report of the › documents › mountroyalthisweek › oct062005 … · mount royal college library...

MOUNT ROYAL COLLEGE

REPORT OF THE

LIBRARY TRANSITION TASK FORCE

AUGUST 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 3

Background................................................................................................................................................... 4

LTTF Agenda & Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 6

A. Vision & Mission............................................................................................................................. 7

B. Services............................................................................................................................................ 8

C. Communication & Collaboration................................................................................................... 11

D. Organization & Staffing................................................................................................................. 13

E. Budget & Collections..................................................................................................................... 15

F. Facilities & Technology................................................................................................................. 19

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendices

1. Committee Charter............................................................................................................... i

2. ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education........................................................... ii

3. Maclean’s Rankings for Libraries.....................................................................................xii

4. Faculty Surveys................................................................................................................xiii

5. New Course Proposals Checklist ...................................................................................... xv

6. Library Administrative Review – Recommendations (April 2003)................................xvii

7. OCLC Collection Assessment (December 2003) ............................................................ xix

8. Lois Hole Digital Library.................................................................................................. xx

MOUNT ROYAL COLLEGE LIBRARY TRANSITION TASK FORCE REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Library Transition Task Force was chartered by the Transition Steering Committee in January 2005. The objectives of this Task Force have been (1) to identify appropriate ten-year targets for library collections, facilities, services and staffing; (2) to conduct a “gap analysis” to assess how far today’s MRC Library falls short of these targets; and (3) to recommend pragmatic strategies to bridge these gaps within the next decade. We selected two major sources of benchmarking data:

Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (2004), from the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of the American Library Association, and

Maclean’s University Rankings (2004), which provides statistical comparisons of Canadian universities (grouped by institutional type) along several variables, including three library measures. We selected the Primarily Undergraduate group for comparison on library criteria.

In a series of six meetings between March and August 2005, the Task Force reviewed available data on MRC Library in comparison with these benchmarks, bearing in mind Mount Royal’s academic plan for the foreseeable future. We found a substantial gap between the status quo and the targets in several areas, notably collections, facilities and staffing. This resulted in the development of the following recommendations. A. VISION STATEMENT

A1. Library services and collections will meet the majority of instructional and research requirements for Mount Royal students and faculty.

B. SERVICES

Assessment of Services

B1. That the Library implement and maintain quantitative and qualitative measurements to assess its ability to serve its users.

Instruction

B2. That the MRC Library continue to offer assignment-based, course-integrated instruction.

B3. That the College consider the addition of a credit course on information literacy for first year students.

Access to Resources

B4. That materials ordered by the Library should be in the collection within three months.

B5. That the Library establish authority control (standardization) for name and subject headings in its catalogue.

Library Transition Task Force Report 1

C. COMMUNICATION & COLLABORATION

Liaison

C1. That the Library establish and maintain effective liaison relationships with all College departments to ensure appropriate collection and service development in response to evolving student and faculty needs.

C2. That the College establish a Library Advisory Committee with representation from throughout the institution, including students.

Website

C3. That there be a visible Library link on the main College web page.

C4. That the Library website be re-designed to be universally accessible and incorporate a personally customizable interface (e.g. “MyLibrary”).

D. ORGANIZATION & STAFFING

D1. That the Library add one or two librarian positions per year in order to achieve parity with similar undergraduate institutions, and add management and support staff positions commensurate with enrollment growth.

D2. That the Library hire qualified IT personnel to support its technology infrastructure.

D3. That an adequate training and development budget be established for Library staff in recognition of the Library’s extraordinary technological requirements.

E. BUDGET & COLLECTIONS

E1. That the Library’s base budget be increased by twice the percentage of the institutional operating budget’s growth rate every year for the next ten years, or by 8% per year, whichever is greater.

E2. That 50% of the annual increase in the Library’s base budget be expended on new acquisitions.

E3. That the Mount Royal Foundation develop a fund-raising campaign for Library

collection development. F. FACILITIES & TECHNOLOGY

F1. That the highest institutional priority be assigned to the Library expansion project outlined in the Internal Renovation Master Plan, with Summer 2007 as the target completion date for construction of an expanded facility.

F2. That a new Library facility, to be constructed by 2016, be included in the next iteration of the Campus Master Plan. That a planning committee be established and a fund-raising campaign be developed for this major campus project as soon as possible.

The full report of the Library Transition Task Force offers a summary of the discussion on the above topics, together with the rationale and calculations that gave rise to these recommendations. Ross Thrasher, Chair Library Transition Task Force Mount Royal College August 31, 2005


INTRODUCTION The road map to a preferred future for Mount Royal College was sketched out in the President’s discussion paper, Mount Royal in Transition (Sept. 2004).

Mount Royal aspires to be a competitive, undergraduate degree-granting institution … Clearly, the transition path to this vision will be much easier if Mount Royal University were established and funded. (pp. 11-12)

The discussion paper called for the establishment of a Transition Steering Committee to lead the planning process toward the realization of this vision. Among the activities proposed for this Committee was the creation of several task forces to address various aspects of the transition agenda. Library services were identified as one of the critical areas:

Mount Royal requires a larger college-wide exercise to identify appropriate library “benchmarks” related to the provision of undergraduate university programming. This benchmarking would include an examination of library budget, staffing, facilities, services, collections and electronic resources needed to bring the Mount Royal library up to undergraduate university standards.

A task force to develop a library “transition” plan for achieving recommended library benchmarks … should be a priority “transitional” activity over the coming year. (p. 18)

The Transition Steering Committee was set up in Fall 2004, and one of its first actions was to approve a charter for the Library Transition Task Force (LTTF) on January 21, 2005 (see Appendix 1). LTTF members were duly appointed or elected as follows:

Ross Thrasher, Library Director (Chair) Janet Monteith, Librarian Carol Sinanan, Librarian Alex Pett, Deans’ Council Representative Jim Brenan, Conservatory Faculty Victoria Calvert, Bissett School of Business Faculty Diana Patterson, Arts Faculty Shauna Snow-Capparelli, Centre for Communication Studies Faculty Qasim Syed, Science & Technology Faculty Aileen Wight-Felske, Health & Community Studies Faculty Tyler Smith / Adam Boechler, Student Association Representative Kathryn Oldham, Recording Secretary

The Task Force convened its first meeting on March 3, 2005. Subsequent LTTF meetings were held on March 22, April 19, May 19, June 14 and August 22. This report is the result of those deliberations and represents the consensus views of the Task Force members.


BACKGROUND This is not the first time that MRC Library has been reviewed in recent years. May 1999 saw the release of the Mount Royal College Library Operational & Facility Needs Assessment, a report prepared for the College by Bookham Consulting Ltd. The objectives of this assessment (on Page 1 of the document) were:

• To evaluate the existing library operation (staff, collection and users) within the context of current and future space requirements; and

• To prepare a strategy for achieving space changes over the next 5, 15 and 25 years. The enrollment projections used in the study were those of the Campus Master Plan at the time, i.e. 7463 FLE in 2005 and 9266 FLE in 2015. Of course we are now working on a target in excess of 8000 FLE for 2005-06 and, assuming mandate change, more than 10,000 FLE by 2010. The MRC Library was evaluated in comparison with (1) Canadian undergraduate institutions of similar size, and (2) Canadian and U.S. standards for two- and four-year college libraries. The consultants acknowledged that MRC is unique in its program mix, and therefore they developed a “blended” standard as the appropriate benchmark for current and future staffing levels, collection size, and physical facilities. Assessment Summary Using 1997 data, the existing Library operations were assessed as follows: Collections: At 25 volumes per student, the MRC book collection (155,000 volumes) fell far

short of all Canadian undergraduate universities and B.C. university colleges, and about 10% short of the blended standard for college libraries. Moreover, fully 30% of the existing collection (46,500 volumes) was deemed to be obsolete and in need of weeding.

