Assignment+3

=Assignment 3 - Collection Evaluation and Report =

Quantitative Data
The quantitative data that I collected is from the automated software system used in School District 36 (Surrey), published by the Follett Software Company. I was given access to the LA Matheson library account in order to investigate title and circulation statistics. I was unable to find statistics on any of the library reports related to the reading or grade level of the materials, so I did some selective searches using the library catalogue to gather this information. The reading level for the books in my curriculum area typically ranged from 3-9, and the grade level for the majority of the videos was 8-12.

Qualitative Data
I collected qualitative data by visiting the library one morning before classes started. I examined both the videos (VHS and DVD) and the books that could be used to support my curriculum area. I took notes as I examined the items, looking for physical quality, relevance to the curriculum, level of difficulty, appeal to students, and currency. In addition to the print and non-print resources, I looked through the online databases and video streaming services available to students.

Collection Mapping Data
The following table summarizes the quantitative and qualitative data collected for the Science 10 curriculum: The circulation numbers provided by the automated system were for print resources only, so I eliminated non-print resources from the circulated titles titles for better comparison. Turnover rate was calculated by dividing the circulation by the number of copies, as described in the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records article. I used a weighted average to calculate the average age of each section of the collection, as the original data was separated by call number, rather than subject. The quality rating is an attempt to quantify the qualitative data for easy comparison. I created a for the criteria I used when examining the collection and converted the result to a score out of 5. I assigned the resources for the motion unit as a zero because there were no print resources to support the curriculum.

The graph below was created using the above data for a more visual comparison of the copy and circulation numbers:

Summary
As the data above shows, the collection has both strengths and weaknesses. In terms of the number and quality of print items available to support the curriculum, the collection is strongest in the ecosystem and natural systems subject areas. Not only are there several hundred books available on each of these topics, these books are in excellent physical condition, at an appropriate grade level, and cover the majority of prescribed learning outcomes for the course. There are some gaps in this area of the collection. For example, more current and local examples of human impacts on ecosystems and of major disasters would be beneficial. Although the number of items related to chemical reactions and radioactivity appears high based on the data alone, a physical inspection revealed that the majority of the resources do not directly support the curriculum standards. The few items that are potentially useful to staff and students are not engaging and it would be unlikely that students would select them off the shelf. The largest gap in the collection is in items supporting the motion unit. There were no print resources available that correlate with the Science 10 curriculum.

The circulations statistics show that a low percentage (no higher that 14%) of titles from each unit of study have been checked out of the library in the past two years. As Bishop suggests, a disadvantage of interpreting circulation data is that it doesn't include in-house use. It is likely, because these are non-fiction books that would typically be used to support a class project, that the majority of times they are used they are not checked out, but used by classes visiting the library. Unfortunately, without conducting an in-house use study, this remains an assumption. It is also possible that the books simply aren't being used. Although I didn't have a long time to spend in the library observing how students were using the collection, when I asked our teacher librarian how often the books were being used, she told me that unless it's required by her or their teacher for an in-class assignment, they prefer to use the internet to do their research.

 Based simply on the quantitative data, I would have assumed that the collection was outdated. Considering that science is a subject area where recent discoveries have the potential to change what is considered to be true, an average age of 10-16 years sounds old. There were certainly some issues with out of date materials, but the majority of the books still offered relevant information. This may not be the case with all of the science resources in the library, but fortunately the Science 10 curriculum doesn't focus heavily on emergent technologies and the current trends in research (for example, although there is research being conducted on how oil spills affect certain ecosystems, the mechanics of how chemicals move through food webs is already well understood).

  There are also deficiencies in the non-print resources. A few of the titles in each section are in good condition, engaging, at the perfect grade level for Science 10, and well-circulated. Unfortunately it's the units that have a shortage of effective print items that also had a lack of good videos, or a lack of videos at all. The weaknesses in the physical collection are compensated for, in part, by the online resources available. The video streaming services the school subscribes to more than make up for the shortage of DVD's in the physical collection. The clips are organized by course and prescribed learning outcome and cover a range of base topics and extensions that are produced with a young audience in mind. The online databases for finding articles, encyclopedia entries, multimedia tools, and websites are kept up-to-date and are easy to use from the school. Unfortunately access from home is difficult unless students have requested the user name and password from their teacher or librarian.

