Library Assessment Plan
Juniata College Beeghly Library 2002-2013
Library Assessment Plan and Future Direction,
John Mumford, Library Director
This Assessment Plan is an integral part of Beeghly Library Planning, and reflects ACRL guidelines, as
well as an understanding of library assessment literature reviews. The Library endeavors to follow the
College Strategic Plan, which emphasizes improvement of learning environments, and offering the best
possible resources for the success of our programs. The Library Staff will develop and implement
practical Action Plans to address areas which are in need of improvement.
Three major outcome areas have been established and under each a list of the appropriate strategic
assessments has been included (listed below).
1. Information Literacy Skills Measurements
a. Research Practice Surveys (HEDS), Pre and Post Freshmen year - annual
b. Freshmen Pre-IA Survey - annual
c. Freshmen Post IA Survey - annual
d. Campus Wide Information Literacy Survey - annual
e. Senior HEDS survey - annual
f. NITLE Survey of Freshmen Information Literacy
g. Library Post Instruction Session Assessments
h. Library Focus Groups 2009 -2010-2011
i. Summer Junior Survey of Library Value and GPA (2011) - annual
j. Senior Year Exit Surveys - annual
k. Faculty Survey 2011 Fall –every three years
l. General Education Assessment of Information Literacy (2012-2013)
2. Library Services and Facility Measures
a. Faculty Structured Interviews –every three years
b. College Library Visits and Interviews - annual
c. LibQUAL, 2006, 2010 - every four years
d. National Library Week Comments Survey 2009
e. Faculty Survey – every three years
f. Benchmark Study of Peer Colleges
g. Library Senior Survey - annual
h. Institutional Planning Strategic Planning Survey
i. Reference Statistics and Analysis - annual
j. Institutional Research User Satisfaction Survey
k. Library Research User Satisfaction Survey
l. Library Focus Groups 2010-2011
m. IPEDS yearly data
n. Library Research – Essays on Library of the Future 2010
o. Student anthropological examination of library research habits - 2011
p. Faculty pre-semester Value Survey, 2011
3. Library Collections Evaluations
a. Faculty Structured Interviews
b. Library Research Student Collections Survey
c. Library Research Web Page Usability Surveys
d. LibQUAL – every four years
e. IPEDS - annual
f. Library Collection Development Tools, electronic and print
g. Library Focus Groups 2009-2010-2011
h. Faculty Survey 2010, 2011
i.
Cornell University Library Value Methodology Calculations - 2011
Recent History of Assessment and Summary of Result and Actions:
Through our assessment data, the Library has measured many areas, and has made changes
accordingly. The Library Staff have acted on data, and through Action Plans have met many goals.
Through these actions, the Library is a measurably different place than it was during the 2002 Middle
States visit, and especially from the 1992 Middle States visit. This is evident in the 2010 LibQUAL survey
and other data which will follow.
To briefly summarize, it is clear from LibQUAL and user satisfaction surveys that the Library Staff have a
very positive relationship with its constituents which we prize above all. We also were pleased with the
overall results which were better than those of the 2006 LibQUAL. In order to arrive at this point, (app. 1),
the Library made several key changes supported by the College Provost which we believe are the
reasons for good survey results in recent years. The Action Plans responsible are listed below.
Actions completed from 2006-2010:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Added an Instruction Librarian position
Added a part-time position with some emphasis on Archives
Created space on the first floor by annexing older print journals
Renovated and created the Klaus and Ellin Jaeger Information Commons
Added three Vizeo screens for group laptop work
Moved curriculum library to brighter, upstairs location
Created a map room
Increased reference desk hours
Increased library hours
Opened basement computer lab to all hours
Larger and faster printer
Scanning capabilities for students
All computers on the network app server
Added Mac machines to reference area
Added laptops to circulation
Current Assessment 2012
Information Literacy Skills Measurements
The Library expanded in 2010 its testing of students to encompass all classes, so that we could see if
library instruction was successful with freshmen and to find out if it has a lasting effect on students. While
it was clear that students who had just taken the freshmen library section did the best on the tests,
upperclassmen did better than freshmen who had not yet taken the library section. In the 2008-2009
HEDS pre-freshmen year testing with our college peer group, Juniata students were even with or slightly
behind their peer-group. However, later in the year Juniata College freshmen had caught and in some
cases passed their peer group on average. There also were some questions in which our freshmen were
competitive with seniors at other institutions.
