Difference between revisions of "Standard 5"

==Standard 5 – Library and Information Resources==

===Standard 5.A – Purpose and Scope===

''The primary purpose for library and information resources is to support teaching, learning, and if applicable, research in ways consistent with, and supportive of, the institution’s mission and goals. Adequate library and information resources and services, at the appropriate level for degrees offered, are available to support the intellectual, cultural, and technical development of students enrolled in courses and programs wherever located and however delivered.''

Library and information resources at The Evergreen State College support students as they learn to reason and communicate about freely chosen inquiries whose outcomes remain to be discovered or created (Smith, Standard 2). Library and information resources at Evergreen must therefore balance the open-ended demands of free inquiry with the need for stability, security, and efficiency in systems and services. Historically, the Library has been well funded when compared to many public baccalaureates, in recognition of the extraordinary demands of open-ended inquiry and independent study. All library and information resources are shaped by the primary mission of teaching and providing state-of-the-art facilities for academic programs and individual students in this interdisciplinary, liberal arts curriculum. Strong collaboration among library, computing and media staff, faculty, and administration assures the development of the library and information resources as centers for teaching and learning.

====The Founding Vision of the Library: Any Medium, Any Location====

In 1969, when the founding dean of Library Services James Holly wrote his “Position Paper No. 1,” he proposed a model which he called the generic library, in some ways anticipating the concept of today's virtual library. “By generic I include man’s [sic] recorded information, knowledge, folly, and wisdom in whatever form put down, whether in conventional print, art forms, magnetic tape, laser storage, etc. By generic, I also eliminate physical boundaries such as [a] specific building or portion limited and identified as ‘the library.’” Holly's vision motivated many aspects of library, media, and computer services, but proved in many ways untenable due to technical and budgetary constraints and because the college community expressed traditional longings for a bounded space. Today, laptops and networked data are ubiquitous and most students expect remote access to information resources, regardless of medium. Technology, as well as community values, have caught up with Holly’s founding vision, and Evergreen's library and learning resources now include all media, distributed to almost any location. Display of networked and audiovisual information now brings information technology to almost any classroom on campus. Active involvement in new consortia has led to quick access to expanded collections and information resources from around the region. Academic programs and students off-campus have access to rich, academically sound journal holdings. A wide selection of digitized media applications and advanced media labs provide access to media production. Increasingly seamless access to media, computing, and traditional information resources benefits all students. At the same time, the physical library has expanded its role as a social and intellectual space and provides an increasingly hospitable center for learning and gatherings of all kinds. A $22-million remodel connected previously disparate areas and created a more cohesive information-technology wing, providing one central entrance for the Library, Media Services, the Computer Center, and the Computing and Communications offices.

====Functions and Facilities Covered in Standard 5====

Reflecting these developments, Standard 5 considers information resources and services from several disparate administrative units: Library Services, including Media Services (administratively part of the Academic division); Academic Computing (administratively part of the Finance and Administration division); and the Computer Applications Lab (CAL) (administratively part of the academic division, with a historical role supporting the science curriculum). The phrase "library and information resources" in Standard 5 should be understood to refer to these units collectively, while comments about separate areas will use more specific language such as the Library, Media Services, the CAL, or Academic Computing. Occasional references to Computing and Communications will address technology infrastructure when relevant to instructional and academic support functions.

The information resources offered and supported by the Library, Academic Computing, and the CAL represent facilities and functions commonly found in libraries and computer centers elsewhere in academia. The Media Services section of the Library requires some explanation, as its role and location in the institution are unique. Media Services provides not only the usual audiovisual support for instruction, but also extensive collections and facilities in support of media production by students across the curriculum. Media production labs, a large circulating collection of portable media equipment, and extensive instruction represent activities, facilities, and functions which will not be found within the library at most institutions. Some media arts, communications or education departments might provide some such services to students of their curriculum, but not the library, and certainly not for general use. In the context of an interdisciplinary college, and in the light of the original ideal of the generic library, these services are provided through the Library in order to assure cross-curricular access and opportunity for students from anywhere in the curriculum, whether those students are studying media or simply wish to communicate academic content using media beyond print.

Throughout this study, library and information resources will be found to be strongly linked via face-to-face collaboration and consultation with faculty, staff, and students. These interconnections, within a flat organizational structure, assure constant feedback and redevelopment of services and facilities. Library funding generally compares very well with public institutions and correlates strongly to average funding for private liberal arts peers, peers with whom our use statistics compare favorably. An external assessment performed by Edutech described budgetary support for information technology as comparable to that of institutions with similar missions. There are no comparable institutions for studying the large activity of cross-curricular media services; however, advocacy from both the cross-curricular perspective of the Library and from the specific needs of the media faculty help ensure support. Rapid expansion in information technology access and aspirations have led to changes in personnel allocation and expertise and will continue to make increasing demands on a staff and faculty already stretched in many areas.

For a description of facilities, see [[media: Major_Facilities_List.doc |Major Facilities]] and Areas 1 & 2 of the [[media:TESC_Information_Environment_Review.doc | Edutech Information Environment Review]]. For holdings and equipment, see Standard 5.B.1. For personnel, see Standard 5.D.1. For evaluation of budgetary support, see Standard 5.D.6.