 I have three major recommendations for improving the overall quality of the collection. The first is to weed out the titles that are no longer used or useful to students and staff at the school. More research would be needed to confirm which of the titles that aren't circulated are being used in-house by visiting classes. The VHS tapes that are 30-40 years old are not being checked out and realistically can no longer hold the attention of a class of grade 10 students. These resources are taking up valuable space that could be used for more useful materials. The second is to consider cancelling the school's subscription to some of the online databases. The majority of the ones offered are available for all residents of Surrey through the public library, as long as you have a valid library card. By partnering with the library, it may be possible to save some money on subscriptions and put the money toward updating parts of the collection that are weak. My final recommendation is to bring in some new resources to fill in the gaps in the collection. Considering that the circulation numbers seem low, it would be a wise idea to start with a survey of staff and students. It would be valuable to find out what they're using in the library, as well as what they're not using, and why. Perhaps rather than spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on new books about motion and radioactivity that may never be opened, it would be more beneficial to purchase simulation or probe/graphing software.

Reflection
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The greatest insight I received in doing the collection evaluation was that this process is invaluable and incredibly time-consuming. The part of the collection that I examined is such a small subset of the entire media centre, yet it was overwhelming how much there is to look at, as well as the amount of information that comes out of the process. After reading chapter 12 in Bishop, and before actually starting the evaluation, I pictured myself being able to do it all in two weeks. Check the resources against the Ministry Recommended Resource List, scan some shelves, open a few books to check out the content, run a couple reports, survey staff and students, and hang out in the library to watch the students use the collection. How hard can it be when I'm dealing with such a narrow range of subject matter? As it turns out, much more difficult than I expected. I feel like I barely scratched the surface of what an effective collection evaluation should include.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> One thing that worked really well was the physical assessment. When viewing the automated reports, I felt I had a good idea of what the collection contained, but as suggested in the Agee article, it takes human labour and judgement to to evaluate content. Some of the books that looked new and had great pictures or covers had poor content, either because the grade level was inappropriate, or it wasn't closely linked to the content. Other books that were older and less attractive had amazing content, but were not very readable due to long sections of text with no images. It's one thing to say that the collection has 432 books that support the subjects of biomes and ecosystems based on a computer printout, but I needed to see those books in person to figure out whether or not they were properly categorized, up-to-date, or of any use to students or staff.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The qualitative analysis was valuable, but also challenging. In reading the Ministry of Education guidelines for evaluating resources, I learned there are so many criteria to consider. I narrowed it down to what I felt was most important. It it current? Does it support the BC curriculum? Is it accurate? Is the level of difficulty appropriate? There were a lot of other criteria I had to set aside in order to view a reasonable number of items to get a sense of the collection, but these would still have been valuable considerations. Is there enough Canadian content? Is it suitable for a wide range of learning styles? Does it work well for both individual and group settings? Ideally I would have liked to have examined all of these criteria for every item in my part of the collection, but time constraints came into play. At first I assumed it was because I'm busy with my 7:30 am - 3:30 pm classroom teaching job, dealing with exams and end of semester marking load, but realistically this would be equally if not more difficult if I was the teacher librarian at the school. I was able to walk into the library, pull up a stool, and spend hours looking through books, completely uninterrupted. I wasn't distracted by staff and students asking for assistance, or thinking about all of the other things that needed to be done in the library that day. I understand why Bishop started chapter 12 by listing the barriers to evaluation as well as it's importance. It takes a lot of work to do it well, but the only way to really know if the resources are meeting the needs of the users.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Another challenge in the assignment was working with the automated software program. Once I was shown how to use some of the features, I was able to generate tables and reports fairly easily, but I found the program to be inconsistent. In some of the reports only print resources were counted for copy and circulation numbers. In other reports, both print and non-print resources were tallied. For certain reports I was able to specify date and call number ranges, whereas others used preset values as a starting point. A lack of consistency made it difficult to generate comparative statistics. There was also some information that would have been useful that was not available in any of the reports (or at least based on what I was able to learn). I had to turn to the library catalogue for reading level information, and although there was an option of viewing overall circulation by grade and homeroom, I was unable to use this feature to narrow in on my specific curriculum area.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The subject and grade level that I chose for this course is one that I'm very comfortable with. It was easy for me to open up a book, read the jacket on a DVD, or check out articles on online databases and know right away whether or not it was a good fit for Science 10. One thing that I've been thinking about while completing this assignment is how difficult it will be when I have to evaluate a part of the collection that I'm less familiar with. Several of the readings suggested that it may be necessary to consult with a subject area expert, and I can see that comparing against resource lists or bibliographies would be a useful technique in evaluating an unfamiliar subject area. Realistically, as Bishop advises, "no single list can cover every subject or need" and it may not be possible to bring in an expert every time a collection evaluation is taken on. It must become necessary for a teacher-librarian to become a mini expert on many different areas of the curriculum.