But in the 2009-2010 results, Juniata students did not score as strongly. This seems to be due to
Information Access (IA) Library Module problems of that year, mostly due to its exhaustive nature and
therefore the apparent inability and unwillingness of a significant number of students to finish it, thereby
limiting their exposure to key elements. A lesson was learned, and for 2010 there was a plan to
streamline and emphasize fewer topics in library research, but to pinpoint the ones we would like students
to know about. The new IA Library Module has been more successfully received by students. The IA
Module has had a positive impact on students. We know this because according to the HEDS survey, the
spring of 2011 showed our freshmen doing better after IA classes, and surpassing not only Juniata
freshmen but those freshmen of our peer group (app. 2). In addition, post IA-freshmen show
improvement over pre-IA tests. Our seniors in the same survey matched seniors from our peer group. A
weakness was recognition of types and parts of a citation. This has been addressed in our instruction.
The spring 2012 HEDS survey given to seniors and freshmen revealed a need to emphasize Boolean
Operators in instruction. We also want to consider ways to have librarians more involved with students as
the 2012 spring HEDS survey showed that 60 percent of students do not have contact with librarians
(outside of class). In other measurements, such as IPEDs, Juniata College is competitive with its peer
group. (app. 3) in areas such as numbers of books checked out and exit counts. A major step this fall will
be the inclusion of the Library and Information Literacy in General Education assessment, which will
include more in depth analyses with faculty on the success of instruction as revealed in student research
papers.
In 2010-2011 we started to institute post-instruction session questions in order to obtain feedback on
learning during our instruction sessions. It is also interesting to note that 30 to 40 percent of questions
received at the reference desk are related to technology. On half of the days of the year, a librarian can
expect at least one question about the library printer, or the college’s networked server system. Judging
by this past academic year of 2011-2012, this trend has not changed and technology questions have
increased. This year we have added twitter services, and Google Voices, and a live library announcement
ticker window based on twitter, to our web page. The entire library web page was reconstructed in spring
2011 as well. A “mobile” librarian is something we hope to implement in the near future now that we have
an I-pad with greater portability.
Action Plan 2011-2012:
1. Change Information Access library modules, streamlined and less complex, assess
2. Enlarge Instruction Room
3. Address weakness found in Information Literacy Survey data through changing emphasis in
instruction classes such as: Boolean Operators and parts of a citation.
4. Find ways to integrate librarians more into the academic lives of the students outside of the traditional
instruction environment.
5. Increase our connection with CWS, and increased sessions with some classes for a more integrated
approach to instruction so that we work with 90 percent of sections, which is 90 percent of freshmen
with more in depth instruction.
6. Increased the number of one-credit library research sections from 10 to 13.
7. Re-designed the web page to be more conducive to use by students.
8. Experiment with ways to further improve the Library section of Information Access.
9. Post instruction-session assessments obtained to steer instruction in the next few years.
10. Introduced twitter and google voices to reference services.
11. Scrolling announcements on library web page.
12. Junior year survey to assess library value to students and faculty, including impact of library services
on GPA, for publication.
13. Re-designed Instruction Room, put Instruction machines on the college’s network, newer chairs, more
machines in room.
14. Use of MAC I-Pad to allow more advanced instruction techniques.
Library Services and Facility Measures
The LibQUAL survey indicated that the Library made a gain in satisfaction levels especially with faculty
from 2006 to 2010 and has results which are very competitive with other colleges (app. 4). Clearly, the
building is not considered to be desirable from the viewpoint of size or aesthetics, a fact which has been
addressed by the Campus Master Plan. However, strong attempts are being made for improvement on a
floor by floor basis and projects are currently underway in accordance with internal planning and the
measured desires of our constituents. This spring of 2012, we enlarged the amount of collaborative
space in the reference area by reducing the number of first floor reference books. More plans are being
made for the first floor and other floors. This summer of 2012 we will enlarge the Instruction Room while
also creating another group study room in the basement. Seniors revealed a basic level of satisfaction
with library services and resources as evident in exit surveys (app. 5)The Library is now part of the
Campus Master Plan, and ideas have been put forward to the Administration about the Library of the
future as we see it.
