Lea Currie

Successful Approaches to Teaching Through Chat

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine whether librarians at the University of Kansas are providing instruction through chat in order to develop best practices for training purposes.Design/methodology/approach – The authors analyzed a sample of chat transcripts using the “ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” to determine whether librarians were utilizing opportunities for instruction in the chat medium. Using this analysis, they selected the best examples of instructional techniques.Findings – Students were open to receiving instruction through chat. Librarians who were most successful in providing assistance to students demonstrated persistency and approachability in their interactions.Practical implications – The authors developed a list of top ten practices for instruction through chat which can be used for training purposes.Originality/value – Librarians need to continue to develop instructional techniques to create more opportunities for teaching moments i...

Using the WorldCat Collection Analysis Tool: Experiences From the University of Kansas Libraries

In March 2009, the University of Kansas (KU) Libraries began a yearlong subscription to OCLCs WorldCat Collection Analysis (WCA) tool, which was recommended by the associate dean of Technical Services and the assistant dean of Collections and Scholar Services. KU Libraries bases many of its collections decisions on collected data, including usage statistics, overlap analysis, and interlibrary loan statistics. The WCA was perceived as another method of collecting data to make collection development decisions. An implementation committee was appointed by the deans and led by the authors, the head of Collection Development and a social sciences librarian who had experience with the WCA at another institution. The implementation committee set institutional goals and priorities for the project as well as prepared informational documents and conducted training sessions for subject librarians. Librarians submitted reports for each of their collections. Although the project coordinators dealt with the many frustrations experienced by the subject librarians because of the flaws associated with the tool and would change the process for future WCA projects, overall, KU librarians were pleased to discover that the quality of the collections at KU is very high.

To stream or not to stream

Purpose The University of Kansas (KU) libraries has faced increased requests for streaming video in the past five years. While we have provided access to many databases of films, feature films remained a problem. To write a collection development policy, the library undertook three investigations to ensure the outcome reflected the needs of the university. Design/methodology/approach Film titles included in Swank 300 and Criterion-on-Demand were checked against the CanIStream. it? website to check for availability through streaming, rental or purchase services. Student library users were surveyed to determine if they had streaming subscriptions and, if so, which ones. KU librarians also examined academic library collection development polices to understand how others have addressed this issue. Findings More than half of the feature films provided by the two vendors are available through subscriptions, renting or purchasing methods. A majority of students subscribe to one or more of these services. Many academic libraries are deciding not to provide streaming feature films. Originality/value There are no previous studies on students’ subscriptions to streaming services linked to availability of feature films offered from commercial vendors to libraries.

“Big Deals” and Squeaky Wheels: Taking Stock of Your Stats

This article describes a half-day pre-conference focused on the ins and outs of assessing “Big Deals.” The presenters gave an overview of issues related to “Big Deals,” and engaged the attendees in discussions about their own experiences with the topic. They then detailed the process of assessing “Big Deals” at their institution, including their methods for evaluating usage statistics. Attendees were provided with sample Excel spreadsheets for hands-on exercises to practice applying the methods described.

Local Citation Analysis of National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health Grant Applications: Meeting the Needs of Researchers

Supporting and meeting the research needs of faculty members is a priority at the University of Kansas because of the necessity for external grant-funding. For this study, the authors analyzed the citations from successful National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) grant applications submitted between 2005 and 2013. The purpose was to identify the types of resources used by researchers and determine if KU Libraries are currently providing access. In addition to access, the authors analyzed the age, format, whether journals were provided in a journal package or aggregator, subject area, and open access status. Overall, the authors found KU Libraries’ collection provides substantial support for researchers who submitted successful NSF and NIH grant applications.

