Assessment Meeting Minutes 03/09/2015
Present: Linda (head), Brendan (minutes), Dan, David, Ellen, Sarah, Konstantin, Russ, Steve
Next Meeting: Monday 03/23/15, Mugar Conference Rm.
Individual Research Topics
Assessment Meeting Minutes 02/23/2015
Present: Linda (head), Dan (minutes), Brendan, David, Ellen, Sarah, Konstantin, Russ
Next Meeting: Monday 03/09/15, Admin Conf Rm.
1. All - monitor for 2015 Survey developments as appropriate.
2. All - be prepared at the next meeting to discuss future directions as assigned below.
Update on Survey 2015
We are starting to run low on time to accomplish the 2015 survey this Spring. If we are not able to accomplish it, our new target would become Spring 2016. As this is a distinct possibility, all of our materials are now well archived (thanks Brendan) in Dropbox and other locations. There is also a "readme" file that explains what documents and materials can be found in the archive, and describes their purpose.
Discussion of future work
At the university level, there is a renewed focus on assessment systems for the evaluation of learning outcomes, and the library will be participating in this in the near future. In light of this Committee’s charge and goals and the Libraries’ strategic plans, what other assessment activities would improve library services and resources.
* From the ARL-ASSESS listserv:
Data Management and Visualization Webcasts
Data visualization brings library stories to life. Using Tableau software, libraries may better harness, analyze, and report their data to internal and external stakeholders. Join us for a three-part series on data management with Tableau, presented by experienced assessment librarians.
Sarah Murphy, Ohio State University
Tuesday, March 3, 2015, 2:00–2:30 p.m. EST
Register online free of charge
The Ohio State University (OSU) has used Tableau since 2012 to support a number of assessment projects. Examples include a series of interactive dashboards that query, analyze, and deliver transactional data to subject librarians to support their collection development and engagement activities. To deliver library data of interest to the broader academic community, the Libraries has also started to embed interactive, downloadable Tableau dashboards via select OSU Libraries websites.
Anne Murphy is coordinator of assessment for The Ohio State University
Libraries. She earned an MLS from Kent State University in 2000 and an
MBA from The Ohio State University
in 2008. She has published two books and several papers related to
Jeremy Buhler, University of British Columbia
Tuesday, March 10, 2015, 2:00–2:30 p.m. EDT
Register online free of charge
The University of British Columbia (UBC) Library began using Tableau in 2013 to analyze longitudinal LibQUAL+ results. The resulting online display highlights changes in survey results over time and facilitates the comparison of responses across several user groups. Building on the success of this visualization, UBC Library is now using Tableau to encourage library staff to engage with, think about, and find new applications for library metrics.
Jeremy Buhler, MLIS, is assessment librarian at the University of British Columbia Library, where he has worked since 2011.
Rachel Lewellen, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Tableau helps the University of Massachusetts (UMass) Amherst Libraries staff to both analyze and understand data. Selectors may access purchasing and use data without having to maintain or manipulate spreadsheets. Using Tableau for the analysis of a consortial e-book project minimizes duplication of effort and provides a common perspective for understanding the data. Interactive visualizations expedite access to live data from MINES (Measuring the Impact of Networked Electronic Services), and make it easier for staff to use circulation, service desk, and gate-count data for operational purposes.
Rachel Lewellen is assessment librarian at the UMass Amherst Libraries. She has been using Tableau since 2012
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
2:00–3:00 p.m. EDT
Discussion and Q&A with Sarah Murphy, Jeremy Buhler, and Rachel Lewellen
Brendan, Dan, David (chair pro tem), Ellen, Russ, Steve (minutes)
Next meeting: 2pm, 2/9, Mugar conference room
-Steve will serve as Sarah's backup to resolve the capitalization of Library, Libraries, library, libraries through the three surveys
Bob Hudson updated the committee on the approval status, that the Provost has been given copies of the surveys to review.