Staffing: Library support staff numbers (27 FTE) met the pro-rated standards, but the number of professional librarians (6 FTE) was less than 50% of the standards, exactly half of the average of similarly-sized undergraduate universities, and 23% below the B.C. university colleges per FLE enrollment.

Facilities: MRC Library provided seating for 8% of the FLE enrollment. The library standards called for 20%, and the average at the undergraduate universities was 16.2%. The assessment identified other physical shortcomings in the Library, such as inefficient use of space in the book stacks; inadequate user workstations; overcrowded office and work areas with outdated and non-ergonomic furnishings; poor lighting, wiring and mechanical systems.

Progress to 2005 Since the Bookham report was released in 1999, the College has taken steps to address the deficiencies noted above. Here is a revised assessment based on the situation in Spring 2005. Collections: The College provided a one-time grant of $1.36 million to the Library over a

three-year period (ending in 2003) for book and a/v acquisitions, including associated staffing costs (25% of the total). This was followed by one-time allocations of $550K in 2003-04 and $450K in 2004-05, staff included. These infusions enabled the Library to add 35,000 volumes in the five-year period. We have also weeded almost 20,000 outdated volumes since 1999. However, with the concurrent growth in enrollments, this net gain in collection size is only maintaining the 25 volumes-per-student ratio. The 2005-06 MRC budget has


added $300K to the Library’s base acquisitions budget and has made three related staff positions permanent. This is a 10% reduction in the book budget from last year, although the funding is now secure.

Staffing: The current complement of support staff in the Library is 35.5 FTE, as compared with 27 in 1997. We have added several support staff positions in the circulation/media and acquisitions/cataloguing areas, and a Data Information Specialist. On the faculty side of the ledger, we have added three tenure-track librarians to the previous total of 6. These new positions have bolstered our support for collection development, library instruction and staff supervision, but library faculty are still stretched to meet the growing demands of the institution.

Facilities: The Library had its floor area reduced by 10% (4500 sq. ft.) in 2000 when the new ADC offices were built. This resulted in a loss of more than 100 study seats, almost 20% of the previous total. But in 2001, a renovation of the Library and office area added back more than 200 seats, and addressed many of the other shortcomings noted by the consultants. The Library is now a much more attractive and functional facility, but it is coming under increasing pressure for space because of the expansion of the collection, the staff, and the student population. Moreover, the closure of the City Centre Campus Library in Summer 2003 has transferred that collection and the students it serves to the Main Library.


LTTF AGENDA & METHODOLOGY Where do we go from here? Clearly a new set of library benchmarks and standards may be called for in 2005, as Mount Royal begins the transition to a new mandate. The objective of this Task Force has been (1) to identify appropriate ten-year targets for library collections, facilities, services and staffing; (2) to conduct a “gap analysis” to assess how far today’s MRC Library falls short of these targets; and (3) to recommend pragmatic strategies to bridge these gaps within the next decade. We selected two major sources of benchmarking data:

1. Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (2004), from the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of the American Library Association. See Appendix 2. These are descriptive and qualitative guidelines and questions rather than quantitative targets. But they helped us to focus on a number of key issues.

2. Maclean’s University Rankings (2004), which provides statistical comparisons of Canadian universities (grouped by institutional type) along several variables, including three library measures. We selected the Primarily Undergraduate group for comparison on library criteria. See Appendix 3. Within that group we chose five universities that are relatively “youthful” and most closely resemble Mount Royal in student population: Brock, Lakehead, Lethbridge, Trent and Wilfrid Laurier.

Some other relevant standards and assessment data will be cited in this report where appropriate. In addition to the above sources, LTTF members were encouraged to offer their personal observations and to seek feedback from their colleagues. A survey (see Appendix 4) was developed and distributed to faculty members in the six credit areas represented on the Task Force. Responses were compiled, circulated and discussed at subsequent LTTF meetings. It was difficult to obtain student feedback so late in the academic year. However, we agreed that responses from students to this Task Force report should be elicited in Fall 2005.


A. VISION & MISSION MRC Library has a mission statement (posted on the Library’s website) which reads:

The mission of the Library is to support the instructional program of the College, and to encourage and develop the learning process by the provision of a wide range of library services in an active learning environment. Services include selection and maintenance of a quality library collection together with assistance and instruction in effective utilization and evaluation of resources.

The Task Force felt that, in addition to the above, a strong vision statement was needed to express the aspirations of the transformed Mount Royal Library of the future. The following was recommended: RECOMMENDATION

Vision Statement

A1. Library services and collections will meet the majority of instructional and research requirements for Mount Royal students and faculty.


B. SERVICES An inventory of MRC Library services includes the following:

Access to resources: Books, periodicals, digital resources, audio-visual materials, microforms, music scores, maps, etc.

Circulation of materials Classroom services Course reserve collection Distance education support Information literacy instruction Information (reference and research) services Inter-library loan and document delivery Library computer lab for instruction and drop-in use Media equipment/software booking and distribution Photocopying and laser printing Study areas for individuals and groups Web-based catalogue and Internet access

Some historical evidence of the quality of MRC Library services was provided by the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), a standard 74-item questionnaire that was administered at the College in 1999 and again in January 2002. Respondents were asked to rate both (1) the importance of and (2) their satisfaction with each statement on a seven-point scale (1 = lowest, 7 = highest). Subtracting the average Satisfaction score from the average Importance score gives a Performance Gap. The smaller the Performance Gap, the better (a gap of less than 1.00 is considered acceptable). There are two library-related statements in the SSI. Here are the results for MRC:

Statement: Year

Impor-tance

1-7 Satisfaction

1-7 Performance

Gap 2002 6.20 5.77 0.43 Item 26: Library staff are helpful and approachable.

Was strength #4 in 1999 and 2002. 1999 6.07 5.60 0.47 2002 6.52 5.50 1.02 Item 14: Library resources and services are adequate.

Highest importance ranking in Academic Services category in 1999 and 2002.

1999 6.37 5.21 1.16

The responses to both library statements indicate that their importance and levels of satisfaction are increasing and that the performance gap is shrinking, marginally. Library staff performance is a consistent area of excellence for the College: this was the item with the fourth-lowest performance gap of all 74 statements in both years. However, the adequacy rating of Library resources and services remains a concern. By way of a comment on methodology, Library resources and services (and perhaps physical facilities too) should be measured separately. Below is a sampling of the comments about MRC Library services that were made either by LTTF members in the meetings or by other faculty members in the surveys: General:

My expectations have been fully met by library staff. Every time I’ve approached library staff for assistance, I’ve been thoroughly impressed with the response.

The staff in today’s library are very service oriented and responsive to any requests. MRC Library staff are outstanding in their willingness to help students and faculty. The library services are excellent. The library webpage is particularly useful, but hard to find on the MRC site.


Students see the Library as a meeting place and a place to do group work. What they want most is to be able to go to the Library, write their paper and print it out ready to hand in.

How does the Library assess the quality of its services? We don’t have any regular user surveys or outcomes-based instruments at present. Student evaluations of library instruction are done, but these are specific to individual sessions for a particular course.

Equipment:

Many journals are on microfilm, but the readers are very unreliable, meaning that much of the microfilm material is hard to use.

Microfilm is not going away. Updated microfilm resources and readers are essential for senior levels of research.

Students have reported many problems with Library printers and photocopiers, SmartCard readers and cash machines.

The ghetto-blasters are often broken, and these need to be able to be taken home by students with audio materials.

Inter-Library Loan (ILL):

We need to have better borrowing arrangements with other institutions. Students need to use ILLs more often. Better ILL: if we could get books within 24 hours, get photocopies of articles within that time, much

could be done quickly.

Update: This summer MRC Library is installing an automated ILL system known as Relais, which is the system used by the Alberta universities. We have also created a new half-time clerical position for document delivery (ILL) and distance education support. These initiatives should improve our ILL service.