From Usability Studies to User Experience: Designing Library Services at the University of Kansas

The University of Kansas (KU) Libraries first made their discovery tool, Primo (Ex Libris), available to their users in the fall of 2013. Since that time, in spite of many upgrades and improvements, most librarians and library staff are still not using the tool for their own research. Last year, librarians from KU presented their findings at the Charleston Conference using a survey given to KU librarians that asked them to compare Primo to Google Scholar and their favorite databases. Librarians were asked to compare the three and make recommendations for improving Primo. This year, KU librarians designed a much briefer survey and asked all library staff to participate, including student assistants. Library staff were asked to use Primo to conduct research on a topic of their choice and use all aspects of Primo to find relevant results. They were then asked to describe what they used in Primo to lead them to helpful information resources and rank the first 10 results from their final search. The purpose of this survey is to discern how our colleagues use Primo and how successful they are in retrieving the information they need when using this search tool. This study will help KU Libraries develop training for library staff in the use of this new mode of discovery and access. The search terms used in this study will also be useful in helping the discovery implementation team recreate the searches to test Primo in the future, after scheduled upgrades, in order to detect noticeable improvements or problems with the search results. In 2014, University of Kansas (KU) librarians conducted a survey asking invited participants from the KU Libraries’s staff to test the usability of the discovery tool, Primo. The participants were instructed to perform a known item search, a search for a designated topic, and a search for a topic of their choosing using Primo, Google Scholar, and their favorite database. They were then asked to compare and rank their results on a Likert scale of one to five, with one being very relevant and five being not relevant at all. Most of the participants had little success with Primo in finding relevant results, particularly with the known item search. Participants expressed frustration with the duplication of their results and little understanding of what was being searched. Furthermore, the survey took several hours to complete, which caused even greater frustration given the fruitless results. With only twelve participants, the results were not conclusive, but they did provide search terms to be used for testing Primo after upgrades throughout the last year. In 2015, KU librarians redesigned the usability survey for Primo into a much shorter version. A call was sent out library‐wide for participation in taking the survey, asking respondents to search Primo for a topic of their choice, something they would typically research. They were asked to describe the steps they took to get the best results and to rank the first ten results using a one to five Likert scale, similar to what was used last year. They were also asked to share three positive comments and three suggestions for improvement. They were instructed not to search more than thirty minutes. The returns from this survey were much more useful by addressing the positives of the Primo discovery tool and making suggestions for changes to Primo. To increase participation, there was a drawing of the participants for a fifty dollar gift certificate. Thirty five library staff members from across all library departments participated in the survey. During the intervening year between the two surveys, Primo received two upgrades that Copyright of this contribution remains in the name of the author(s). http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284316289 401 Charleston Conference Proceedings 2015 improved its usability immensely. A “Browse e‐ shelf” was added, allowing users to browse thumbnails of the book jackets surrounding their Primo search results. Also added to Primo were advanced search options such as the ability to search by publisher, music publisher, resource type, and OCLC number. Users can now “Personalize their results” by choosing a preferred discipline and newer results to appear first. The “Did you mean?” option was also improved. Relevancy ranking and duplication were also refined. Due to these improvements, library staff members were much more successful this year in finding relevant results in Primo. Some of the positives about Primo expressed by library staff were its user friendliness and ease of use. Survey participants found the relevancy of their results much improved overall and narrowing down results was made simple by using the facets on the left side of the results screen. Participants liked the mixture of formats that appeared in the results and were happy to see the format clearly labeled, taking the guess work out of deciding whether the item was a book, journal article, or another format. Other positive feedback included the ease of saving results to the e‐shelf and ease of seeing the availability of an item. Participants found the option to “expand beyond library collections” extremely useful. They also found it easy to make adjustments to their original search, and overall they liked the seamless one‐stop shop for scholarly resources. Along with the many positives, library staff were able to give positive criticism and suggestions for improvement to Primo. Several of the participants would like to have the advanced search option as the default search box on the main library website. They would like to be able to sort their results from oldest to newest and wish there was a “mark all” option to save their search results. A few participants expressed their frustration with not understanding what Primo was searching and that known item searches, particularly for author and title combined, continued to be problematic. They also felt that the “print, e‐mail, and export” options were too hidden in “Locations and Availability.” In addition, participants found too much duplication in their results and reported that primary resources were displayed too far into the results. Several participants thought the login option was not obvious enough, and they were frustrated when they lost the filters chosen prior to logging in. One staff member suggested a rollover option so the user could see the abstract without clicking on the detailed record. The survey designers shared a detailed report, which described the searches and feedback, with the discovery implementation team and provided a list of suggestions for improvement. The discovery implementation team worked through the list of suggestions, letting the survey participants know that their recommendations would be used to make further improvements to Primo when possible. They promised the survey participants that they would work with Ex Libris to improve duplication and relevancy rankings. They also began investigating methods making the advanced search more visible and labeling more understandable, particularly the e‐shelf label. The discovery implementation team is also planning to make the “print, e‐mail, and export” options more visible, as well investigate a way to sort results from oldest to newest. They also agreed that the option to mark all items to save on the e‐shelf was a great suggestion. The suggestions also gave the team new topics for training library staff to use Primo successfully. In summary, the Primo discovery tool continues to improve over time. Results from the surveys have been particularly instrumental in this process because they identified the concerns of the library staff, as well as the positive aspects of the tool. The discovery implementation team has successfully engaged the library professionals, assuring them that their input was essential and acting upon their concerns to improve the discovery tool. While the surveys continue to solicit a variety of suggestions for improvement, they also document greater overall support of the discovery tool.

