LIS 407 Class 9

1
LIS 407 Class 9
THIS could be you

• Reference service improvement/ Evaluation of
  reference services/

2
Before we go The battle of Encyclopedias

• The Empire Strikes Back
• What is next?
• Authority
• Citing me and citing you
• Progressive evolution of encyclopedic
  knowledge.
• Culture!!! Lets dont forget that this is about
  culture and how it changes.

3
The Tutorial

• WHY?
• Design
• Readability
• Features
• Limitations 15 pages.
• Be practical, use your existing knowledge.

4
Examples?

• Academic OneFile Tutorial
• GEOLIB
• Notice the instructional aspects of the tutorial.
• Some tutorials involve a small evaluation tool.

5
1. Reference Service Improvement

• Need for training
• Use of paraprofessionals
• New management techniques
• Extended hours
• Advances in technology

6
2.Reference Service Improvement Orientation

• The role of orientation
• Where you the subject of orientation?
• Some examples GODORT Handouts/Reference Training
• Enculturation
• Socialization
• Expectations

7
3. Some ideas for conducive learning environments

• Some factors are involve participants in mutual
  planning, provide for active development, promote
  individual discovery, accept differences,
  tolerate ambiguity ()
• Project Zero

8
4.Training

• Training is a process
• Assessing training needs What do reference
  librarians need to know?
• Tasks Knowledge of reference sources, ability to
  manipulate catalogs, etc.
• Interviews what do librarians need?

9
Warning Training does not prepare us for
everything

• There are environmental and situational factors
  that will affect our performance.
• Training may involve volunteers and clerical
  workers, paraprofessionals.
• What is the best possible training? Go to the
  desk and imagine you are a reference librarian.

10
How effective was training? Do not forget to get
feedback from the trainee

• Practice and more practice
• Evaluate training from the trainee, the peer and
  the supervisor
• What do we usually evaluate reactions, learning
  and on-the-job behaviors.

11
5. Paying attention to external factors What are
the typical stressors?

• Technostress and the Reference Librarian
• Burnout
• The effect of technology on the daily job
• technostress/index
• Main Articles 'Managing Technostress in UK
  Libraries', Ariadne Issue 25
• Elements of stress at the reference desk
  technology, patrons, Environment, Staffing.
  (Look at the diagram on page 232)

12
Typical solutions to stressors

• Developing Trust
• Balancing activities
• Service statements
• Redesign jobs
• Cross training know as many people as you can.

13
6. Evaluation Once again.

• Why to evaluate?
• A. Improving the service
• B. Managing resources more effectively
• C. Verify the benefits of providing reference work

14
Why evaluation

• Dugan and Hernon (2002) referring to academic
  libraries Academic libraries must now include
  the provision of high-quality services to address
  the communitys information needs as well as
  measure what students have learned, as the
  regional accrediting bodies expect.

15
Aspects or services to be evaluated

• Inputs vs. outputs
• Inputs reference materials and staff
• Outputs factual questions answered, instruction
  given, assistance in using the information
• Standards for College Libraries 2000 Edition
• Outcomes Information needs satisfied, library
  skills and knowledge improved.

16
The role of agencies and groups

• ALA Evaluation of Reference and User Services
• The introduction of standards
• Why are standards helpful?
• Agencies and groups propose ideas and standards
  for evaluation.

17
The role of agencies

• Inputs are generally regarded as the raw
  materials of a library program-the money, space,
  collection, equipment, and staff, out of which a
  program can arise.
• Outputs serve to quantify the work done, i.e.,
  number of books circulated, number of reference
  questions answered.
• Outcomes are the ways in which library users are
  changed as a result of their contact with the
  library's resources and programs (From the ACRL
  website)

18
One example of evaluation

• Evaluating Reference collections
• Sources up-to-date
• Sources Useful
• Sources in Standard lists
• Which one is more difficult to assess?
• Could this factors be used to evaluate online
  resources too?

19
Evaluating Electronic resources

• Ease of access, effectiveness, command structure,
  interface
• The OPAC
• Evaluating Electronic Information Resources

20
About evaluation

• At conferences and workshops on evaluating
  reference services, the most frequent recurring
  question librarians ask is, "How can the material
  on evaluating reference services be applied to
  assessing electronic reference services?" The
  best answer is, "Take existing methods, determine
  which will best meet the study goals, and then
  adapt those methods to the electronic
  environment. Jo Bell Whitlach/ Library Trends
  2001

21
Evaluating Reference staff

• Is the staff adequate? Do they possess the
  characteristics that are required for this job?
• Staff performance observation, peer review
• How can we better observe how staff works?
• Diaries. Focus groups with users?

22
Evaluation of Reference transactions Remember
the Maine! And Dilevko.

• The complete picture requires also to evaluate
  the quality of the reference transaction. What is
  the 55 rule? Do you remember it? Remember it?
• Unobtrusive evaluation e.g. proxies ( we know a
  little about this) Unethical? Are proxies
  adequate? First we set the standards, what are we
  measuring?

23
Evaluation ,makes a difference

• Developing nations focus on quantity, growing
  concerns about quality.
• Needs assessments, user information behavior.
  Lack of discussion.
• Why? Lack of resources for building solid
  information structures. Lack of understanding of
  the role of evaluation for improvement and
  efficiency of services.
• Also nobody wants to get evaluated, the working
  culture is threatened by it.

24
Evaluation of Reference transactions

• Obstrusive evaluation use of surveys. Surveying
  the patrons. They provide opinions, not facts.
  They may be biased. They may have a good day or a
  bad one.
• Wisconsin Ohio Reference Evaluation Program -
  Survey Samples
• The typical tool reference statistics

25
Evaluation of reference services

• So, are reference services meeting their overall
  goals?
• Statement of goals must exist (dont laugh).
  Accountability is a factor here.
• Knowledge of the community about library services
• Identify segments of the population that whose
  information needs are not being met by the
  reference services. Focus groups. Community
  knowledge.

26
WHY?

• () global digital revolution is greatly
  affecting not only traditional forms of
  information access and delivery but also the
  world of higher education itself. The arrival of
  the virtual university with a concomitant virtual
  library is clearly a challenger to the status
  quo. Cullen pointedly remarks, Retaining and
  growing their customer base, and focusing more
  energy on meeting their customers' expectations
  is the only way for academic libraries to survive
  in this volatile competitive environment.
  Heath/Cook (ELIS)

27
In conclusion

• Today, academic libraries face competition from
  alternative, cost-effective information
  providers. In the light of this reality, it is
  imperative for libraries to seek means to ensure
  that their services meet and preferably exceed
  user expectations. A continuing program of
  assessment is sine qua non to development of a
  meaningful approach to meeting service goals.
  (Heath/Cook/ELIS)

28
Of interest

• Library Service Quality Assessment
• http//www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicit
  y/bibliography.pdf

29
Read for next class Dugan and Stoffel.

• Walden, G. (2006). Focus group interviewing in
  the library literature A selective annotated
  bibliography. Reference Services Review, 34 (2),
  222-241.
• Dugan, R. E. Hernon, P. (2002). Outcomes
  assessment, not synonymous with inputs and
  outputs. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28
  (6), 376-380.
• Stoffel Tucker (2004). Email and chat
  reference assessing patron satisfaction.
  Reference Services Review, 32 (2), 120-140.