Library Instruction:

The library staff provide very useful instruction in the classroom settings. The Library does a good job of instructing first year classes in research techniques. Plagiarism as regards web resources is a problem which library instruction can address. Also,

librarians can help teach students how to evaluate resources (print or electronic) vis-à-vis scholarly credibility.

Access to the Library and its Collections:

How quickly should material reach the shelves after it has been ordered? The current backlog is 4-6 months; faculty felt it should be no more than 3 months.

Quality of catalogue records is variable because the Library doesn’t have “authority control” (standardized names and subject headings).

The discussions summarized above, together with a review of the ACRL Standards pertaining to these service issues, gave rise to the following recommendations:


RECOMMENDATIONS

Assessment of Services

B1. That the Library implement and maintain quantitative and qualitative measurements to assess its ability to serve its users.

Instruction

B2. That the MRC Library continue to offer assignment-based, course-integrated instruction.

B3. That the College consider the addition of a credit course on information literacy for first year students.

Access to Resources

B4. That materials ordered by the Library should be in the collection within three months.

B5. That the Library establish authority control (standardization) for name and subject headings in its catalogue.


C. COMMUNICATION & COLLABORATION MRC Library is committed to “participating in a network of College departments and external organizations and libraries to provide services and resources in a cost-effective and efficient manner”. (Statement #4 under Mission on Library’s web page) This statement recognizes the importance of communication and collaboration, both internally and externally. Here are some examples of current activities: Internal:

Collections: Each librarian is assigned a group of subjects/disciplines and a budget for collection development in these areas. The librarian consults with faculty in the relevant departments, offering and receiving suggestions for Library acquisitions.

Instruction: As noted in one of the recommendations above, our preferred model for conveying information literacy skills to students is through course-integrated, assignment-based library instruction in collaboration with the course instructors. We deliver more than 600 library instruction sessions to 15,000 students annually.

External:

Licensing of Digital Resources: MRC Library obtains significant discounts in contracting for access to bundles of electronic journals and other digital information resources through a number of partnerships such as The Alberta Library (TAL). See Appendix 8.

Resource Sharing: Libraries have an ethic of reciprocal borrowing of materials, usually free of charge or at a nominal fee. The development of resource-sharing networks among libraries has been facilitated by combined catalogues, e.g. TAL Online, and by automated inter-library loan systems, e.g. Relais (as noted above).

Below is a sampling of the comments from LTTF members and the faculty surveys re communication and collaboration.

Recommend annual meetings between subject librarians and faculty to talk about goals, needs, etc. This is already being done in some areas but not consistently in all departments/faculties.

Lists of all proposed acquisitions should be sent to the relevant faculty by the subject specialists. What we really need is some sort of list of what’s been published in our fields and some consultation

on whether we feel it’s worth ordering. Some faculties have very active library committees that are proactive in recommending acquisitions

for the Library. Other faculties find it more difficult to engage their members in library work, or to establish a library committee because of the diversity of subject areas.

Establish a library liaison person in each department who could apply for reassigned time, because this is a coordination function. One subject librarian per discipline would also be ideal.

The development of a Library checklist for new course proposals (see Appendix 5) has improved communication with the program areas, but this needs further promotion.

The Library should communicate more effectively with students about its services, via a Library newsletter or through the use of “push” technology on the Web.

The Library is not as visible as it should be on the College website. The Library needs to do more outreach, e.g. displays and public events that attract students, staff and

the general public. By collaborating with other units and people around the campus, the visibility of the Library can be increased. We could also partner with community events like WordFest, e.g. author readings, book displays.

Fundraising for the Library by the MRC Foundation is another important collaboration.


The discussions summarized above, together with a review of the ACRL Standards pertaining to these communication and collaboration issues, gave rise to the following recommendations: RECOMMENDATIONS

Liaison

C1. That the Library establish and maintain effective liaison relationships with all College departments to ensure appropriate collection and service development in response to evolving student and faculty needs.

C2. That the College establish a Library Advisory Committee with representation from throughout the institution, including students.

Website

C3. That there be a visible Library link on the main College web page.

C4. That the Library website be re-designed to be universally accessible and incorporate a personally customizable interface (e.g. “MyLibrary”).


D. ORGANIZATION & STAFFING In Winter 2003 MRC Library engaged a human resources consultant, Mary Kelly from the University of Calgary, to (1) review the Library’s organizational framework in anticipation of institutional growth and change and (2) assess the classification of Library support staff positions. In her report entitled Mount Royal College Library: Academic Partners in Student Success, the consultant “found the library to be well organized and focused and the staff strongly committed to excellence in public service and teamwork”. She made 16 specific recommendations for improvements in Library organization and internal and inter-departmental communication; adjustments to the staff classification system; and job reviews for one staff group and five standalone technology-related positions (see Executive Summary, Appendix 6). Many of these recommendations have been implemented and others are still under consideration. Information on library staffing levels in the table below was gathered through direct communication with library directors at a comparison group of five Canadian undergraduate universities. These five institutions were selected because of their relative “youth” and their similarity in student population to MRC. Library Staffing Comparisons 2004

Institution Year Established

Full-Time Students

Director (& Managers)

Professional Librarians

Support Staff

Brock 1964 10,485 3 (2 Assoc. Dirs.) 17 40.5 Lakehead 1965 5,850 1 10 26 Lethbridge 1967 6,512 2 (Assoc. Dir.) 13 21 Trent 1963 6,038 2 (Office Mgr.) 11 25.2 W. Laurier 1911 10,097 2 (Office Mgr.) 11.5 36 Mount Royal 1910 7,751 1 8 32

NOTE: These staff numbers refer to continuing positions only. If we divide the number of staff in each of the above categories into the number of students at the institution, the result in the table below provides some useful benchmarking. Library Staff per Student Ratios

Institution FT

Students Students / Library

Director + Managers Students / Librarian

Students / Support Staff

Students / Total Library Staff

Brock 10,485 3,495 617 259 173 Lakehead 5,850 5,850 585 225 158 Lethbridge 6,512 3,256 501 310 181 Trent 6,038 3,019 549 240 158 W. Laurier 10,097 5,049 878 280 204 Mount Royal 7,751 7,751 969 242 189

These ratios show that MRC Library is understaffed in comparison with the five peer institutions, particularly in the management and librarian categories. It should be noted that MRC has added one tenure-track librarian and 3.5 support staff positions in 2005-06. But MRC Library still has some catching up to do in the first two employee categories (managers and librarians). And if our enrollment grows by 50% in the next decade as projected, additional Library support staff positions should also continue to be created.


Below is a sampling of the comments from LTTF members and the faculty surveys re Library organization and staffing:

The recent executive reorganization which has returned the Library to the Academic Affairs Division, with the Library Director reporting to the Provost, is a good thing.

In the future more Library staff focusing on the Web will be required. As Web users we will expect increased customization, interactivity and customer support. Library portals should be developed that focus on the use of digital resources, interactive help, and a customized learning and transactional Web environment.

Library staff will need to keep current on their technical skills, especially when it comes to Internet databases and ways to present them.

There will probably have to be a stronger alignment between IT Services and the Library. We will probably need more librarians to handle a more complex collection. They should develop

expertise in the various academic areas. A subject librarian for every program would be nice. Library support for distance education will need to grow if e-learning and other modes of remote

delivery continue to expand at Mount Royal. Potential Areas of Library Staff Growth at Mount Royal, 2006-2016: Management: Associate Director; Chair; Office / Staff Manager; Executive Assistant.

Librarians: Instruction; Systems / Electronic Resources; Subject Specialists / Faculty Liaison; Distance / E-Learning; Technical Services; Special Collections / Archives; Outreach/Partnerships.

Support Staff: Technical Services (Acquisitions; Cataloguing; Serials; Processing; Shelving); Information Services (Reference; Website Support; Document Delivery; Instructional Assistance); Access Services (Copyright; Digital Media; Electronic Reserves; Supervision); Technology / Systems.