====5.A.2 Sufficiency of Core Collection and Related Resources====

''The institution’s core collection and related information resources are sufficient to support the curriculum.''

Broad institutional support for cross-curricular library and information services has historically generated sufficient institutional budgetary support for core collections and facilities. During the study period, inflation and budget cuts reduced base budgets for local monograph collections. Non-state resources bridged some of the gap without building the base budget permanently. Consortial agreements created opportunities for cost-effective collective purchases of serials and for efficient resource sharing, resulting in better support for the intensive work by individual students.  

Collection Development, see 5.B.1 and 5.B.5

====5.A.3 Education Program Drives Resources and Services====

''Information resources and services are determined by the nature of the institution’s educational programs and the locations where programs are offered.''

Strong connections to the curriculum inform all library and information services. A distinctive library rotation system connects the library and teaching faculty in the shared project of curriculum and program planning. Teaching alliances between media services professionals and media faculty determine the character of media services. A strong liaison system connects Academic Computing instructors and services with teaching faculty. Meanwhile, a very experienced staff with substantial managerial responsibilities manages day-to-day library services while implementing services in response to the new opportunities advancing information technology affords. (See Standard 5.B.2 - Teaching and Instruction).

Information technology planning and governance are discussed in Area 5 (Planning and Governance) of the [[media: TESC_Information_Environment_Review.doc|Edutech Information Environment Review]].

The study notes that planning is collaborative and responsive to academic needs, and could be strengthened through a stronger role for the Information Technology Collaborative Hive (ITCH).

===Standard 5.B – Information Resources and Services===

''Information resources and services are sufficient in quality, depth, diversity, and currency to support the institution’s curricular offerings.''

==== 5.B.1 Equipment and Materials to Support the Educational Program====

''Equipment and materials are selected, acquired, organized, and maintained to support the educational program.''

The Library faculty develops collections to support Evergreen's changeable interdisciplinary curriculum without the usual benefit of departmental allocation or structures. The librarians build collections and vendor profiles on the basis of their work as both library and teaching faculty (see 5.B.2), work which involves full-time teaching, faculty governance, extensive collegial engagement with the teaching faculty, and affiliation with planning units. The curriculum committee is the faculty as a whole, and develops the curriculum in curricular planning units, curriculum retreats, and governance groups. The Library faculty's overall knowledge of the curriculum is strengthened by teaching faculty who rotate into the Library and lavish their attention on areas of the collection related to their disciplinary expertise. Finally, librarians honor most requests from individuals for additions to the collection, working from the fact that free inquiry and individual research are central to the Library’s mission.

In the past, the Library has struggled to satisfy incidental research demands outside the boundaries defined by the core, repeating curriculum. The substantial part of the curriculum which varies from year to year, the significant amount of work by independent contract students (almost 1,300 independent study contracts in 2006-07), and the opportunity for intensive individual projects within full-time, multi-quarter programs have all driven demand for specialized materials outside the core collection. Resource sharing and large, shared purchases, all made efficient because of networking technology, have eradicated this problem, although budget cuts and inflation create some difficulties keeping the core collection current. The budget for core monograph purchases has been supplemented with allocations from non-state resources in order to help bridge this gap. See 5.B.5 below.

Close work with the curriculum and faculty also informs the development of media facilities and services. Media staff attend the Expressive Arts  planning unit meetings, in particular the Moving Image subgroup. Budgetary processes for equipment purchase and operating costs include multiple avenues for consideration of educational program needs. Through the planning units, needs are communicated to the academic budget planners. Through the Library, cross-curricular media demands are communicated to the academic budget planners. Through the ITCH, cross-unit needs are coordinated and passed up to the campus-wide budget process. These three avenues help ensure that the budget process addresses both broad and specific curricular demands for media.

Some stresses develop. Like the Library, Media Services serves the entire academic community, from programs to individuals. And, like the Library, Media Services strains under the pressure of answering the needs of independent study, as well as a fluid curriculum. Students working on independent media productions compete with Expressive Arts programs for scarce resources, from equipment to laboratories to teaching staff. In order to balance these competing demands, Media Services requires students and faculty to submit media request forms, which are reviewed by the Media Services manager and the head of Instruction Media, who allocate resources, both human and technological. Independent contract forms include a question about the need for special equipment or facilities, which serves as a safety net for screening intensive media use. In these ways Media Services assures that students embarking on media studies do so with appropriate support. The Expressive Arts planning unit also instituted a Student Originated Studies (SOS) group contract in media to assure that students have consistent access to facilities and instructional support as they pursue their independent projects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In all major computer and media labs, staff instructors provide group instruction designed to support the needs of specific academic programs, covering particular applications and tools relevant to the disciplines involved. Media and computing instructors teach workshops in different spaces and in different modes, depending on the discipline and the technology. There are no constraints upon which facilities may be used. In one quarter, a science program might have workshops in the Computer Center focusing on blogs, a math workshop using Excel in the Computer Applications Lab, a session on video documentation for field research in the Multimedia Lab, and a library research workshop in one of the Computer Center's general-purpose labs. In this way, academic programs leverage staff expertise and facilities as needed.

