M. L. Higa- Moore et al, J Med Libr Assoc 90(1) 2002 (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC64762/pdf/i0025-7338-090-01-0086.pdf)www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC64762/pdf/i0025-7338-090-01-0086.pdf  “What do students want? A focus group study of students at a mid-sized public university,” M. A. Weber, R. K. Flatley, Library Philosophy & Practice, 2008 (www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/weber-flatley2.pdf)www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/weber-flatley2.pdf  “What do they know? Assessing the Library’s contribution to student learning,” B. Fister, Library Issues 19.1 (Sept. 1998) (homepages.gac.edu/~fister/LIassessment.html)homepages.gac.edu/~fister/LIassessment.html  “What WOREP results say about reference service, patron success and satisfaction,” J. A. Gedeon et al, RUSA New Reference Research Forum, ALA Annual Conference, 2009 (worep.library.kent.edu/Summary_of_the_Study.pdf)worep.library.kent.edu/Summary_of_the_Study.pdf

26. Thank You! (libwww.cabrillo.edu/staff/slo/carldig2010.ppt)