INFO 289 ePortfolio – Dr. Patricia Franks
SJSU School of Information / Fall 2015
Patricia Ayame Thomson
Competency N
Evaluate programs and services using measurable criteria
Introduction
Most libraries have a mission statement defining their goals, values, and philosophies. One of the most important goals of a library is to meet the information needs of its community. Rubin (2004) states, “A public library must be evaluated against the expectations of its local community” (p. 379). A library cannot operate in a vacuum without the essential interaction and communication with its community. As a result, it is important for information professionals to have strategies to evaluate and measure its performance and see if the community’s information needs are actually being met. Using measurable criteria, the evaluation process of the library’s performance, programs, and information services is critical to the information organization’s success.
The Public Library Development Program (PLDP)
The benefits of evaluating library programs and services include planning for staffing, collection development, budgetary estimations, and future needs. Libraries have differing methods of measuring the effectiveness of their programs and services. Created by the Public Library Association (PLA), which is a part of the American Library Association (ALA), the Public Library Development Program (PLDP) introduced what is called “output measures,” which can be described as a quantifiable result of a process or activity. Including a collection of publications, the first Output Measures for Public Libraries (Zweizig) was published in 1982.
Rubin (2004) states that “The measures are intended to provide guidance on measuring public library performance and to suggest methods of data collection” (p. 65). One of the evaluation methods suggested in the publications include per capita measures to collect data such as annual circulation numbers, library visits, reference transactions, in-house library use, and attendance at programs. In regards to the Output Measures for Public Libraries, Rubin (2004) states that “These works were intended to assist public libraries in the planning, measurement, and evaluation process, and to focus the libraries’ attention on their local communities rather than on national standards” (pp. 379-380). As a result, these publications called Output Measures for Public Libraries provide a framework for information professionals to evaluate and measure the library’s performance.
Planning Process for Public Libraries
The planning process is just as important as the evaluation and measuring criteria. Understanding this, the American Library Association (ALA) and especially the Public Library Association (PLA) have been concentrating on teaching “strategic planning expertise” in public libraries (June 28, 2015). The first document, published in 1980, was called A Planning Process for Public Libraries, and it “established the need to identify primary and secondary roles for each library based on community needs, and to conduct community analyses to determine the appropriateness of the needs and if the needs are being met” (Rubin, 2004, p. 381). As libraries continue to be held publicly accountable for their information services, it is even more important to implement proper planning, evaluation, and measuring techniques from the information institution’s inception.
Hennen’s American Public Library Ratings (HAPLR)
The national ranking system is an attempt at comparing and measuring public libraries across the US. The most highly regarded is Hennen’s American Public Library Ratings (HAPLR). The public libraries are divided nationally into five different categories of varying population sizes. “The rankings are based on weighted scores assigned to 15 measures dealing with such variables as circulation, expenditures, staff size, collection size, and number of visits” (Rubin, 2004, p. 381). Although it is the only national standard of measure presently used, the Hennen’s ranking system is criticized because it does not take into account electronic and/or website use.
Evaluation and Measuring Techniques of Technological Tools
To keep up with the rapidly-changing technology, it is also important to use and practice the latest measuring techniques to evaluate the library’s technological devices and online systems. For example, it is imperative to frequently evaluate and measure the amount of use and ease of usability of the library’s Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC), main website, databases, live chat reference, email reference, text reference, eBooks, CD audio books, music CD’s, computer terminals, blogs on social media, and the in-house workflow program.
Other evaluation and measuring techniques can be in the form of patron satisfaction surveys or interviews with open-ended questions in focus groups. The results of these evaluations can be used by the information professional to make improvements where they are needed and continue strengthening areas that need work. Without these measures, information professionals have no frame of reference in which they can improve the programs and services offered to meet the specific needs of the community.
In addition, I learned from Dr. Mary Somerville in the course LIBR 285—
Research Methods in Library and Information Science that it is important to continue to grow, improve, and expand my knowledge as an information professional, as well as a person. The process of self-examination and self-analysis allows the information professionals to take inventory of their strengths and weaknesses, and resultantly take concrete steps towards personal growth and self-actualization. Therefore, I learned from participating in the action research project that the occasional and iterative process of self-evaluation is also an important part of being an information professional.
Three Artifacts Presented as Evidence of Competency N
I respectfully present three artifacts to prove my competency for Competency N.
First Artifact
LIBR 265 – Materials for Young Adults
The first artifact is from the course INFO 265—Materials for Young Adults in the School of Information at the San José State University. In the course, Professor Hunt told us to write a literature review comparing two scholarly articles.
One of the articles mentioned in the literature review is Bromann’s (2001) article titled, Too Many Journals, Too Little Time. Bromann recommends using reviews as helpful selection tools for evaluating and acquiring books and other library items. Obviously, a single librarian alone cannot read all the books ever published. As a result, legitimate and published reviews can be beneficial sources to evaluate and measure the value and merit of the book for the library’s community.