From Collection Development to Content Development: Organization and Staffing for the 21st Century

The University of Kansas (KU) Libraries has a new organizational structure that resulted in the creation of the Content Development Department, with fewer librarians dedicated to stewardship of the Libraries’ collections. The impending retirement of three long‐standing and knowledgeable librarians prompted a review of the responsibilities of the new department and identification of the human resources needed to meet the collection demands of a user‐centered library. In an effort to determine how the Libraries can proceed, we completed an environmental scan of current activities and identified, through the literature and contacts with academic colleagues, how collecting practices and formats will develop. Based on evidence gained through a survey of faculty and graduates students at KU, there is a strong sentiment that library resources need to be carefully managed to support the teaching and research needs of the university. This paper will discuss efforts to make a case to continue to support deep subject expertise for collection development, particularly in the arts and humanities. By clearly identifying collection development responsibilities (it’s not just buying books!), KU librarians were successful in transitioning into the new organizational structure with the staffing needed to make knowledgeable collection development decisions. KU Campus Environment Analyzing existing structures and making adjustments to make KU a stronger institution of higher learning have become the new normal. In 2009, a new chancellor arrived on campus, replacing her predecessor, who had served in this capacity for fourteen years. The next year, a new provost joined the leadership team. Together, these new administrators established lofty goals to raise KU’s research output and reputation and streamline operations to improve stewardship of KU’s precious dollars. The two most consequential of these efforts were “Changing for Excellence” and “Bold Aspirations.” In the summer of 2010 “Changing for Excellence” began evaluating business practices to increase institutional efficiencies and decreasing expenditures (University of Kansas, 2013). KU’s strategic planning efforts, which started in the fall of 2010 resulted in the plan “Bold Aspirations” which framed KU’s short‐term goals into six areas (University of Kansas, 2012):  Energizing the educational environment.  Elevating doctoral education.  Driving discovery and innovation.  Engaging scholarship for public impact.  Developing infrastructure and resources.  Developing infrastructure and resources. Since KU adopted these two programs, they have become the foundation for decisions of all types on campus, and the KU transformation began with the Libraries leading the way. KU Libraries’ Strategic Planning The campus strategic plan, “Bold Aspirations,” was released in October 2011. By November, the KU Libraries had not only pledged to be the first campus unit to undergo a strategic planning process based on KU’s plan, but had already established a steering committee for strategic planning. This group of appointed individuals worked quickly to identify and determine the goals for the strategic plan. By the spring various working groups were establishing outcomes and strategies for each goal. When the final plan was released, the libraries “Strategic Directions” put forth the following goals (University of Kansas Libraries, 2012): Copyright of this contribution remains in the name of the author(s). http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315594 Management and Administration 415  Integrate information literacy, research skills, and information resources into the curriculum to enhance critical thinking, academic success, and lifelong learning.  Advance scholarship through proactive engagement in research and scholarly communication.  Strengthen KU Libraries’ position as an agile responsive organization capable of continual improvement and change.  Stabilize and grow existing funding sources, secure new funding opportunities, and enhance public accountability. Shortly after the release of the KU Libraries’ strategic plan, the dean of libraries created the Organizational Review Team (ORT). The dean charged ORT to review all aspects of the organization and to make recommendations for a library structure that embraced the objectives put forth in “Bold Aspirations” and “Strategic Directions.” ORT’s report went directly to the dean of libraries who utilized their findings, along with her own knowledge of trends in research libraries, to create the new structure. She proclaimed the new organization a “User‐Focused Organizational Structure.”