Other Organizational Options for the Future: Increased collaboration through TAL, Lois Hole Digital Library, etc. Outsourcing of Technical Services activities, e.g. contract cataloguing of specialized materials

(music, languages, maps, digital resources); approval plans for acquisitions; shelf-ready services from book vendors.

Circulation services, e.g. self-checkout unit for books; electronic reserves. Cooperative collection development with other colleges/universities. Virtual reference services – 24x7; outsourced or collaborative. Internships for library-school students or freshly-minted graduates.

The discussions summarized above, together with a review of the ACRL Standards pertaining to these organizational and staffing issues, gave rise to the following recommendations: RECOMMENDATIONS

D1. That the Library add one or two librarian positions per year in order to achieve parity with similar undergraduate institutions, and add management and support staff positions commensurate with enrollment growth.

D2. That the Library hire qualified IT personnel to support its technology infrastructure.

D3. That an adequate training and development budget be established for Library staff in recognition of the Library’s extraordinary technological requirements.


E. BUDGET & COLLECTIONS Here is a snapshot of the MRC Library budget:

2004-2005 Budget General Operating $ 2,867,000 Access Funds 175,000 Collection Upgrade 450,000 Total $ 3,492,000 Expenditure Breakdown Salaries & benefits $ 2,619,000 Acquisitions 805,000 Operating costs 68,000 Total $ 3,492,000

The Acquisitions budget is divided about equally between (1) journal subscriptions and licenses for digital resources; and (2) purchases of books and audio-visual materials. In December 2003 MRC Library conducted a collection assessment to analyze the age and content of current book holdings. See Appendix 7. According to this assessment 75% of the Library’s 120,000 book titles had been published prior to 1990. This age distribution was of particular concern in the Sci-Tech-Medicine areas, where it has prompted vigorous weeding of obsolete materials. The Library’s holdings were then compared against two lists of academic best books (Choice Magazine’s Recommended Titles and Books for College Libraries), against which we matched only 15% of the titles in both cases. Subject librarians have used these lists to fill gaps in the collection. Below is a sampling of the comments from LTTF members and from the faculty surveys on the MRC Library budget and collections:

The Library collection is very good in some areas such as Business, Nursing and Education which have received special Access funding.

There is a diversity of opinion about print vs. online resources. Some areas are concentrating on distance education supported by online materials, but other areas require mostly print materials because electronic formats aren’t available. The user-friendliness of print for in-depth reading is an enduring value.

Arts faculty expressed a number of concerns about the quality, currency, breadth and depth of the collection in their respective disciplines. They cited a need for more print journals; back issues of journals for research purposes; more scholarly monographs, fewer “pop culture” titles; more films and audio-visual materials; more foreign-language resources; primary sources, e.g. archival materials.

Faculty in Communication Studies are generally happy with the Library’s online resources. The print collection is adequate for college level courses, but less so for university level or for faculty research needs. Current collection lacks theoretical depth. Media resources will need to grow: news documentaries, archiving of web casts, etc.

Faculty in Science & Technology feel that the current collection is sufficient for teaching purposes but not research, and definitely not for keeping up professionally. Nor would it be sufficient for third and fourth year students.

Students in some programs feel that the MRC collection is outdated. Their perception is that the Library budget hasn’t been much of a priority for the institution, and that students who want to do “serious” research must go the University of Calgary Library for resources.

Weeding of obsolete materials is advisable in some disciplines. But as we move toward foundation degrees, it will be important to retain the classics, standard texts and seminal works, even if they are not heavily used.

Donations of material to the Library by alumni or retiring faculty are a good idea in principle, and can add significant value to the collection. But donations are labour-intensive and require careful management.


Alberta Advanced Education has recently created the Lois Hole Campus Alberta Digital Library (LHCADL) with initial three-year funding of $30 million. This initiative, to be coordinated by The Alberta Library, will deliver core collections of digital information to post-secondary learners across Alberta. See Appendix 8. The MRC Library Director is a member of the LHCADL Steering Committee. LHCADL programs are intended to supplement, not replace current levels of financial support for participating libraries.

How can we assess the adequacy of the MRC Library’s budget and its collection? The following table is extracted from the November 15, 2004 issue of Maclean’s, which contains the magazine’s annual Canadian University Rankings (see Appendix 3). As above with library staffing levels, we have used a comparison group of five universities that appear to be most similar to Mount Royal in their institutional age and their student population.

Library Measures Among Canada’s 21 “Primarily Undergraduate” Universities In Comparison With Mount Royal College, 20041

(Numbers in parentheses indicate rank among the 22 institutions in this category.)

Institution Year Established

Full-Time Students

Holdings Per Student

Acquisitions: % of Library Budget

Expenses: Library % of Inst. Budget

Brock 1964 10,485 125 (19) 38.55 (7) 5.11 (11) Lakehead 1965 5,850 197 (12) 45.28 (2) 5.37 (7) Lethbridge 1967 6,512 213 (10) 32.09 (17) 5.39 (6) Trent 1963 6,038 160 (15) 35.4 (12) 5.30 (9) W. Laurier 1911 10,097 140 (17) 36.42 (11) 5.19 (10) Mount Royal 1910 7,751 24 (22) 23.27 (22) 4.3 (19)

These comparisons of Mount Royal with the five selected peer institutions, together with our rankings against all 21, indicate that MRC Library is far below the empirical standard of Canadian undergraduate universities on all three library measures.

Measure #1 – Holdings Per Student: At 24 volumes per student (vps), MRC is in last place by a distant margin. Ryerson is next lowest at 70 vps. The median is 212 vps.

Measure #2 – Acquisitions as a Percentage of the Library Budget: Again MRC is in last place with less than 25% of the Library’s budget devoted to acquisitions. Most other undergraduate universities are in the 32-40% range, with the median at 36.42%.

Measure #3 – Library Expenditures as a Percentage of the Institutional Budget: On this measure of financial commitment, MRC Library is 19th out of 22, but at 4.3% we are almost one full percentage point behind the median of 5.11%. Clearly Mount Royal is in a serious deficit position here. A major institutional commitment will be required to move MRC Library up the ranks of Canadian undergraduate universities on these measures. It would be useful to set some quantitative targets based on the above comparisons, and to propose a strategy to close the gaps between MRC’s present position and those targets. The key factor is institutional investment in the Library (Measure #3). If the Library obtains a larger share of the institutional budget, a greater percentage of this increased amount can be allocated to acquisitions (Measure #2). This will enable the purchase of more volumes, which will improve the holdings per student (Measure #1). 1 2003-2004 MRC Data:

Library Holdings = 184,500 volumes Library Budget = $3.46M Acquisitions Budget = $805K Institutional Budget = $80.45M (centrally funded operations)


The experience of the university colleges in British Columbia offers some benchmarks for library budgets and collections in support of emerging degree programs. The presidents of the five B.C. university colleges hired a consultant in 1997 to produce an external review of their libraries. BC College Libraries 1997-2002: Final Report includes the following recommendations:

1. Library funding should move upward in planned annual increments until it approaches 6 % of the institution’s operating budget.

2. Funding should be targeted primarily toward building the core collection in support of four-year programs.

MRC Library Budget Proposals 2006-07 to 2015-16 Budget Goal #1: A reasonable ten-year target for Library expenditures is 6% of the

institutional operating budget by 2016 (Maclean’s Library Measure #3) This would place Mount Royal in the top quartile of Canadian undergraduate universities, based on 2004 data. An increased investment of this magnitude will be required to improve MRC’s position in the other two measures. RECOMMENDATION E1

• The Library’s base budget should be increased by twice the percentage of the institutional operating budget’s growth rate every year for the next ten years, or by 8% per year, whichever is greater.

