|
Group
| |
Overview
A group project to simulate parts of a library planning process. Your
group will select or be assigned a type of library or information agency and act
as a virtual consulting team for it. (You may use a real library or
information agency -- one for which you can find annual reports, census
information, and other useful data.) You will:
 | Do a quick scan to determine what evaluation approaches are state-of-the-art
in your specialty. Look for stages in the evaluation model that will help
you understand and respond to the needs of your clientele. |
| Identify a specific constituency or group of users served by your chosen library or
information service (e.g., teenagers living in the service area of a public
library; lawyers in a firm with a law library; freshmen at a community
college; teachers in an elementary school) |
| Plan to gather information you'd need either to develop or
to evaluate service to that group. Use best evaluation practices for
your type of library or information agency, and focus as much as possible on
the needs of users themselves. Your plan will specify 1) what information
should be gathered; 2) how it can best be obtained; 3) how it will be
analyzed; and 4) what action will be based on results of the analysis.
(Since you don't know in advance what the results will be, this involves
contingency planning. For instance, you might plan to find out if a service
is underutilized because people don't want it or because they just don't
know about it. If it turns out they don't want it, you might recommend
allocating resources to a service they want more; if turns out they don't
know about it, you might recommend allocating resources to publicity.) |
| Implement only those parts of the plan you can do without
surveying, interviewing, or otherwise interacting with "human research
subjects." What does that leave? Census data, newspapers, and other
publicly available information. For instance, a school library media
center's users mostly come from the school it serves, and you can find a
great deal of useful information about a school from sources like RI's
School Accountability for Learning and Teaching (SALT)
or Information
Works, or even from GreatSchools.Net. |
| DO NOT carry out those portions of
your plan that require research using human subjects -- you will not
actually survey, interview, or otherwise interact with library users unless
you are able to submit a proposal in time for approval by the URI Internal
Review Board (IRB) -- or unless you're working with a practitioner on a
project approved by some other institution. |
| In your presentation, take the role of consultants recommending a course
of action to the library (your classmates can play the library staff).
Explain:
 | The situation you're consulting on -- analyzing the feasibility of a
new service, or evaluating an existing service -- and the users who are
or will be most affected by this service |
| The state-of-the-art evaluation approach for your type of library, and
its strengths and weaknesses for this particular situation |
| What you already know or surmise about these users' needs (this is
where you use any data you gathered from online census reports, from
research on similar groups, or from other published sources) |
| What else you need to know in order to make an informed decision |
| What research methods (data gathering and analysis) would give you the
best insight into the group's needs, and why (this is where you show how
you'd design and analyze a survey they'd actually answer, or why you'd
choose to do focus group interviews instead) |
| Your conclusions (this is where you explain what you'd do if it came
out this way or that way) |
|
Tips
| Collaboration: You'll have limited class time for collaboration
(although you may choose to meet, and seek the instructor's advice, during
optional help sessions). You will be encouraged to collaborate online; each
group will have its own private discussion topic at the WebCT site for
asynchronous communication, or you may schedule chats. All members of a group should be equally responsible
for the group’s success and should carry their share of the group’s
workload, but work may be allocated on the basis of special qualifications. For
instance, a member with a soft voice and graphic talent might be responsible for
developing displays or PowerPoint presentations rather than speaking; you should
decide as a group if all of you or only some of you will speak. |
| Presentation, face to face: You will have limited presentation
time, so pick out main points and put supporting materials (such as any
surveys you may design, or statistics you gather from published sources)
online or make them handouts. Oral presentations will be given in class on
October 23. Time allocations for each group will depend on the number of
groups. Time allocations will be strictly observed, and will include any
time needed to set up and take down displays, call up websites or PowerPoint
slides, etc. -- things that are not "real time" from the point of
view of your presentation, but are "real time" from the point of
view of anybody who hasn't yet had a turn to present -- so keep it simple.
Time may be called before you finish, so consider 1) being very concise, and
2) having a script that can be posted at the WebCT site afterward in case we
miss anything in person. |
| Presentation, online: Make your notes, bibliography, and other useful elements of your
presentation available to the class at LSC557_Eaton. You can do this
either by sending them to the instructor as attachments to WebCT mail, or by
posting them to a URL of your own and informing the instructor so she can
create a link. Online presentations should be clear and accessible. |
Starting points for community analysis and library evaluation
| General community analysis resources:
|
| Public libraries:
| Public
Library Association (PLA) |
| Nelson, Sandra. (2001). The new planning for results: A streamlined
approach. Chicago: Public Library Association.