How Do Librarians Prefer to Access Collections

The University of Kansas (KU) Libraries first made the discovery tool, Primo (Ex Libris), available to their users in the fall of 2013. Since that time, in spite of many improvements and updates, librarians still prefer to use other resources. In an effort to facilitate open and honest discussion about the Primo discovery tool and to make recommendations to improve the functionality of the instrument, librarians at KU were asked to complete a survey that helped them compare Primo to their favorite database and to Google Scholar. The survey included a known item search, a prescribed topic search, and the opportunity for them to search for a topic in their subject expertise specialty. The librarians were asked the following questions about each resource they used:  Looking at the first ten results, how many of them are relevant?  Did you change your search strategy or use the facets in Primo or other methods of narrowing in on a topic to find more relevant results?  What was your reaction to the results in each resource?  Was it obvious the results included books, articles, or other resources?  Were the results easily accessible? In this session, KU librarians will share their survey instrument. They will discuss, in detail, the results of the survey and the comments made by librarians while completing the survey. They will also share the recommendations for improvements they made to IT staff who administer Primo. Audience members will be asked to share their experiences with discovery tools at their libraries.

Proving the Value of Library Collections Part II: An Interdisciplinary Study Using Citation Analysis

At the 2012 Charleston Conference, University of Kansas (KU) librarians presented the results of a citation analysis project conducted using faculty publications in the sciences. Library administrators were excited by the findings reported from this analysis and compelled the librarians to proceed with more citation analysis research by supporting them with student assistants who helped gather the initial data that were used in the study. During the subsequent year, KU librarians took the collection assessment project two steps further by gathering citation data from faculty publications in the humanities and social sciences to conduct an extensive citation analysis. Using a random sampling of faculty publications from three departments in the humanities: philosophy, art history, and English—and three departments in the social sciences—psychology, political science, and economics—the presenters conducted a citation analysis of the resources cited in faculty journal publications. The librarians used this new data to compare the two broad disciplinary areas with the sciences, but even more importantly, they collected data that would influence collection development decisions in the individual subject areas. The authors tested their assumptions, expecting to find that science faculty use more journals than books and humanities faculty use more books than journals, but in some cases, the results were unexpected.

Proving the Value of Library Collections

Proving the value of library collections has always been a concern of collection development librarians. Librarians have devised creative methods of gathering evidence to demonstrate to university administrations the essential role that libraries play in research productivity. In an attempt to demonstrate the value of library collections, the authors from the University of Kansas (KU) Libraries conducted a citation analysis study utilizing KU science faculty publications. Using a random sampling of faculty from the departments of Physics, Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, and Geology, the authors developed lists of the citations in these faculty publications and checked to determine if KU Libraries provides access to these cited materials. In addition, a random sampling of the citations from the faculty publications was also examined to determine if the citations could be accessed through aggregator full-text databases, electronic journal packages, or print journals and monographs. The authors also compared journal and monograph use and utilized the data collected as a method of justifying budget allocation practices. Finally, the monograph citations were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the approval plan profile by identifying the ratio of books that were purchased on the approval plan compared to books that were selected by subject librarians. The authors will share their findings and discuss how they used the citation analysis to demonstrate the value of the library collections and inform collection development decisions.