 

 

Students who work independently on media or computing projects or who decide to tackle media projects within non-media oriented programs also receive many forms of instructional support. Academic Computing offers regularly scheduled technology workshops, which are open to all. In addition, Evergreen students can access Lynda.com, which tutors students in software applications and programming languages. The Library recently subscribed to Safari Books Online, which supports the computer science curriculum and addresses technical inquiries from students across the curriculum. Academic Computing began a computing wiki in 2006-07 which hosts approximately 2,000 pages of instructions and tutorials and which continues to expand. Increasingly, students, faculty, and staff rely on the Academic Computing wiki to stay abreast of technologies hosted on campus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| COPLAC  || 2.67  || 8.55 

| WA Regionals  || 1.41 || 5.62 

(N.B. The staff count for Evergreen has been halved since approximately 50% of Library and Media Services staffing is devoted to Media Services production, instruction, and equipment check-out. At other institutions, these services, if they are offered at all, reside in academic departments such as media arts or education.)  

The [[Media: TESC_Information_Environment_Review.doc |Edutech Information Environment Review]] discusses staffing in Area 3. The report shows staffing to be average when compared to similar institutions in terms of size, mission, and culture.  

Because library use at Evergreen compares favorably to more heavily staffed private liberal arts colleges and because all areas sustain a substantial instructional role, there are areas of strain. The rapid expansion of technology-driven services and collections also creates stresses, despite reallocation of staff as media and technologies shift. Following are the primary areas of concern:

* Weakened presence of faculty librarians due to the loss of one line in budget cuts during the self-study period

====5.D.2 Staff Qualifications====

''Library and information resources staff include qualified professional and technical support staff, with required specific competencies, whose responsibilities are clearly defined.''

The balance of librarians to other library staff is weighted toward non-professionals when compared to other liberal arts college libraries. Further, as librarians rotate into the full-time curriculum, they temporarily leave behind reference work, management, administration, and collection development. Any sustained work, such as Web-page development, is interrupted by these regular absences. Further, full-time teaching faculty rotate into the Library as neophytes who need training and who present widely disparate skills, abilities, and ambitions. Beyond the system of rotation, with its concomitant duties, librarians are contractually obligated to participate in college governance and curriculum planning, not to mention their own scholarly projects and sabbaticals. Librarians have nine-month contracts and several are absent during the summer sessions when the Library is minimally staffed. These organizational facts mean that Evergreen has no managerial class of librarians. Instead, the team of faculty librarians share management with staff. Paraprofessionals head almost all departments, including Circulation, Government Publications, Periodicals, Technical Services, and Acquisitions. Their year-round presence and regular workdays provide consistency for development of services, maintenance of collections, public service, and supervision of classified staff and student workers. In this collaborative environment, staff often lead the way in adopting new services. The tremendous commitment by the staff grounds the Library and makes it an ideal teaching environment.  

Most library faculty carry both subject and library master's credentials in order to support their teaching as well as their role as professional librarians (see [[Supporting_Documentation_for_Standard_Five#Vitae_of_professional_library_staff | CVs of professional library staff]]).

As is the case with librarians, many media staff and instructors carry additional graduate training. Graduate degrees noted by staff other than librarians include three MPAs, two MFAs, an MA in art history, an MEd and EdS, an MSE (technical engineering), an MS in chemistry, and an MS in computer information systems. The library faculty, whose roles require substantial attention to teaching and governance outside the Library, must depend upon library staff as managers of major services and functions within the Library. Highly experienced staff with significant levels of responsibility keep the Library not just open, but anticipating and embracing change and new opportunities for service (see 5.B.2 Modes of Instruction in Media and Academic Computing for a discussion of media instructors as artists and teaching faculty).

In the realm of technical support, the Edutech report recommended assigning "staff responsibilities more specifically." More specific responsibilities and positions have been implemented in Technical Support Services. In the smaller units that provide distributed service and instruction such as the CAL, Academic Computing, and Media Services, this stricter delineation of support functions is not as clearly appropriate. Instead, it is often valuable for staff to be well versed on all or most aspects of the instruction or service required and in direct communication with the student, staff, or faculty who needs help. For example, the liaison system in Academic Computing assumes that in most cases a faculty member will receive all aspects of support from one liaison, or that the liaison will coordinate the support and instruction required.

All staff and faculty have engaged new skills as the information technology evolves. Multiple reclassifications have assured that staff job descriptions and pay scales match new expectations for technological expertise. Staff have also shifted the location of their work partially or entirely as budget cuts and new programs such as Summit and ILLiad have relocated the areas of greatest stress. Increased emphasis on technology in many positions has led to reclassifications and increases in salaries for some staff, resulting in compression of salaries for some managers. A campus-wide study of exempt salaries is expected to address this issue.

====5.D.3 Professional Growth====

The library faculty are fully funded for professional activities through the central faculty professional development funds and policies, as well as through faculty institutes.  