Survey pilots: Went well, with almost all 'piloteers' taking and completing the survey.
The committee then reviewed comments from the pilot (see Brendan's 'Review of Encountered Pilot Errors and their Fixes' handout) and corrected errors as necessary.
Dan, Russ, Brendan, Steve, Ellen, Konstantin (minutes), David, Linda (chair)
Next meeting: 2pm, 1/26, Mugar conference room
- Konstantin and Ellen - identify 2 staff who are willing to participate in the pilot
- collect and review responses from pilot testers
-Sarah still needs to resolve the capitalization of Library, Libraries, library, libraries through the three surveys
We’ve reviewed display option on the iPad. It looks OK.
Discussion of remaining issues:
QF15, QG2a: Open Access - we’ve agreed to the changes for points one and two regarding articles published
Resolved the wording for library search – FQ5 - copy from FQ5, GQ7 and UQ6 -
FQ6, GQ6, UQ6 - our agreement: “Research assistance …” “General assistance”
FQ9 and QG13 - “archiving papers and other publications in digital archives” – include SSRN
“Dear Faculty …” text is finalized
We’ve finalized the email list for pilot participants.
Include some staff to participate in the pilot – Linda will email the link
Dan, Russ, Brendan, Steve, Ellen, Linda (chair), David (minutes)
Next meeting: 2pm, 1/20, Mugar conference room
Linda will be on vacation Jan. 26th - Feb. 8th
Should know Provost decision Jan 22nd.
Looked at Linda’s proposed emails for survey recipients. Ellen had minor edit that was accepted and made by Brendan.
For pilot, Brendan recommends that we we just use a non-individualized link for pilot. Can test panels separately amongst ourselves.
Brendan looked at display logic affecting data; there should be no real problem.
There was some editing of Linda’s emails for pilot participants, recorded by Brendan.
Which surveys should staff see in the pilot? All of them.
Linda brought up possible issue with viewing survey on iPad? David couldn’t reproduce on his iPad. Ellen will check it on hers.
Went over various comments and suggestions for surveys. Brendan captured changes made.
Russ will propose wording for Subject librarians/staff assistance/research assistance.
Will use student workers for undergrad pilot.
Next meeting is all about the pilot, and we plan to send it out after meeting.
Linda (chair), Brendan (minutes), Steve, Dan, Sarah, Ellen, David , Konstantin, Russ
Next mtg: 01/12/15 2:00-3:30, Lg. conf. rm.
AGENDA: 1. Review previous meeting 2. Plan pilot
BD finished changing the surveys. Questions have been updated as discussed.
Linda made chart of each survey's section and question flow. It all looks good and makes sense.
Linda likes convenient sampling. “Try 3-5 each"
We need people from both campuses.
Steve mentions that data may be difficult to parse due to display logic.
Brendan will check if this applies to us.
Panels will be created for the reviewers
For undergrads, don't use student workers, but their friends are okay.
We should mention we’re collecting demos in the intro.
Show Marlene, Mary, and Amy the survey before pilot. “We thought you’d like to see this before it goes out.”
Everyone’s Spring recess ends after March 15th. Target release date: April 2nd.
Sarah showed off the adverts. Very nice. Still some tinkering here and there. Lots of places we’re advertising, still waiting on even more locations.
Russ: "Can we modify our websites for advertising the survey?" Linda: “IRB says about 1 advert in each library is fine. More than one will shift our user group toward the patrons."
Scheduling: Mondays 2-3:30 in the big conference room for the next 5 weeks, EXCEPT January 20th, 2-3:30 instead of January 19th.
Steve, Dan, Brendan, Sarah (minutes), Ellen, David (Chair), Konstantin
next mtg: 1/5/15 2pm conf rm.
SDS presented new wording for OA questions on grad and fac (FQ36, GQ2a)
On the faculty survey, the open access factor on the question "How
important are the following factors in your decision on where to publish
journal articles?" will read: 'Journal allows open access (immediately or
after an embargo)'.