Action Plan:
1. Better lighting in the basement
2. Build larger instruction room
3. Create another study room in basement
4. Submit plan for “collaboration commons” on first floor
5. Complete renovation of first floor with “reference commons”
6. Enlarge study space in the reference area
7. More attractive furniture
8. New paint in basement
9. More outlets for laptops
10. Several Focus groups on library services for more feedback
11. Basement computer lab machines on app server, and re-arranged configuration of instruction room.
12. Add evening student Associate
13. Add hours for computer student worker
14. Plan submitted for 10,000 to 20,000 square foot addition to library to Campus Master Plan Group
15. Add study counter and more machines in basement for group study
16. Add white board and larger group study tables in basement
17. Add larger table to group study room, second floor
Library Collections Measure
Clearly the library must emphasize in the next few years improving the collection in both print and
electronic resources. We have added 70,000 excellent e-books through Proquest, that number will soon
grow to over 200,000 through a loan and purchase model. More access to a greater number of electronic
journals through JStor is also imminent, as well as a higher powered Proquest product. Consistently
through: survey data, comments, LibQUAL and faculty structured interviews, it is requested that we
continue to build the collection. In measuring our Library with IPEDs, we are clearly competitive, however
we could benefit from more budget support for materials. We calculate that Library expenditures are just
over 2 percent of the College’s overall operating expenditures. A survey of faculty this fall (2011)
concerning use of the Library found that the collection and building is very highly valued. (app. 6)
Action Plan:
1. Subscribe in Fall 2012 to 200,000 more e-books through e-brary loan and purchase database.
2. Added 400 full text, online journals through JStor for fall 2011
3. Add 300 titles through addition JStor packages for fall 2012
4. Add electronic Proquest Central Database to increase number of accessible journals.
5. Added the database EconLit and Global Financial Services for business faculty.
6. Added several Kindles for e-book use.
7. Change our Wiley publishing deal to include more electronic journals.
8. Continue our subscription to Elsevier packages by restructuring deals.
9. Use of focus groups/surveys to learn more about collection needs.
10. Reduce reference collection, add those books to circulating in order to facilitate greater use of both
collections.
11. Weed print journals which duplicate electronic collection.
12. Utilize annex to add to space needs in the Library.
13. Continue to make College Archives and Special Collections material more accessible by
reorganizing.
14. Digitize college newspapers and Trustee minutes, and Church of the Brethren historic periodicals
Future Directions
The Library has planned for a future renovation and addition which would greatly enhance the aesthetics
and size of the building. Preliminary sketches have been submitted. We are now part of the Campus
Master Plan as of 2011. Students and faculty want space, technology, and resources that are inspiring,
extensive and convenient. In the next few years renovations of each floor must be made, and new
furniture, weeding of collections, and more technology included. Information literacy must continue to be
integrated into courses so that better student research is being conducted resulting in better academic
work. Librarians must be prepared to meet students in the cyber world. Access must increase to more
journals and books electronically, and access to our Archives must be made convenient. The Library has
to be able to demonstrate its value to College, this can only be done through careful planning and
assessment going forward.
Toward a Collaborative Commons
The Information Commons, which was created several years ago, was a tremendous step forward for the
Library in terms of user needs. It allowed for all those activities that students routinely undertake in the
Library, while in an atmosphere which is both conducive to study, and inspirational.
The Information Commons will remain an integral and essential part of the library, but other areas of the
Library must adapt and evolve as well. Across the lobby from our Information Commons is our traditional
reference services and computers area. It should be replaced with a “Collaborative Commons.” The
Collaborative Commons would include numerous, innovative ways to encourage student learning and
creativity. It would include flexible work space clusters which promote interaction and group learning.
Learning spaces in the Library should reflect current pedagogy. The new Commons would support new
ways of learning, particularly those emphasizing team oriented methods of problem solving that mirror
those of successful organizations and businesses operating today. Successful organizations will often
have clusters of shared work spaces with team based problem solving which involves collaboration.