See [[Media: facultyfundingopportunities.pdf|Faculty Development at Evergreen]]

See [[Media: professionalleave_policy.pdf|Professional Leave (Faculty Handbook 6.100)]]  

See [[Media: professionaltravel_policy.pdf|Professional Travel (Faculty Handbook 6.200)]]

See [[Media: facultydevelopment_policy.pdf|Faculty Development (Faculty Handbook 6.300)]]

Computing and Communications allocates more than $40,000 per year to support attendance of technical staff at technical conferences and trainings. This allows staff to expand their skills with current technology, increase their knowledge of new and advancing technology, and connect with peers from other institutions and experts in specific technologies. These training opportunities are critical to the team’s ability to support teaching and learning and to provide management of the college’s administrative systems (see [[Media:CC Training spreadsheet.xls | CC Training Spreadsheet]]).

====5.D.4 Organizational Structure====

''Library and information resources and services are organized to support the accomplishment of institutional mission and goals. Organizational arrangements recognize the need for service linkage among complementary resource bases (e.g., libraries, computing facilities, instructional media and telecommunication centers).''

The fundamental organizing principle of library and information resources at Evergreen is that an interdisciplinary curriculum demands integrated services. Beyond that, the founding vision aspired to provide all media, in any location. Contemporary networked technology and the expectations of students now create a climate in which barriers between different information can and must be dissolved. For all these reasons, blended resources, facilities, and services predominate throughout Standard 5.

See [[Standard_5#The_Founding_Vision_of_the_Library:_Any_Medium.2C_Any_Location|The Founding Vision: Any Medium, Any Location]].

=====Shared Technology Creates the Need for More Shared Work=====

Media applications, which were once physically limited to Media Services, are now located, maintained, taught, and used throughout the facilities administered by Academic Computing and, to a degree, the Library. Similarly, library resources, which were once physically limited to the Library building, are now found anywhere within reach of the Web. Public computers, once found only in the Computer Center, are everywhere, as are privately-owned laptops. These shifts have accelerated during the past ten years and have changed the instructional roles of the areas and their relationship to the curriculum. Undoubtedly, library and information resources will continue to distribute their budgets, facilities, and staff to continue expanding access to information technology in academic programs and for individual students.

As technologies have changed, so have the relationships among the Library, Media Services, and Computing, which now share in the communal project of interconnecting, teaching, and supporting our information and technological resources. At this juncture, there seems little point in redesigning the administrative structures that oversee these areas because new relationships and responsibilities have evolved organically, based on need, demand, and interest, and will continue to do so. In order to ensure that these effective working relationships continue to develop, reinforcing connections such as joint staffing, deliberately planning together, and continuing involvement across the areas when hiring for new staff and particularly administrators must be emphasized.

The [[Media: TESC_Information_Environment_Review.doc | Edutech Information Environment Review]] suggested that the existing distributed structures were valuable, but  recommended greatly enhancing the role and formal responsibilities of the ITCH to assure better planning in consonance with the mission of the college. See 5.E for fuller discussion of this recommendation. Edutech did not capture the centrality of the teaching role in major portions of the information resources environment at Evergreen. It is teaching and its development that assures the most important connections between the academic mission of the college, the educational program, and IT services of all kinds. While the Library and Media Services collaborate as a matter of course with Academic Computing, the real challenge remains: How to more thoroughly engage the teaching faculty across the curriculum in defining the role of information technology in the academic careers of our students.

====5.D.5 Engagement in Curriculum Development====

See [[Standard_5#Collection_Development_Procedures_.26_Methods | Collection Development Procedures & Methods 5.B.1]]

====5.D.6 Library and Information Resources Budgets====

''The institution provides sufficient financial support for library and information resources and services, and for their maintenance and security.''

Similar to staffing levels noted above, the Library is well funded compared to other regional public baccalaureates in the state (WA State Public in the table below) and peer public liberal arts libraries nationally (COPLAC in the table below). This comparatively rich funding reflects a historical recognition of the demands of open inquiry and independent research and the centrality of library research in a liberal arts education. Both funding and use rates closely match those of the private liberal arts libraries which predominate the DEEP (Documenting Effective Educational Practices), CTCL (Colleges That Change Lives) and CIEL (Consortium of Innovative Environments for Learning) peer groups. Thus, the general funding level for the Evergreen Library compares closely to that of institutions with similar missions, services, and roles within their institutions. For further discussion of the role of libraries in liberal arts colleges, see [[Standard_5#Comparing_Use_Statistics_With_Other_Libraries | Comparing Use Statistics With Other Libraries (5.E)]]. On the other hand, the library budget reported below includes Media Services (approximately 50% of library staffing falls into this category). Most libraries do not include any of the functions provided by Media Services at Evergreen. Instead, these functions, including media instruction, media-production facilities, media production to support college activities, and portable media production equipment check-out, if offered at all, would be part of an academic department such as education or media arts. If Media Services costs and services were not considered, then budgets are close to those of other public institutions, while use statistics are comparable to private liberal arts institutions.  

| 11,415

Source: IPEDS 2006 (See [[Media: DEEP_2006.xls | DEEP 2006]]; [[Media: CTCL_2006.xls | CTCL 2006]];[[Media:CIEL_2006.xls | CIEL 2006]]; [[Media: COPLAC_2006.xls | COPLAC 2006]]; [[Media: WA_state_public_2006.xls | WA State Public 2006]])

As budget cuts have reduced both staffing and collections, diversified revenue sources have become a high priority for library administration. Generous biennial infusions from the central academic budget have withered since earlier study periods. Indirect funds from activity grants to the faculty, major gifts from donors, book sales, and fines for lost or destroyed books have all increased to make up important non-state sources for collection development. The development of facilities and programming have been supported through major donors, with the library dean and the campus fundraisers focusing significant attention on these efforts.