Your group could take on any part of this process that involves finding
out what the community (or some part of the community) thinks, feels,
and needs: e.g., Task 4 (Identify Community Needs) or measuring how well
the library is meeting the objectives associated with any service
response. |
| Kotch, Marianne. (2002). Using
the New planning for
results process to create local standards
of library service. Public
Libraries 41 (
216-219. |
|
| Academic libraries:
| Association
of College and Research Libraries (ACRL); Professional Tools, http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlproftools/professional.htm |
| Cook, Colleen, Fred M. Heath, and Bruce Thompson.
(2000). LibQUAL+: one instrument in the new
measures toolbox [adaptation of the SERVQUAL
survey instrument for research libraries]. ARL
212 (October),
4-7. |
| Cook, Colleen, and Fred M. Heath. (2001). Users'
perceptions of library service quality: A LibQUAL+ qualitative study. Library
Trends 49 (4), 548-584. |
| Dugan, Robert E., and Peter Hernon. (2002). Outcomes
Assessment: Not Synonymous with Inputs and Outputs. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 (6376-380. |
| Kyrillidou, Martha. (2002). From
input and output measures to quality and outcome measures, or, From the
user in the life of the library to the library in the life of the user.
The Journal of Academic
Librarianship 28 (,
42-46. |
| LibQUAL+: http://www.libqual.org/ |
|
| School library media centers:
| American
Association of School Librarians (AASL) |
| Farmer, Lesley S. J. (2003). Student success and library media
programs: A systems approach to research and best practice.
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. |
| Carefoot, Lillian. (2003). Student
Access to the School Library.
Teacher Librarian 30,
4 (April), 69-71. |
| Haycock, Ken. (2003). School
Libraries and Student Achievement. Teacher
Librarian 31,
1 (October), 34. |
| Lonsdale, Michele. (2003). Impact of school libraries on student
achievement: A review of the research. A report for the Australian
School Library Association. Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Council for
Educational Research. |
|
| Special libraries:
| Special Libraries Association (SLA), http://www.sla.org/;
"Value of the Information Professional," http://www.sla.org/content/learn/ipvalue/index.cfm |
| Marshall, Joanne Gard. (2000).
Determining our worth, communicating our value
[special libraries]. Library
Journal 125 (
28-30. |
| Strife, Mary L. (1992). Special
libraries assessment; or, Marketing the special
library. The
Reference Librarian 38,
53-56. |
|
Rubric
Criteria for instructor grading of group as a whole:
| Description of the consulting situation and users affected (10%)
| Exceeds the standard (A- or B+): Concise, but fully
informative; identifies the institution, its users, and the service in
question; focuses on the user's needs and viewpoint |
| Meets the standard (B): Identifies the institution, its users,
and the service in question clearly |
| Approaches the standard (B- or below): May be unclear about the
institution, its users, or the service to be evaluated; may emphasize
the institution's needs over those of the users (e.g., "this is a
great service and we need to find out how to publicize it so people will
come," rather than "this has been a great service in the past
but people are not coming anymore, so we need to find out how their
needs have changed") |
|
| The state-of-the-art evaluation approach for your type of library, and its
strengths and weaknesses for this particular situation (20%)
| Exceeds the standard (A- or B+): Identifies landmark evaluation
documents, standards, or studies; outlines the field's current climate
of opinion about them; explains concisely how the current model does or
does not support the evaluation your group needs to do |
| Meets the standard (B): Identifies current evaluation
documents, standards, or studies, and relates them to the project |
| Approaches the standard (B- or below): May fail to identify or
explain what evaluation approaches are currently accepted in the field,
or may fail to relate these approaches to the project |
|
| What you already know or surmise about these users' needs (20%)
| Exceeds the standard (A- or B+): Summarizes concisely and
authoritatively what is known of the group's needs from online census
reports, research on similar groups, or other published sources;
explains level of confidence in applying published information (e.g.,
generalizing research findings to library's own clientele). If relevant
published information is lacking (as may be the case for corporate
libraries, for instance), analyzes reasons for gap in record. |
| Meets the standard (B): Summarizes what may be known of the
group's needs from online census reports, research on similar groups, or
other published sources, but may not have compiled or evaluated all of
that information; explains level of confidence in applying published
information |
| Approaches the standard (B- or below): May be sketchy in
identifying or using available published information, or unconvincing in