A Collaborative Commons should be designed for social spaces, not the large, fixed computer labs of the
past. As the area is designed for many types of activities, it should be comfortable and include a variety
of collaborative furniture such as: sofas, café seating, booths, large screens, and innovative furniture; a
possibility for every purpose. However, students still want some traditional furniture as they are often in
need of a simple library table with technology such as an electoral outlet and network port.
The new Commons must also be inspiring. Furnishings should be practical but also creative and exciting
with a “wow” effect. The area should be dynamic and be designed in order to cultivate creative impulses.
The design should be imaginative and at the same time perpetuate the deeper thinking and reflection that
is the hallmark of a good library.
In the future, computer-enhanced pedagogy will be a critical part of learning as we move deeper into the
age of the internet and interactive technologies. In the global, networked community, where information
can be shared instantaneously, and the ability to work together is valued, the trend toward collaboration
and group learning will continue. A Collaborative Commons in the Library would be an essential part of
this effort at Juniata College.
Appendix 1. Superiority mean for all groups, students, and faculty
Superiority Mean (All Groups, Students, Faculty)
Mean (smaller neg # or pos # desired)
1
0
-1
2006
-2
2010
-3
-4
-5
Appendix 2. Freshmen Fall 2010 vs Freshmen Spring 2011 vs All Freshmen
Fr Fall 2010 vs Spr Fr 2011 vs All Fr
90
80
70
60
50
40
Fresh Fall 2010
30
Spr JC Fresh 2011
20
All Fresh
10
0
Boolean
Truncate
Subject Head
Aca Journals
Iss Nubmer
Journ Art
Book
Portion Book
Prim Source
Rel sources
Peer Rev
Citation
Cit Not Need
Schol a.
Schol b.
Schol c.
Schol d.
Schol e.
Schol f.
Schol g.
Schol h.
Least appr
Basis for Sel
Whether Use
Correct Answers in Percent
100
Appendix 3. Library Statistics Programs: Compare Academic Libraries
Library Name
Elizabethtown
College, PA
Lebanon
Valley
College, PA
Moravian
College and
Moravian
Theological
Seminary, PA
Lycoming
College, PA
Susquehanna
University, PA
Dickenson
College, PA
Franklin and
Marshall
College, PA
Drew
University, NJ
JUNIATA
COLLEGE,
PA
LIBRARIANS &
OTHER
PROFESSIONAL
STAFF PER
1000 FTE
STUDENTS
TOTAL LIBRARY
EXPENDITURES
PER FTE
STUDENT
BOOKS,
SERIAL
BACKFILES,
OTHER
PAPER
MATERIALS
PER FTE
STUDENT
2.59
$397.21
117.67
3175
12
2.24
$611.38
107.76
3420
21
3.29
$606.78
130.19
4319
19
3.55
$766.52
147.37
5691
1
3.98
$817.85
127.54
4.27
$1,049.50
194.5
13273
36
4.63
$1,251.46
331.09
10671
25
8.66
$1,439.86
273.55
5477
33
$600.00
166
5500
33
2.66 *
Appendix 4. Libqual Superiority Means
Libqual Superiority Means
Superiority Means (closer to 0
is favorable)
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
GATE
COUNT
IN A
TYPICAL
WEEK
CIRCULATION
TRANSACTIONS
(INCLUDED
RESERVES)
PER FTE
STUDENT
N/A
627
Appendix 5. Satisfaction Rankings with the Quality of Facilities and Campus Services
Quality Ranking
Very Dissatisfied
Generally Dissatisfied
Generally Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Not Relevant
(blank)
Grand Total
Percentage of (32) Library Facilities and Resources
1.01%
9.40%
59.73%
29.53%
0.34%
0.00%
100.00%
Frequency
3
28
178
88
1
Quality Ranking
Very Dissatisfied
Generally Dissatisfied
Generally Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Not Relevant
(blank)
Grand Total
Percentage of (32) Library Services...
1.01%
5.37%
62.08%
30.54%
1.01%
0.00%
100.00%
Frequency
3
16
185
91
3
298
298
Appendix 6. Courses using library resources
Do you have a course with at least one assignment in which
students are instructed to use library resources?
Count (numbr of responses)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes
No
Comments
No answer
Not complete