The other article assigned for the literature review is Pattee’s (2009) article titled, Expedient, but at What Cost? This article makes a critical point warning against the pitfalls of marketing strategies developed by publishing companies. For example, publishing companies create packaged sets of their own books to increase profit. Pattee emphasizes that although it may sound quick, easy, and enticing for information professionals to purchase the pre-selected books for their collection development, the packages offered by vendors do not automatically or necessarily constitute the best quality collection.
As a result, it is imperative for information professionals to consult reviews in authoritative and trustworthy journals to use for evaluation and acquisition. For public libraries, the selection criteria should be a combination of the quality of the literature and public appeal. Most importantly, Pattee (2009) recommends that information professionals should be able to distinguish and decipher between legitimate reviews from highly-respected sources and the pre-packaged sets by vendors for their own benefit and profit.
Also, Bromann (2001) states that even published reviews should not be single-mindedly and blindly considered as the truth or the final say on whether a book should be acquired. Finally, Bromann recommends that the best way to evaluate the value and merit of a book is for the information professional to use their own judgment and ultimately decide for themselves (p. 46). I decided to include this artifact to demonstrate my proficiency in the evaluation of library materials using reviews and the need to consider vendor products for profit more critically.
Second Artifact
Competency N – LIBR 210 – Reference and Information Services
The second artifact is from the course INFO 210—Reference and Information Services in the School of Information’s MLIS program at the San José State University. For the assignment, Professor Cheryl Stenstrom had us observe and evaluate reference services at three different library systems surrounding the city of Los Angeles, California.
For the assignment, I played the role of a “secret shopper” and approached the reference desks at the Beverly Hills Public Library (BHPL), West Los Angeles Regional Branch of the Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) system, and the Santa Monica Public Library (SMPL) system. To compare the reference services, I described my experiences with reference librarians at the three public libraries investigated. Although each encounter was different, all three reference interactions were positive overall.
The most memorable reference transaction was with the reference librarian, Aisha at the West Los Angeles Regional Branch of the LAPL. Due to the fact that Aisha’s personality was open, approachable, and effervescent, I appreciated and enjoyed her reference service style the most. She took the time to provide step-by-step instruction on how to use the databases on the subjects I was looking for and gave me individualized attention. Being on the patron’s side of the reference transaction, I appreciated Aisha’s warm, personal, and inclusive approach to reference services.
I believe this assignment proved to be an excellent exercise for me to observe and evaluate the various reference service styles at three different public libraries. Being exposed to a variety of reference service styles helped me become cognizant of the type of reference librarian I would like to be. I decided to include this artifact to demonstrate my ability to evaluate the information services offered at several different libraries.
Third Artifact
LIBR 285 – Research Methods in Library and Information Science
The third artifact is from the course INFO 285—Research Methods in Library and Information Science at the San José State University, School of Information, while pursuing the MLIS program. As part of the assignment, Dr. Mary Somerville and I collaborated on developing a participatory action research proposal throughout the semester. The philosophy behind action research is that each member of the team must actively and mindfully participate in the research project. As a result, the process ends up being a rich and rewarding experience for everyone involved.
One of the most important aspects of participatory action research is the self-assessment process at the end. The third artifact is my self-refection essay based on my experience developing the action research proposal with Dr. Somerville. For instance, the self-reflection essay explains my cultural barrier that prevented me from participating in the iterative revision process—which is the whole idea and point of action research. After I caught on that participation is a fundamental and underlying pedagogy of action research, I began communicating with Dr. Somerville on a daily basis and soon we established a close working relationship throughout the semester.
In addition, the American Library Association’s (ALA), Code of Ethics number VIII. states that “We strive for excellence in the profession by maintaining and enhancing our own knowledge and skills” (2008). In order to continue to enhance our knowledge and skills as information professionals, we must be able to honestly assess our strengths and weaknesses. In order to take inventory of the areas we can improve upon, information professionals must go through a self-evaluation process. Only then, will we have the standard to measure our improvement and growth. I included this artifact to demonstrate my ability to evaluate myself for the purposes of self-improvement professionally and personally.
Conclusion: The Importance of Evaluation and Measurable Criteria
Just as in any professional organization, libraries must continuously and extensively evaluate their services and programs to see whether the information needs of the community are being met and if there are areas that need improvement. Whether it is a quantitative or qualitative research method, it is important to use measurable criteria. Measurable criteria are established by the specific goals of the research project and presenting the results in the form of scientific evidence. Once the method of data collection is selected, the information professional should implement the method consistently throughout the services and programs being investigated. The primary reason why the evaluation process is important is because it can be used to improve and enhance the libraries’ current information services and programs.
References:
Rubin, R. E. (2004). Foundations of library and information science. 2nd Ed. New York: Neal-Schuman
Bromann, J. (2001). Too many journals, too little time. School Library Journal, 47(9), 46.
Pattee, A. (2009). Expedient, but at what cost?. School Library Journal, 55(1), 20.