At an 8% annual growth rate, the Library would comprise 5.9% of the institutional budget by 2016 (assuming a 4% institutional growth rate). See table below.

Budget Increases (2005/06 - 2015/16) Future Projections if Library Budget Grows at Twice the Rate of MRC Budget

(All amounts in $M)

MRC

4% Library

8% Library as % of MRC

2005-2006 $86.58 $3.50 4.04% 2006-2007 $90.04 $3.78 4.20% 2007-2008 $93.64 $4.08 4.36% 2008-2009 $97.39 $4.41 4.53% 2009-2010 $101.29 $4.76 4.70% 2010-2011 $105.34 $5.14 4.88% 2011-2012 $109.55 $5.55 5.07% 2012-2013 $113.93 $6.00 5.26% 2013-2014 $118.49 $6.48 5.47% 2014-2015 $123.23 $7.00 5.68% 2015-2016 $128.16 $7.56 5.90%

Budget Goal #2: By 2016 acquisitions should comprise more than 36% of the Library budget. Achievement of this target would place Mount Royal around the median of Canadian undergraduate universities in this category, and would enable the Library to build collections more rapidly to redress historical deficiencies.


RECOMMENDATION E2

Half of the annual increase in the Library’s base budget should be expended on new acquisitions. At an 8% annual growth rate, this 50% allocation of the increased amount would raise the acquisitions component of the Library budget to 37.5% by 2016. See table below.

Library Acquisitions Budget (2005/06 – 2015/16) Future Projections if 50% of Annual Increase is Expended on Acquisitions

(All amounts in $M)

Library Budget

Acquisitions Budget

% of Library Budget

2005-2006 $3.50 $0.805 23.0% 2006-2007 $3.78 $0.945 25.0% 2007-2008 $4.08 $1.096 26.9% 2008-2009 $4.41 $1.259 28.6% 2009-2010 $4.76 $1.436 30.2% 2010-2011 $5.14 $1.626 31.6% 2011-2012 $5.55 $1.832 33.0% 2012-2013 $6.00 $2.054 34.2% 2013-2014 $6.48 $2.294 35.4% 2014-2015 $7.00 $2.553 36.5% 2015-2016 $7.56 $2.833 37.5%

What about Measure #1 – Holdings per Student? We are so far behind our prospective peer institutions in this category that even when the above proposals are implemented, MRC Library is unlikely to climb out of last place by 2016. For example, at the current average cost per volume of $70, if 75% of the cumulative acquisitions budget for the next ten years, i.e. $18M x .75 = $13.5M, is allocated to monographs, we would be able to acquire about 193,000 new volumes. At an estimated 12,000 FLE students in 2016, that number which would double the current collection, translates to only around 32 vps. However, this measure only accounts for hard-copy holdings. It is likely that Maclean’s will soon revise its methodology to include access to digital resources, in order to provide a more complete assessment of library collections. For that reason it seems unnecessary to set a specific target for Measure #1 at this time. Nevertheless, it will be important for MRC Library to continue building its print and audio-visual collections to support the evolving programs of the institution. In addition to incremental budget increases as recommended above, Mount Royal should make a strong institutional commitment to fund-raising to help build the Library’s collections. For example, campaigns calling upon students, employees and the general public to “Buy a book for the Library” have been successful at other post-secondary institutions and in the public library sector. Corporate endowments for collection development are also a worthy goal of a fund-raising campaign. RECOMMENDATION E3 • That the Mount Royal Foundation develop a fund-raising campaign for Library collection

development.


F. FACILITIES & TECHNOLOGY There is ample evidence through usage statistics and daily observation that the MRC Library is now stretched to the limit. The book and periodical stacks are very close to capacity. During the Fall and Winter semesters the Library’s 59 public-access computers and 529 study seats are fully occupied throughout the day. The Library’s three group-study rooms, 15 wireless laptop computers and other media equipment are constantly in use. Lineups are common at the printers, photocopiers and service desks. Excessive noise has become a serious problem due to overcrowding and the open architecture of the Library. The Library’s 40-seat lab/classroom is unable to meet the faculty demand for information-literacy instruction, such that librarians are often obliged to deliver their sessions in other computer labs if available. In 2003 an Internal Renovation Master Plan (IRMP) was developed for the Lincoln Park Campus of MRC. Version 2.1 of this plan, which is currently in draft form, “summarizes the current situation relative to the sequence of initiatives for modifying the core building as part of the campus expansion” (p. 2) and is intended to establish an updated Renovation Project List. One of the major projects on this list is Library expansion, with a preliminary budget estimate of $9.5M in 2005-06. As stated in the Component Commentaries (Section 3.0 of the IRMP):

The expansion plan recognized that the Library would require expansion before the campus reached 9000 FLE. This is an even more pressing issue associated with the transformation to university designation. Recent renovations to the Library have made it an attractive “learning commons” type of facility with mixed success/implications. (p. 13)

Under the heading Library and Learning Commons, the IRMP proposes a “specialist study of requirements and technical feasibility options required to scope project and estimate budget”. (p. 13) Later in the IRMP, Learning Commons is defined as “a place that has a serious learning function, supported by information and technology resources, but in a setting that can be noisy and readily accepts group activities”. (p. 17) At the risk of quibbling over terminology, it should be noted that academic libraries generally employ the term Information Commons for the environment described by the above definition. On the other hand, the unit known as the Learning Commons at the University of Calgary is a faculty support facility analogous to MRC’s Academic Development Centre. And given the existence of a non-library building at Mount Royal known as the Learning Centre, we should avoid the confusion that a similar name for the Library would undoubtedly cause. The Information Commons concept has been widely adopted among college and university libraries in North America. The concept implies a convergence of information resources, reference specialists and technology support in an integrated facility encompassing a 24/7 digital environment. This might include collaboration or co-location with other academic service units such as ADC, ITS, Learning Skills, Disability Services, etc. Considerable consultation with these potential partners will be required to explore the feasibility of various Information Commons options. The preliminary IRMP “footprint” for MRC Library expansion in its current location consists of (1) a second-level infill or mezzanine floor; and (2) a new four-story stack tower in the courtyard adjacent to the existing Library envelope. This concept has the potential to double the current floor space of the Library, which would accommodate the anticipating doubling of the collection in ten years (see top of p. 15 above) plus expanded study, service and office spaces sufficient for the expected 50% FLE growth to 12,000 by 2016. The scope of these specific components will need to be programmed in detail.


Below is a sampling of the comments in the LTTF meetings and the faculty surveys re Library facilities and technology: Facilities

The current facility is fine except that there is no room for more books. In the next five years we will need twice the space. I would like to see two more teaching labs in the

next 18 months. More quiet study space; carrels rather than large tables are needed. Students felt that the Library was a good place to do group work. More study rooms would help. We need a new stand-alone library building. This should be a campus priority. There is no surplus office space for additional Library staff. An expanded Library could possibly accommodate and/or catalogue other resources currently

scattered around the campus, e.g. institutional archives, Conservatory sheet-music collections, maps, geological surveys, departmental collections, etc.

LTTF members agreed with the Information Commons concept for an expanded Library, but cautioned that this needs to be clearly defined. Primary Library space needs like shelving, study seats, meeting rooms, media facilities and teaching labs must be met before new collections or collateral services are added.

Accessibility is a big issue for disabled students. The Library is not perceived to be accessible for these students, either physically or virtually.

In this digital age it is still important to reinforce the notion of the Library as place. Students are attracted to the resources in the Library, the technology, the opportunities for interaction with one another and with the Library staff. The Library is and must remain at the centre of the learning experience for our students.

A fund-raising campaign for a new or expanded Library should be developed. Technology

Currency and sustainability of technology (hardware and software) will be an important issue. The Library needs to maintain high-end technology.

We need to plan a flexible infrastructure that can respond to emerging technologies, e.g. improved wireless access and network storage.