DF suggested a small wording change: move “have you” after the “regarding articles you have published” and start each question with the verb (published, paid, deposited).
Info lit Questions
DB reports from conversation w/ Ken Liss
already implemented wording on guides/tutorials
separating teaching from clinical/research purpose (FQ 32,33,43,45) - KL interested, we were not open to making this large a change at this time
consider in survey keepers- separating teaching from research from fac, or teaching from study for grads.
GQ17 (could be added to fac FQ 45 as well) Streaming Media
SDS - yes wants this question
BD has concern about “streaming media” wording could be interpreted different ways (synchonous vs asynchronous, live streaming vs netflix style)
switch to “online video and audio resources”?
“streaming audio and video”
decided on wording:
“Access to streaming audio and video resources” for both GQ17 & FQ45
Review of Questions/issues from BD’s email 12/15
discussed, BD will make changes
Assessment Meeting Minutes 12/15/14
Attendees: Linda (head), Dan, Brendan, David, Ellen, Steve, Sarah, Konstantin (minutes), Russ, Vika (called-in)
Next Meeting: Monday, December 22, 2pm Admin. Conf. Rm.
NEXT MEETING: Agenda
1. Minutes (thanks Ellen for the terrific minutes), announcements, changes to the agenda?
2. Discussion with Vika about our OA questions (Sarah)
3. Brendan’s overview presentation and outstanding questions (Brendan)
4. Discussion about Ken’s feedback on the survey’ Information Literacy questions (Dan)
5. Publicity files, Brendan’s suggestion about publicity
6. Do we want to add an augmented services question to the undergrad survey?
Brendan walked us through all the major and minor changes. (see Brendan’s power point presentation).
The group discussed question “During that past academic year at BU have you …. 4th option: “Worked on a research project including data”. We’ve decided to keep the wording as is.
Double check if IS&T term is clear to the medical users - include BU/BUMC IS&T ? …. (Konstantin)
We’ve discussed the advantage of mentioning “Blackboard” in a question which asks about “course system”
Sarah brought up the point that Ken’s suggestion that library guides need to be reincorporated in the undergrad and graduate surveys.
We’ve discussed open issues concerning service augmentation. Russ suggested to change the word “augmented” to “enhance”. We all agreed.
We’ve decided to discuss the potential of removing “media streaming” during the next meeting.
Discussion with Vika about OA questions:
Sarah summarized Vika’s concerns and Vika clarified that we shouldn’t focus just on “open access journals” vs. open access in general.
Vika suggested to formulate a separate question that asks about Gold and Green access.
Discussion followed. Steve argued that we’re trying to find out if our patrons are making their work open access rather than publishing in the “open access” journal.
We’ve decided to modify the question so that we capture “immediately or after embargo” wording.
Question “Have you ever submitted an article to: ….” - We’ve decided that we have to consider the wording in the context of Vika’s suggestion.
Sarah emailed Vika’s suggested wording.
Dan discussed Ken's suggestions, but we still need to revisit them.
Augmented Services for the Undergraduates
Russ suggested that we substitute the word "augmented" with "enhanced". The group unanimously agreed.
Assessment Meeting Minutes 12/8/14
Attendees: RS, ER (minutes), LP, BD, DB, SS, DF (for last half)
Next Meeting: Monday, December 15, Admin. Conf. Rm.
We focused on a group review of the completed graduate and faculty surveys
-Grad & Faculty Surveys will NOT have a “demographics” bloc header—decision is that is it not necessary to prep users to answer personal questions.
Sarah is setting up a phone in with Vika for next Monday’s meeting to discuss the Open Access wording on the survey and what data she would like us to collect.