applying it to the project |
|
| What else you need to know in order to make an informed decision, and how
you would find out; what research methods you would use, and why (25%)
| Exceeds the standard (A- or B+): Explains clearly and plausibly
what further information is needed and what steps will be taken to
gather it. Gives convincing rationale for data collection methods used
(e.g., observation or interview instead of questionnaires because users
are too busy or not literate); as a consulting group to be reimbursed by
the library, explains convincingly why this approach will give the best
bang for the buck. Designs good data-gathering instruments (e.g., a
questionnaire they'd actually answer). Plans for analysis of results
(e.g., "we would look for a correlation between the respondent's
age or distance from the library and frequency of library
use"). |
| Meets the standard (B): Explains what further information is
needed and how it will be gathered. Gives reasonable rationale for data
collection methods to be used. Designs usable data-gathering
instruments, and makes at least partial plans for analysis of
results. |
| Approaches the standard (B- or below): May be shaky in
explaining what further information is needed, how it will be gathered,
or how it will be analyzed. May give no data-collection instruments, or
poor ones. |
|
| Your conclusions (5%)
| Exceeds the standard (A- or B+): Concise, but fully
informative; outlines reasonable response(s) to information that will be
gathered; maintains focus on the user's needs and viewpoint |
| Meets the standard (B): Outlines responses to information that
will be gathered, and relates them to the user's needs and viewpoint |
| Approaches the standard (B- or below): May omit
responses, |
|
| Mechanics (20%)
| Exceeds the standard (A- or B+): Both face-to-face and online
presentation effective; well-designed to capture interest and persuade.
Oral delivery clear, audible, and well-paced. Ideas well organized; main
points stand out, and are supported by relevant evidence but not bogged
down in detail. Visual aids (if used) are effective; any posters or
PowerPoint slides are dramatic, informative, easily legible from back of
the room (for PowerPoint, that means 28-point font or larger); handouts
are well designed. Presentation does not exceed maximum time
allocation. |
| Meets the standard (B): Both face-to-face and online
presentation are informative and easy to follow. Oral presentation is
clear and audible; any visuals used are attractive. Presentation does
not exceed maximum time allocation. |
| Approaches the standard (B- or below): Oral or online
presentation, or both, may be confusing and difficult to follow. Oral
delivery may be inaudible, too fast, or too slow and stumbling. Ideas
may be poorly organized, with main points submerged in excessive detail.
Visual aids may be ineffective -- e.g., PowerPoint slides or
slow-loading Internet sites with tiny print. The presentation may have
to be cut off before it is complete in order to leave time for other
presenters. |
|
Individual modifications to the group grade: Ordinarily, all members of a
group receive the same grade. In real life, this repeatedly happens, and
colleagues often have to decide whether to do more than their share of a lazy or
incompetent group member's work, or find some way of motivating that member to
higher performance, or accept an outcome that is not so good as it might have
been if everybody's contribution had equaled that of the most competent and
ambitious. For this course, however, individual grades may be adjusted if group
members and the instructor perceive that contributions are not balanced. Members of each group will
submit individual grades for themselves and their team members, which will be
factored into the group grade. These grades should reflect the group process.
You will be asked to evaluate, on a scale of 1-5, the degree to which you and
each of your teammates:
| Were cooperative and prompt in group communications (meetings, e-mail,
etc.) |
| Contributed conceptually to the development of the project |
| Listened to, supported, and built on other members’ ideas |
| Contributed to the literature review (e.g., located, read, and reported to
the group on current standards and evaluation documents and relevant
evaluation research in the field) |
| Contributed to finding published information about the user group (e.g.,
located, read, and reported to the group on census reports, relevant user
studies, etc. that would help understand the group and its needs) |
| Contributed to designing group's proposed research methods, including any
survey questionnaires, interview protocols, or other data-collection
instruments |
| Contributed to designing and scripting the presentation |
| Contributed to designing visuals, handouts, Web support, etc. |
| Helped deliver the presentation by speaking, managing visual supports,
etc. |
Not every member will contribute equally to every phase of the project -- you
need to split it up to share the load. It is hoped that every member will
contribute equally to the total effort.
|