The [[Media: TESC_Information_Environment_Review.doc| Edutech Information Environment Review]] discusses budgets in Area 4 and compares Evergreen to similar schools on the basis of physical environment, enrollment numbers, education goals and aspirations, residential nature, tuition, and governance structure. The review determined that Evergreen devotes considerable resources to IT and is consistent with its peers. In 2005, Evergreen’s expenditure on IT—expressed as a percentage of total institutional expenditures—was 6.7%. This percentage aligns with the 6.7% reported by Computing in a 2006 survey of public four-year colleges. The average for all institutions was 6.5%. Generally, IT is funded comparably to institutions with similar missions and culture. The report recommended that budget processes should be addressed that take into account the heavy demands upon replacement, operation, and maintenance as IT becomes ubiquitous in the classroom, as well as in labs.

See [[Supporting_Documentation_for_Standard_Five#Comprehensive_budget.28s.29_for_library_and_information_resources |Comprehensive Budget (Required Exhibit 9)]]

===Standard 5.E – Planning and Evaluation===

''Library and information resources planning activities support teaching and learning functions by facilitating the research and scholarship of students and faculty. Related evaluation processes regularly assess the quality, accessibility, and use of libraries and other information resource repositories and their services to determine the level of effectiveness in support of the educational program.''

====Evaluating Information Services and Collections====

Assessments of Evergreen's library and information resources confirm support for the academic mission of the college as a public liberal arts college that expects a substantial number of students to engage in self-selected independent inquiry. Utilization patterns among Evergreen students correlate closely to the intensive use found among liberal arts colleges as opposed to lower use rates found among more comprehensive institutions.

In 2002, Washington's four-year public baccalaureate institutions implemented the Cascade resource-sharing consortium. This start-up provided an amazing new service and an opportunity to assess how rapidly a major new service might be implemented. Evergreen patrons borrowed 9,723 items during the first year, more than any other library, even though Evergreen was by far the smallest institution in the consortium at that time. Although ten times bigger than Evergreen, the University of Washington borrowed just under 7,000 items during the first year. The quick acceptance of Cascade testified to the efficient connection between the Library, library instruction, and the teaching faculty and curriculum at large.  

Cascade became Orbis Cascade as the Washington and Oregon academic consortia merged. The new resource-sharing service, entitled Summit, provides ongoing comparative statistics. To continue comparison with the original members of Cascade, in 2006, Evergreen borrowed 4.52 items per FTE; almost four times the next heaviest user at 1.15 items borrowed per student. Although one might assume that small collection size drives this higher demand, the fact is that the Evergreen collection circulates at a high rate per student as well, according to federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data.  

IPEDS data for 2006 also provide the opportunity to compare use statistics of liberal arts colleges with Evergreen and with small master's-level universities (Carnegie Class Master's I), where strong distinctions appear again. When both circulation and interlibrary loan are counted, Evergreen circulates 31 items per FTE, liberal arts colleges nationally average 24 items per FTE, and the Master's I institutions circulate 8.34 per FTE.  

The same dramatic distinction between liberal arts colleges and comprehensive institutions appears in the Summit consortium, which covers a full array of colleges and universities in Oregon and Washington. The following table lists the heaviest users from the member libraries, based upon their rates of use per FTE in 2006. Evergreen places high on the list, among the most highly ranked liberal arts colleges, which placed well above usage rates at more comprehensive institutions.

{| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" border="1"

! Library

! Number of Items Borrowed

! FTE

! Items/FTE

| Reed College

| George Fox University

| Marylhurst University

| Lewis & Clark College

| '''The Evergreen State College'''

| '''3.84'''

| Whitman College

| Willamette University

| University of Puget Sound

| Seattle Pacific University

| Western Oregon University

| University of Portland

| University of Oregon

| Eastern Oregon University

| Pacific University

The data above demonstrate that library and information resources are comparatively well utilized. While high rates of use suggest something about effectiveness, surveys of popularity (frequency of use and satisfaction with use) provide further affirmation. Institutional Research routinely surveys alumni and students about campus resources. A summary of campus resource utilization (See [[Media: Alumni_Surveys_2002-2006_-_Campus_Utilization_Statistics.pdf | Alumni Surveys 2002-2006 - Campus Resource Utilization]]) shows that during the six-year period, the Library and the computing facilities have been the top two most used campus facilities, trading off for first place. Alumni who were somewhat or very satisfied with the services have reported in at between 87% and 92% during the period surveyed.