Mount Royal is becoming a leading institution in e-learning and blended learning initiatives. The Library is a key support component of these.

The likely growth of student laptop rental or purchase options will have service impacts in the Library, as this is the place where students will use their laptops.

The Lois Hole Campus Alberta Digital Library will raise expectations about access to digital resources not only among students and faculty, but also in the surrounding community.

Facilities Proposals 2006-07 to 2015-16 Facilities Goal #1: To expand MRC Library facilities as soon as possible in order to meet institutional

needs for the next ten years. Current Library facilities are already overcrowded. Space for collections, staff and Library service components will need to at least double to meet the needs of the next decade. The College’s Internal Renovations Master Plan (IRMP) contains a preliminary design concept and budget for a substantial expansion of the current Library facility.


RECOMMENDATION F1

Assign the highest institutional priority to the Library expansion project outlined in the IRMP, with Summer 2007 as the target completion date for construction of an expanded facility.

The expanded Library should have a flexible design so that it can be re-purposed for other campus uses when a longer-term Library facility is completed. Facilities Goal #2: To begin planning for Mount Royal’s longer-term Library requirements. The scope of expansion proposed in the IRMP will only meet the need for a limited number of years. It is important to begin planning now for the needs of future decades. RECOMMENDATION F2

Include a new Library facility, to be constructed by 2016, in the next iteration of the Campus Master Plan. Establish a planning committee and develop a fund-raising campaign for this major campus project as soon as possible.

The long-range planning process could address an integration of information services and facilities to meet a number of institutional needs within a new Library building, e.g. special collections, digital and multimedia technologies, institutional archives and records, learning skills, disability services, faculty development, spaces for public events and displays.


CONCLUSION The Library Transition Task Force has attempted in this report to evaluate the state of readiness of the MRC Library to meet the needs of the “competitive, undergraduate degree-granting institution” that Mount Royal aspires to become. We have selected various theoretical and empirical benchmarks such as the ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education, the Primarily Undergraduate group of Canadian institutions in the Maclean’s University Rankings, and other assessment tools available to us. We have utilized these benchmarks to establish ten-year targets for the Library with respect to services, communication and collaboration, organization and staffing, budget and collections, facilities and technology. We have conducted a “gap analysis” in each of these areas, and have found some major chasms. Consequently we have recommended transition strategies to bridge the gaps and to reach these targets. It is the unanimous view of the Task Force that these measures are urgently needed whether Mount Royal becomes a university in the near future or remains a college. This has been, of necessity, a preliminary exercise. This report is offered as a starting point for wider discussion within the institution, in the hope that the ideas contained herein can generate concrete action plans for the continued growth of MRC Library in support of our preferred future.


APPENDIX 1: Committee Charter

MOUNT ROYAL COLLEGE COMMITTEE CHARTER

Name of Committee: Library Transition Task Force (LTTF) Sponsor: Transition Steering Committee Approved: January 21, 2005 Mission: The Library Transition Task Force will develop a ten-year growth plan for Mount Royal’s

Library which:

1. is consistent with standards and best practices for undergraduate level libraries; 2. will adequately support the evolving academic programs of the institution; 3. includes a capital facilities expansion plan and a ten-year collection development plan.

Authority: The Task Force serves as an advisory body to the President through the Transition Steering

Committee. Membership: Director, Library Services (Chair) 2 Librarians 1 Deans’ Council representative 6 Tenured Faculty Members (one from each academic unit elected by the faculty in

each academic unit) 1 SAMRC representative External Library Consultant(s) * Resource Persons *

* as required and invited Activities:

Address the question “What should be the characteristics of Mount Royal’s Library by 2015?” Collect data on standards and best practices in North American undergraduate college and university

libraries; Develop appropriate benchmarks for the Library’s budget, collections, facilities, staffing and services; Construct a ten-year growth plan for the achievement of these targets.

Resources: The Library Administrative Assistant will serve as the recording secretary for the Task

Force. The Library Office will provide administrative support. Budget support will be provided by the President’s Office for extraordinary expenses, e.g. extra clerical staff, travel costs, consulting/research fees.

Timeframe: The Task Force will submit a written report with recommendations to the Transition

Steering Committee by June 30, 2005.

Library Transition Task Force Report i

APPENDIX 2: ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education

STANDARDS FOR LIBRARIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION Approved by the ACRL Board of Directors, June 2004

Preface

These standards differ from earlier ACRL library standards in four significant respects.

1. They are intended to apply to all types of libraries in higher education, from technical institutes to research universities.

2. The standards and key principles are designed as a tool to help libraries establish individual goals within the context of their institutional goals.

3. They focus on documenting the library’s contribution to institutional effectiveness and student learning outcomes

4. The standards provide suggested points of comparison for peer and longitudinal comparison, and encourage the development of other measures. Some measures of quality and quantity are used in this document, as well as questions to provide guidance for assessing each element of library operations and the provision of library services.

To be applicable to such a wide range of libraries, it is necessary that the standards not be prescriptive. Instead, they provide a comprehensive outline to methodically examine and analyze all library operations, services, and outcomes in the context of accreditation. The expectation is that these standards embrace key principles that will continue to be espoused by regional accrediting associations as critical elements or core requirements that provide a foundation upon which a library documents its compliance.

The standards refer to other specific ACRL guidelines and standards developed to address specialized operations and initiatives (for example, "Guidelines for Distance Learning Library Services," "Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education," and "Guidelines for Media Resources in Academic Libraries"). The Committee recognizes that not all variations in types of collections or services are directly addressed in the Standards. Without incorporating such specifics directly into this document, it is anticipated that there would be less need for its frequent revision. It is expected that ACRL standards and guidelines, both existing and those developed later, as well as standards from other organizations, can be used as part of a library’s analytical structure as appropriate.

Foreword

These standards are intended to apply to libraries supporting academic programs at institutions of higher education. Earlier standards for libraries relied heavily upon resource and program "inputs" such as financial support, space, materials and staff activities.(1) These new standards continue to consider "inputs," but they also take into consideration "outputs" and "outcomes." In order to create uniformity, the definitions as described in the ACRL Task Force on Academic Library Outcomes Assessment Report will be used in these standards.

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.(2)

Library Transition Task Force Report ii


These Standards provide both a quantitative and a qualitative approach to assessing the effectiveness of a library and its librarians. They advocate the use of input, output, and outcome measures in the context of the institution's mission statement. They encourage comparison of these measures with those of peer institutions; they provide statements of good library practice, and they suggest ways to assess that practice in the context of the institution's priorities. They address libraries only, not other components of a larger organization (e.g., computing).

In considering the application of these Standards, those who make use of them should keep in mind the rapid changes in scholarly communications that have taken place in recent years. While electronic publications have increased in number, publications on paper and micro text have continued, making it necessary for librarians to store, provide, and interpret information in multiple formats. With the increase in the availability of information, user expectations have risen substantially. Librarians are increasingly expected to assist users in evaluating the information they receive. These changes evince an evolving role for librarians, one that suggests a closer partnership with users and a greater responsibility for the educational process.

Points of Comparison

Each library is encouraged to choose its own peer group for the purpose of comparisons. Peer groups may already be identified for benchmarking purposes by the institution. If not, a peer group could be identified using criteria such as the institution’s mission, reputation, selectivity for admission, size of budget, size of endowment, expenditure for library support, and/or size of collection. Once a peer group has been determined, "points of comparison" can be made to compare the strength of the library with its peers. Suggested points of comparison for input and output measures are provided. This list is not to be considered exhaustive; other points of comparison can be determined by the institution. If comparisons are going to be conducted on an annual or other regular basis, the same categories should be used each time to assure a consistent and usable result.