Things to cover at next meeting: Open Access questions and language with Vika, input from Ken on Information Literacy, conventions/consistency of language across all three surveys with Brendan, review the three surveys in their entirety, data management questions with David, and discuss the pilot
On satisfaction and importance questions, IMPORTANCE rating will be asked first, and then SATISFACTION rating
-Brendan is looking at alternative phrasing for “information literacy” and also looking at the three surveys together to see where language should consistent, but isn’t—he will present these at 12/15 meeting
-David is working on language for Research Data questions
-“Research data” option has been added to question about “during the past academic year, have you…” and set up as display logic, so only survey takers who have worked with research data will see questions about storage and sharing
-Question on bibliographic managers may be moved to different block, but this was not yet decided
-Question on assigned readings and how students access—to be reviewed with Steve and Konstantin at 12/15 meeting
-Dan is following up with Ken on the language for the information literacy question (FQ30)—this language must be to us by 12/15
FQ32—discussed switching assessment and importance (to importance and assessment) but decided not too, since it would be leading, but are aware we may now be comparing apples and oranges
-“Information literacy” is library speak, but may have to remain
-We agreed to remove “other” from the importance & satisfaction re library resources questions
-We agreed to add an option on current awareness to our question on augmenting library services—this question will also be copied to the faculty survey
-We changed the question on library use and space (group and individual study space, access to computers) to focus on HOW graduate students use the library resourceà this change needs to be copied over to the undergraduate survey_______________________________________________________
Assessment Meeting Minutes 11/17/2014
Present: Linda (head), Dan (minutes), Brendan, David, Ellen, Steve, Konstantin, Russ
Next Meeting: Monday, 11/24, Admin Conf Rm.
1. Faculty Survey Subgroup should note the discussions in the high level review below and make necessary edits.
2. Undergrad Survey Subgroup should be prepared to walk the group through a preview of that survey at the next meeting.
High Level Review of Faculty Survey
Assessment Committee Meeting, Monday, November 10, 2014
1. Minutes, announcements, changes to the agenda
a. No changes were made to the minutes of the last full committee meeting submitted by Ellen
b. The following announcements:
i. Brendan noted a possible completion rate problem in the MINES survey, but he observed—and the rest of us agreed—that it did not represent a significant problem. Even we had to accept the lower rate, it was still quite high and not worth intervention.
ii. Brendan also noted that in Qualtrics we can make notes and comments within the draft questions themselves, allowing us to keep all of the committee’s work product there and make it more convenient to read everything in one place, not only now but in the future.
iii. Linda announced that Ron Yeany and his team at IS&T have offered to look into whether they can help in extracting useful usage data from Exproxy.
c. No changes were suggested to the agenda proposed by Linda.
2. Continue discussion about usage, importance, and satisfaction and what changes we should make on our surveys.
a. Continued and reviewed the ongoing discussion we have had about whether to use usage or satisfaction in our survey. David and Steve quickly reprised the issues for us.
b. Konstantin registered his concerns about using importance and offered the white paper from the Customer Satisfaction Research Institute, along with four other relevant articles in the literature, as food for thought in our consideration when considering the use of importance in our survey.
c. Steve noted that if we moved away from importance we would lose the ability for longitudinal study, since we used importance in the first round of surveys.
d. We returned to the question if we could not use all three factors in the survey as suggested in the last meeting. Russ queried if we could use the pilot period to test if the three factors could all be used in the survey without making the question too long and cumbersome, confusing the test taker.
e. Linda noted that we may have more room in the surveys for a few longer questions given that we are hoping to collect demographic data from the Registrar and Human Resources, rather than by asking the respondents.
f. Sarah observed that if we used all three factors that would give additional insight into patron feedback.
g. Consensus: all three elements will be used in the pilot on questions related to services.