Starting in 2006, the [[media: Evergreen_Student_Experience_Survey_2006_%E2%80%93_Campus_Resources_Utilization_%E2%80%93_Olympia_Campus_Students.pdf | Evergreen Student Experience Survey (ESES)]] included questions about using library resources online and found that 85.2% of respondents use online library resources. Internal records also suggest phenomenal growth in online use of library resources. In 2000, when the Library subscribed to three aggregate journal databases (Proquest, Ebscohost and JSTOR), users conducted 80,000 searches. In 2007, among approximately 30 subscription databases, there were well over 250,000 searches. Careful review of variations of use from year to year reveals the direct impact a fluid curriculum has on database use. For example, Modern Language Association International Bibliography statistics are quite erratic; one major project in a large academic program explains a fivefold increase of use in one year. As JSTOR has developed into a more deeply and broadly multi-interdisciplinary tool, use statistics show a shift away from heavy dependence on the less scholarly aggregates. Extensive lobbying by faculty and librarians encourages this shift toward use of scholarly resources such as JSTOR. Use statistics for periodicals and databases drive selection and instruction planning. When use statistics are low for a database seen by the library faculty as critical to a discipline or of particularly high academic value, then library faculty focus instruction on that database whenever appropriate.

Institutional Research and Assessment added Media Services to its alumni survey of campus resource utilization starting in 2004. Since then, Media Services has been listed as the fifth most utilized resource. Alumni reported being somewhat or very satisfied at a rate of 89% and 90% in the two survey years (see [[ Media: Alumni_Surveys_2002-2006_-_Campus_Utilization_Statistics.pdf | Alumni Surveys 2002-2006 - Campus Resource Utilization]]).

The 2006 Evergreen Student Experience Survey (ESES)asked students about their use of Media Services, which showed 48% use of Media Loan (see [[Media: Evergreen_Student_Experience_Survey_2006_Campus_Resource_Utilization_Olympia.pdf|Evergreen Student Experience Survey 2006 - Campus Resource Utilization - Olympia]]). A survey designed and implemented by staff member Lin Crowley supplemented this data. Crowley’s respondents reported an average satisfaction level for each service ranging from 3.07 to 3.62 (out of 4), which indicated that those who used current services were generally fairly satisfied with each of the services they use.

Although respondents to Crowley’s survey were predominantly active Media Services users, many respondents were uninformed about some services. Respondents supported investment in new digital technologies, but most were unaware of new or planned digital facilities. One clear conclusion of the survey is that visibility and access could be better for some services. Suggested improvements often focused on access, whether longer hours, more workshops, or more facilities. The survey project director recommended that future follow-up surveys be conducted to compare whether the reasons people use each service change and to evaluate the satisfaction levels for each type of services by patron types. See [[Media : TESC_Media_Services_Assessment_Project.doc | Evergreen Media Services Assessment Project]]

====Evaluation of Teaching and Instructional Programs: Information Technology Literacy====

The strong focus on teaching throughout library and information resources suggests the following questions: 1) In a college without requirements, does information technology instruction reach enough students to assure that the vast majority of graduates develop skills  in support of their inquiries? 2) Which students are taught? Do students receive information technology instruction in an array of disciplinary and developmentally varied situations or is it happening only in pockets of the curriculum? 3) Is it working? Are students acquiring cross-curricular information technology, including media literacy?

About 3,000 students attend program-based library instruction workshops annually. These statistics exclude most cases of repeated contacts with the same student and thus represent very broad coverage of the student body.  

From 2000 to 2007, Media Services offered a total of more than 1,500 workshops to approximately 156 academic programs. This number does not include the thousands of quick proficiencies also provided by the area. The number of formal media workshops given and students reached in 2005 and 2006 were each more than double the numbers provided in 2000. Workshops have increased along with new technologies, especially in Media Loan and in the new Multimedia and Digital Imaging Studio (DIS) labs.

Most instruction provided by Academic Computing and the Computer Applications Lab (CAL) serves specific academic programs. These sessions are represented in the following table:

|+'''Computer Lab Workshops for Academic Programs''' (cells represent academic programs/number of students)

| Computer Center  || 221/4,423  ||  171/3,418 || 253/4,880

Up until 2007, Academic Computing offered 30 to 40 general computer skills workshops per year in the Computer Center, attended by approximately 350 students. Professional staff focused these workshops on general technical skill building, independent of academic programs. Over time, fewer students were attending these workshops, presumably because more students come to college with strong technical skills and with specialized self-determined needs for support. In response to waning attendance, Academic Computing redesigned the workshops as student-centered support sessions to which students bring their questions or projects. This student-centered structure should more effectively meet the specific demands of students. Computing will evaluate the success of this reinvented structure. All areas of library, media, and computing find the strongest teaching and the greatest demand for instruction occurs in conjunction with programs.

'''Which Students?'''