Suggested Points of comparison: Input measures

Ratio of volumes to combined total student (undergraduate and graduate, if applicable) and faculty FTE. Ratio of volumes added per year to combined total student and faculty FTE. Ratio of material/information resource expenditures to combined total student and faculty FTE. Percent of total library budget expended in the following three categories:

1. materials/information resources, subdivided by print, microform, and electronic. 2. staff resources, subdivided by librarians, full and part-time staff, and student assistant

expenditures. Federal contributions, if any, and outsourcing costs should be included here. When determining staff expenditures care should be taken to consider comparable staff (i.e., including or excluding media, systems or development staff) and fringe benefits (within or outside the library budget).

3. all other operating expenses (e.g., network infrastructure, equipment).

Ratio of FTE library staff to combined student and faculty FTE. Ratio of usable library space (in square feet) to combined student and faculty FTE. Ratio of number of students attending library instructional sessions to total number of students in

specified target groups.(3) Ratio of library seating to combined student and faculty FTE.(4) Ratio of computer workstations to combined student and faculty FTE (consider that institutional

requirements for student ownership of desktop or laptop computers could affect the need for workstations within the library).

Library Transition Task Force Report iii


Suggested Points of comparison: Output measures

Ratio of circulation (excluding reserve) to combined student and faculty FTE. Ratio of interlibrary loan requests to combined student and faculty FTE (could be divided between

photocopies and books). Ratio of interlibrary loan lending to borrowing. Interlibrary loan/document delivery borrowing turnaround time, fill rate, and unit cost. Interlibrary loan/document delivery lending turnaround time, fill rate, and unit cost. Ratio of reference questions (sample week) to combined student and faculty FTE.

Planning, Assessment, and Outcomes Assessment

Planning

The library should have a mission statement and goals to serve as a framework for its activities. The mission and goals should be compatible and consistent with those developed by the institution. Assessment of the quality and effectiveness of the library should be linked closely with the specific mission and goals of the institution. In order to build its programs and services in the context of the institution the library should be involved in the overall planning process. Formal planning procedures and methods, such as strategic planning, are used frequently. These planning methods require input from a broad spectrum of the institution’s community. They help the institution prepare for the future by clearly defining a vision and mission, by setting goals and objectives, and by implementing specific strategies or courses of action designed to help meet those ends. Strategic planning is an iterative process that includes evaluation, updating, and refinement. This process helps the community focus on its essential values and provides an overall direction that helps to guide day-to-day activities and decisions.(5)

Assessment

Comprehensive assessment requires the involvement of all categories of library users and also a sampling of non-users. The choice of clientele to be surveyed and questions to be asked should be made by the administration and the staff of the library with the assistance of an appropriate advisory committee. Questions should relate to how well the library supports its mission and how well it achieves its goals and objectives. Library users should be encouraged to offer signed or anonymous comments and suggestions. Opportunities for making suggestions should be available both in the library and through remote electronic access. All categories of users should be given an opportunity to participate in the evaluation. The weight given to responses should be consistent with the focus and mission of the library. A program of assessment and evaluation should take into consideration the changing rhythm of the academic year. Evaluation, whether it involves some or all of the techniques listed below, should be an ongoing process. Formal evaluation tools may include the following:

General library knowledge surveys (or "pre-tests") offered to incoming first year students, re-offered at a mid-point in the students' careers and again near graduation, to assess whether the library's program of curricular instruction is producing more information-literate students.

Evaluation checklists for librarian and tutorial instruction to gather feedback from students, other librarians and teaching faculty.

Student journal entries, or information literacy diaries, used to track their library use. Focus groups of students, faculty, staff, and alumni who are asked to comment on their experiences

using information resources over a period of time. Assessment and evaluation by librarians from other institutions and/or other appropriate consultants. Reviews of specific library and information service areas and/or operations.

Library Transition Task Force Report iv


Outcomes Assessment

Outcomes assessment will increasingly measure and affect how library goals and objectives are achieved. It will address the accountability of institutions of higher education for student achievement and cost effectiveness. It should take into consideration libraries' greater dependence on technology, their increasing use of online services, their growing responsibility to provide information literacy skills, their increasing reliance on consortial services, the possibilities of dwindling financial resources for collection development, and new developments in the ways in which scholarly information is published and distributed.

Outcomes assessment can be an active mechanism for improving current library practices. It focuses on the achievement of outcomes that have been identified as desirable in the library's goals and objectives. It identifies performance measures, such as proficiencies, that indicate how well the library is doing what it has stated it wishes to do. Assessment instruments may include surveys, tests, interviews, and other valid measuring devices. These instruments may be specially designed for the function being measured, or previously developed instruments may be used. It is critical, however, to choose carefully the instrument, the size of the sample, and the method used for sampling. The instrument should be valid, and the way it is used should be appropriate for the task. Colleagues at peer institutions may render invaluable assistance by suggesting assessment questions and sample sizes, by sharing lessons learned, and suggesting alternative methods for measuring outcomes.

Questions:

1. Is the library's mission statement clearly understood by the library staff and the institution’s administration? Is it reviewed periodically?

2. How does the library incorporate the institution’s mission into its goals and objectives? 3. How does the library maintain a systematic and continuous program for evaluating its

performance, for informing the institution’s community of its accomplishments, and for identifying and implementing needed improvements?

4. Is the library's assessment plan an integral component of the institution's assessment and accreditation strategies? For example, does the library revise and update its assessment procedures in conjunction with campus-wide planning and the actions of academic departments?

5. How does the library assess itself? (e.g., What quantitative and qualitative data does the library collect about its performance? How does it take into account special needs, such as those of physically challenged users?)

6. What outcomes does the library measure, and how does it measure these outcomes? 7. How does the library compare itself with its peers?

Services

The library should establish, promote, maintain and evaluate a range of quality services that support the institution’s mission and goals. The library should provide competent and prompt assistance for its users. Hours of access to the library should be reasonable and convenient for its users. Reference and other special assistance should be available at times when the institution’s primary users most need them.

Questions:

1. How well does the library establish, promote, maintain and evaluate a range of quality services that support the academic program of the institution and optimal library use?

2. Are reference, circulation, and government document services designed to enable users to take full advantage of the resources available to them?

Library Transition Task Force Report v


3. How do student and faculty expectations affect library services? 4. How well do interlibrary loan and document delivery services support the needs of qualified

users? 5. Does the library maintain hours of access consistent with reasonable demand? 6. What library services are provided for programs at off-campus sites? How are the needs of users

and their satisfaction determined at those sites? 7. How are students and faculty informed of library services? 8. Does the library maintain and utilize quantitative and qualitative measurements of its ability to

serve its users? 9. When academic programs are offered at off-campus sites, what are the standards or guidelines

used to assure success? Are the ACRL Guidelines for Distance Learning Library Services (http://www.ala.org/acrl/guides/distlrng.html) used to consider existing and potential services?

Instruction

The library should provide information and instruction to users through a variety of reference and user education services, such as course-related and course-integrated instruction, hands-on active learning, orientations, formal courses, tutorials, pathfinders, and point-of-use instruction, including the reference interview.

As an academic or instructional unit within the institution, the library should facilitate student success, as well as encourage lifelong learning. By combining new techniques and technologies with the best of traditional sources, librarians should assist primary users and others in information retrieval methods, evaluation, and documentation.

In addition, librarians should collaborate frequently with classroom faculty; they should participate in curriculum planning and information literacy instruction as well as educational outcomes assessment. Information literacy skills and user education should be integrated across the curriculum and into appropriate courses with special attention given to information evaluation, critical thinking, intellectual property, copyright, and plagiarism.

Modes of instruction, often referred to as teaching methods, "may include, but are not limited to advising individuals at reference desks, in-depth research consultations, individualized instruction, electronic or print instruction aids, or group instruction in traditional or electronic classroom settings."(6)

Questions:

1. Does the library provide formal and informal opportunities for instruction? 2. Does the library provide adequate space for instruction for both large and small groups? Is the

available space designed to provide hands-on instruction, as well as presentation of all types of resources?