The number of teaching contacts shows that library and information resources staff reach a large number of academic programs, but does not indicate which programs. End-of-program surveys conducted from 2001 to 2006 by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment asked faculty, “Did your students use technology to present work, conduct research (including library research), or solve problems? If yes, How?” Not surprisingly, faculty answered that library/Internet research skills were the most commonly used at 50%, followed by some form of presentation technology. Ninety percent of programs reported some substantial use of information technology. (See[[Media: Summary_of_Information_Technology_Literacy_Emphasis_in_Programs.pdf | Summary of Information Technology Literacy Emphasis in Programs]])

In 2006-07, questions were revised to more accurately identify programs where there was intentional focus on teaching ITL: "Did your program include activities to improve information technology literacy?" With this more restrictive language, 70% of programs reported including ITL. (See[[Media: End-of-program_Review_Results_for_2006-07_%E2%80%93_Information_Technology_Literacy_by_Planning_Unit.pdf | End-of-program Review Results for 2006-07 - Information Technology Literacy by Planning Unit]])

Further, in 2006-07, a follow-up question asked specifically which kind of technology was taught. Significantly different technologies predominate in different parts of the curriculum. No standard set of applications comes into play, although as of 2006-07, presentation technologies (at 42% of all programs) have increased by 70% over their use in the 2001 to 2006 reports and now begin to approach library and Internet research in their prevalence at 50%. Online communication applications were reported by 32% of programs, an increase of 19% over the 2001-2006 data.  

Reservation-based programs reported library and Internet research at the highest rate, at 100% of programs, although this work was weakly connected to library instruction and therefore it is unclear whether academic library-supplied resources were used. At the other end of the spectrum, Culture, Text, and Language was lowest with 21% reporting library or Internet searching. The remainder of planning units ranged between 43% and 50% library/Internet use, with Core programs at the low end with 43%.

The substantial move toward presentation media and online communication in programs drives increases in multimedia applications. Presentation technology and online communication applications encourage the use of still and moving images, sound clips, graphs, and charts. These media are mixed with traditional print communication written by students or linked from Web resources. While these media and print applications involve basic, commonly used applications of information technology, they easily migrate toward more advanced media production. The increasing presence of multimedia information technology in Evergreen's learning communities drives further demand upon Media Services and Academic Computing, along with increased overlap of their teaching and service roles.

Since its inception in the context of Holly’s generic library, Media Services has followed its mission to support media literacy and instruction across the curriculum. During the last ten years, Media Services have changed dramatically as the personal computer has become the platform for entry-level media production and consumption. One measure of this change has materialized in how media staff have served programs through formal workshops since fall 2000. The scheduling data shows that almost 90% of formal program-based workshops serve Expressive Arts faculty. While this scheduling data does not cover equipment proficiency workshops or one-on-one instruction, both used more broadly across the curriculum, it is nevertheless clear that formal instruction by media staff focuses heavily on Expressive Arts programs, with an emphasis on advanced production applications, the exclusive provenance of expressive arts faculty. Media Services provides this advanced instruction in specialized labs, which were enhanced and expanded during the remodel. One effect of this specialization is that entry-level students have migrated to Academic Computing, where the staff works in collaboration with media staff to provide instruction on entry-level media-production applications. In fact, during fall and winter 2006-07, 68% of the faculty who requested workshops in Computer Center were from planning units other than Expressive Arts, and many of these workshops included media instruction (Photoshop, iMovie, Flash, etc.).  

Just as in the Computer Center, the Computer Applications Lab (CAL) shows a trend toward more broadly used applications. Although the CAL has traditionally focused on the science curriculum in the Environmental Studies and Scientific Inquiry planning units, these users have begun to share their space with those who have less specialized demands. Roughly 60% to 70% of the classes in the CAL now work with statistical or numeric analysis, primarily Excel, but also with Graphical Analysis, R, and SPSS. Ninety percent of CAL users prepare presentations, most often with Powerpoint, Word, Illustrator and Excel. Approximately 60% of the programs meeting in the CAL still use analytical tools, including (in order of usage) ArcGIS, Mathematica, and Stella, which were once the focal point of all CAL applications. Science faculty have shifted their emphasis to on-site analysis, using advanced applications in specialized scientific labs in ways that parallel the shift in Media Services toward advanced applications. Meanwhile, the CAL and the Computer Center serve increasing numbers of students who seek instruction or support for the increasingly powerful personal computing applications in media production, statistical analysis, and presentation media.

'''Does Library Instruction Result in ITL Gains?'''

The Library, consistent with college-wide practices, rejects requirements and embraces students who engage in open inquiry and independent judgment. In this context, the Library supports a fluid curriculum and responds to changes that drive the needs and expectations of an innovative teaching faculty. Standard or standardized assessment methods do not apply because the Library shapes teaching according to individual students, a fluid curriculum, and highly diverse pedagogy. Instead, the Library commits to the intensive and never-ending task of recreating learning goals, student-by-student, program-by-program. Context is everything, which obviates the role of abstract standardized measures.

On the other hand, the Library does engage in qualitative assessment, the descriptive characterization of ITL teaching and learning. As is the case throughout the faculty (see Standard 2.B.3, Engagement and Reflection), library faculty write annual evaluations of themselves and their library and teaching colleagues. They also engage in five-year reviews in which a panel of teaching colleagues discusses their work. These evaluations consistently address instructional aspirations, successes, and failures. See [[Media: Reflections_on_library_instruction.doc | Reflections on Library Instruction]].  

Further, under the leadership of the Office of Institutional Research, the librarians designed a project that assessed students as they worked through real research inquiries. The study, [[media: ActivityInfomationLiteracy.pdf |"The Activity of Information Literacy"]], documented the techniques and processes and even the thinking of several small samples of students as they collaborated intensively on research questions. The study showed that these particular students were stronger in their grasp of content than they were in their command of library research tools for their specific inquiries. In other words, a question about history might not lead them to historical abstracts. They were also strong in their ability to develop their research questions and to evaluate and synthesize the results. What these results suggest is that “Faculty may want to assess their students’ abilities to obtain information and offer tutorials or refer students to the Library when deficiencies are detected.”

Beyond the immediate results, this qualitative assessment also suggested that the students benefited greatly when they collaborated. Certainly, this observation is corroborated by the gains that students make when they work together in skill building instead of in canned computer workshops outside of programs. Additionally, peer groups are widely used across the curriculum as a way to encourage students to develop research topics and individual projects. Given the results of the qualitative assessment and given the widely practiced use of peer groups, library faculty should seek ways to implement collaborative research activities when they link their instruction to programs. This model of cooperation would build on the more isolated collaborations that take place, as a matter of course, between librarians and students at the reference desk. An enlarged vision of this basic transaction—discussion, exploration, and brainstorming—will enhance the relevance and effectiveness of library teaching and workshops.

The Evergreen Student Experience Survey (ESES) asks questions that elucidate what the students themselves think they learned at Evergreen. In 2006, the ESES asked, "To what extent have your Evergreen experiences contributed to your growth in ... the following computer-related fields...?" Responses generally matched fairly well with the perspectives found in the end-of-program surveys. For the category "Studying or Doing Research via the Internet or other online sources:

* More than 93% of reservation-based students reported at least some contribution; 86.2% reporting quite a bit or a lot.

Considering how many students express self-confidence in their research skills, and as the Internet provides so many increasingly powerful tools for personal research, it is heartening to see that a good majority of students feel they developed their research skills as part of their education at Evergreen.  

The 2006 ESES also asked about "Using the computer for artistic expression (e.g., music, other audio, still images, animation, video, etc.)":

* More than 42% reported that Evergreen contributed "Some," "Quite a Bit," or "A Lot"

* Fully 36.8% said "Not at All"

The 2006 ESES surveyed use of non-artistic computer tools, asking about specific types of applications such as spreadsheets, GIS, Web development, posters, or programming. In general, as was found in end-of-program reviews, no single type of computer application dominated. No application type was used by more than 50% of students; instead, different types of applications were used by smaller subsets of the students surveyed.

====5.E.1 Participatory Planning====

''The institution has a planning process that involves users, library and information resource staff, faculty, and administrators.''

=====Overall Planning for Collections & Services=====

The fluidity of interdisciplinary and individual study defines library services. The dean of Library Services strengthens the ties between academics and the Library and Media Services through weekly meetings with the provost, associate vice president for academic budget and planning, and academic dean of budget, as well as weekly academic deans meetings. Once a month, the director of computing and communications and the manager of Academic Computing also join the academic deans' meeting.

The interconnection of the instructional role with the planning and support functions drives the efficacy of all the services in these areas. In the [[Media: TESC_Information_Environment_Review.doc | Edutech Information Environment Review]], Area 5 discussed planning and governance in the Evergreen information environment. The review was somewhat critical of the lack of coordination in support, planning, and governance of IT across the campus and advocated for a stronger role for the Information Technology Collaborative Hive (ITCH), an organization which links library, media, and computing managers and instructors. However, the report did not emphasize how the teaching function and role in Academic Computing, the CAL, and Media Services creates strong collaboration in all service and instruction design.  

Further, placing library and information resources within the larger ethos of the college, any major policy discussions or long-term planning processes invoke the participatory college-wide Disappearing Task Force (DTF) structure. Budgetary processes are generally collaborative and include opportunities for review and input from the campus community (see Participatory Decision-Making Culture [Standard 1 Section 2.3] and Standard 6). The college budget process and schedule drives most mid-term library planning. (See Standard 7 Section 7.A.3).

=====Loose Structures and Responsiveness to Rapid Change in the Information Environment=====

Among the organizations included in library and information resources, the Library is the largest and most embedded in tradition and thus may be the most invested in preexisting professional structures and assumptions. Additionally, a comparative lack of top-down managerial structures could lead to a tendency to stagnate in some environments. How well does the Library balance the competing demands of conservation, teaching, and technological adaptation and innovation? The success of the Library’s flat organization can be measured by the impressive way in which the Library group has responded to institutional and profession-wide changes and challenges. See the [[Media: Achievements.doc |Achievements]] document for a description of major changes in services, faculties, and collections implemented during the study period. Most of the changes are responses to opportunities provided by technological developments and external engagement in consortia. The consortia relieve any single library from much of the burden of research and develop into new technologies, an overwhelming burden for a comparatively small library such as Evergreen's. Additionally, Evergreen's library administration and staff have worked actively in leadership roles in the Orbis Cascade consortium to assure that the consortium supports efficient, cost-effective movement into the world of networked and shared resources.

====5.E.2 Planning Linkages====

''The institution, in its planning, recognizes the need for management and technical linkages among information resource bases (e.g., libraries, instructional computing, media production and distribution centers, and telecommunications networks).''