3. Does the library make appropriate use of technology in its instruction? 4. How do librarians work with classroom faculty in developing and evaluating library curricula in

support of specific courses? 5. If applicable, how does the library facilitate faculty research? 6. Does the library provide a variety of educational programs? 7. How does the library promote and evaluate its instructional programs? 8. How does the library apply the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher

Education?

Library Transition Task Force Report vi

http://www.ala.org/acrl/guides/distlrng.html


Resources

The library should provide varied, authoritative and up-to-date resources that support its mission and the needs of its users. Resources may be provided onsite or from remote storage locations, on the main campus and/or at off-campus locations. Moreover, resources may be in a variety of formats, including print or hard copy, online electronic text or images, and other media. Within budget constraints, the library should provide quality resources in the most efficient manner possible. Collection currency and vitality should be maintained through judicious weeding.

Questions:

1. What criteria are used to make decisions about the acquisition, retention, and use of print, electronic, and media resources? How does the library select resources for its users?

2. What is the role of the classroom faculty in the selection of library resources and in the ongoing development and evaluation of the collection?

3. Does the library have a continuing and effective program to evaluate its collections, resources and online databases, both quantitatively and qualitatively?

4. Do print, media, and electronic resources reflect campus curricular and research needs? 5. Does the library have sufficient user licenses for its electronic resources so that on-site and

remote users can be accommodated? 6. How are consortium purchasing and licensing agreements utilized? 7. If the library has responsibility for collecting and maintaining the institution’s archives, how does

it address these responsibilities? 8. How do the library's collections and online databases compare with its peers? 9. Does the library maintain the currency and relevancy of the collection through a judicious

weeding program?

Access

Access to library resources should be provided in a timely and orderly fashion. Library collections and the catalog for accessing them should be organized using national bibliographic standards. A central catalog of library resources should provide access for multiple concurrent users and clearly indicate all resources. Provision should be made for interlibrary loan, consortial borrowing agreements, access to virtual electronic collections, and document delivery to provide access to materials not owned by the library. Furthermore, distance learning programs should be supported by equivalent means such as remote electronic access to collections, the provision of reliable network connections, and electronic transmission or courier delivery of library materials to remote users. Policies regarding access should be appropriately disseminated to library users.

Questions:

1. What methods are used to provide maximum intellectual and physical accessibility to the library and its resources?

2. How are the accuracy and currency of the catalog assured? 3. Is the arrangement of the collections logical and understandable? 4. Does the library provide timely and effective interlibrary loan or document delivery service for

materials not owned by the library? 5. Does the library participate in available consortial borrowing programs? 6. Does the library provide sufficient numbers of appropriately capable computer workstations for

access to electronic resources?

Library Transition Task Force Report vii


7. Is access to the catalog and to other library resources available across campus and off-campus? 8. If materials are located in a storage facility, are those materials readily accessible? 9. In what ways does the library provide for its users who are engaged in distance learning

programs?

Staff

The staff should be sufficient in size and quality to meet the programmatic and service needs of its primary users. Librarians should have a graduate degree from an ALA-accredited program. In addition, there may be other professional staff who will have appropriate combinations of training, experience, and/or degrees. All library professionals should be responsible for and participate in professional activities. The support staff and student assistants should be assigned responsibilities appropriate to their qualifications, training, experience, and capabilities. The further development of professional and support staff should be promoted through an on-going commitment to continuing education, including training on security, emergencies, and the preservation of materials. Professional library staff should be covered by a written policy that clearly establishes their status, rights and responsibilities. This policy should be consistent with the ACRL Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians (http:// www.ala.org/acrl/guides/facstat01.html).

Questions:

1. Does the library employ staff capable of supporting and delivering information in all available formats, including electronic resources?

2. Is sufficient budgetary support provided to ensure the ongoing training of all staff? 3. Does the library have qualified librarians, other professional staff, skilled support staff, and

student assistants in adequate numbers to meet its needs? Counts may include FTE library staff numbers for total staff and a separate number for FTE librarians (MLS or equivalent).

4. How does the institution ensure that the library's professional staff have the appropriate accredited degrees, and how does it encourage them to engage in appropriate professional activities?

5. How does the size of the library staff relate to the goals and services of the library, the institution’s programs, degrees, enrollment, size of the faculty and staff, and auxiliary programs?

6. How do library staff policies and procedures compare with institutional guidelines and sound personnel management, especially in the areas of recruitment, hiring, appointment, contract renewal, promotion, tenure, dismissal, and appeal

7. How do staff members who are responsible for instruction maintain sufficient knowledge and skills to be effective instructors?

8. How does the library provide security and emergency training for its staff?

Facilities

The library facility and its branches should be well planned; it should provide secure and adequate space, conducive to study and research with suitable environmental conditions for its services, personnel, resources and collections. The library's equipment should be adequate and functional.

Questions:

1. Does the library provide well-planned, secure, and sufficient space to meet the perceived needs of staff and users?

2. Are building mechanical systems properly designed and maintained to control temperature and humidity at recommended levels?

Library Transition Task Force Report viii


3. What are the perceptions of users regarding the provision of conducive study spaces, including a sufficient number of seats and varied types of seating?

4. Is there enough space for current library collections and future growth of print resources? 5. Does the staff have sufficient workspace, and is it configured to promote efficient operations for

current and future needs? 6. Does the library's signage facilitate use and navigation of the facilities? 7. Does the library provide ergonomic workstations for its users and staff? 8. Are electrical and network wiring sufficient to meet the needs associated with electronic access? 9. Does the library meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act? 10. Are facilities provided to distance learners considered in the context of the ACRL Guidelines for

Distance Learning and Library Services (http://www.ala.org/acrl/guides/distlrng.html)?

Communication and Cooperation

Communication is essential to ensure the smooth operation of the library. Communication should flow from all levels of the library: from the director/dean to the staff and from the staff to the director/dean. The library should have a regular mechanism to communicate with the campus.

Library staff should work collaboratively and cooperatively with other departments on campus. A special relationship should be encouraged between the library and information technology staff in providing access to electronic information resources. In some cases, a vice-president, dean, or director may administer library, media, and information technology operations and services. The library is usually responsible for selecting and providing information content. Information technology usually provides the technical infrastructure and support to deliver information. There is no single organizational model that will work for all institutions. Regardless of whether the services are independent or are integrated in some way, it is important that the services work collaboratively and keep each other fully informed.

Questions:

1. Is there effective communication within the library that allows for a free flow of administrative and managerial information?

2. Are staff members encouraged to suggest new ideas or procedures to improve operations or working conditions within the library? Is there a process to facilitate this?

3. Does the library have a regular means to exchange information with the campus? 4. Has the library established cooperative working relationships with other departments on campus? 5. If the library and information technology are administered separately, does the organizational

structure provide opportunities for productive communication and collaboration? 6. If one administrator has responsibility for both the library and information technology, how well

have the two functions been integrated? 7. Is the library able to obtain technical support for information technology in the form of in-house

expertise to provide electronic resources to on-site and remote users? 8. Is the capacity of the campus network sufficient to provide reasonable response times for local

and remote information resources?

Administration

The library should be administered in a manner that permits and encourages the most effective use of available library resources. The library director/dean should report to the president or to the appropriate chief academic or instructional officer of the institution. There should be a standing library advisory committee. The responsibilities and authority of the library director/dean should be defined in writing. If there are distance learning services provided, they should be administered in keeping with the suggestions

Library Transition Task Force Report ix


offered in the ACRL Guidelines for Distance Learning Library Services. The library should be administered in accordance with the spirit of the ALA "Library Bill of Rights."

Questions:

1. How does the library administration encourage effective use of available library resources? 2. What is the statutory or legal foundation (e.g., institutional bylaws) for the l

report of the › documents › mountroyalthisweek › oct062005 … · mount royal college library...

Documents