3. Demonstration/review of the Graduate Student Library Survey
a. Graduate Student subcommittee: have had a high level discussion and are now having a more targeted discussion. The subcommittee has met twice and needs additional time to discuss issues, but that can follow this discussion by the full committee.
b. A question was raised whether we can use the panels in Qualtrics for the distance education and online learners.
c. Question 8: Brendan wondered if the wording is loaded; Linda did not believe it was; Steve suggested using “Please rate the importance” as a way to resolve the possible loaded nature of the question. The question was also raised if the elements surveyed are really separate or do they represent a skillset (or many different skillsets). Sarah suggested getting Ken Liss’s insights on this. She also recommended inviting him to our next meeting to get his thoughts here as well as on other info literacy questions.
d. Question 9: on first line it was recommended to use just BU Library Search and then on the second line use “Databases” and search tools. Russ and Konstantin also recommended using the examples of HeinOnline and PubMed, as was similarly done on the faculty survey. We also considered whether we needed new examples of Social Media beyond Twitter and blogs, or need any at all. The consensus was to keep the two existing examples.
e. Question 17: Sarah wondered if we should not change the wording to be more like UW’s analog question #8, to be more user-centric. We agreed that the subcommittee in its next meeting would investigate this further and make recommendations to the full committee.
4. Progress report on the Faculty Library Survey
a. We have had a high level committee discussion and one subcommittee meeting discussion. Issues in the subcommittee, principally about the use of usage or importance, were then discussed by the full committee at the last meeting as well as in the early portion of this meeting.
5. High level review of the Faculty Library Survey
a. Additional high level discussions need to occur.
6. Next steps?
a. Undergrad survey is very close to being finished. Needs an additional half hour of the full committee’s time.
b. Grad survey needs discussion in two more meetings.
c. Faculty needs two more meetings, although we may be able to shorten that time inasmuch as we are utilizing language developed in the new grad survey in corresponding sections in the faculty survey.
d. Should we include post-docs in our survey, and how?
Assessment Meeting Minutes 11/3/14
Present: BD, DF, LP, ER (minutes), SDS, DB, RS, KS
Graduate Subcommittee: Friday, November 7, 1-2:30, Mugar Small Admin Conf. Room
Undergrad Subcommittee: Monday, November 10, 12:30-2, Administrative Offices, Mugar, small conference room
Full Assessment Committee meeting, Monday, November 10, 2-3:30, Administrative Offices, Mugar, large conference room
Brendan gave an update on the post-survey information we will use to capture entries for the gift cards, and he will send it around.
There have been no changes to the undergraduate survey since our reserves discussion last week, and the undergraduate subcommittee will update us at the next meeting.
Whole committee: need to look at the larger information literacy question issues with Ken before we can decide on which word to use
SRS, ER, KS: Add question about subject librarians to grad student survey
All subgroups: make survey questions closer/more parallel across the board (see slide 11 where DF has compared the same questions across the three surveys, highlighting the different language we use)
Undergrad survey/undergrad subcommittee: we have lumped together questions on physical things and services, and these should probably be two separate categories (see slide 15)
Discussion re David’s presentation on usage vs satisfaction vs importance:
Presentation (with DF’s recommendations on what word to use with which question) is on the wiki
Overall: we are considering adding satisfaction questions to the faculty survey, but will ask undergrads only usage questions.
Whether to continue distinguishing print vs ebooks? Key points:
· Really two separate questions: (a) how important are these sources (print vs ebook) to you and (b) how satisfied are you with the selection we have at BU?
· Do we care about responses if it will not change our format selection? (i.e., we are an e-preferred library)
· Are we focusing on satisfaction with the format of our materials or our collection (e.g., “you don’t have what I want” vs “you have what I want, but not in my preferred format)
o Decided are trying to get more at satisfaction with the collection and so will combine the formats, which is what we did when asking about our journals collection
o May also add the word “collection” to the question to really get people to focus in on it
· This question will also have a comments box
· Determined there are no questions about e vs print materials we want to add, as we already know what we need to on that topic
Importance vs Usage re: Library Services
· Satisfaction questions are good for giving us longitudinal data, but are not particularly useful for capturing information from just one survey
· How to capture usage?
o If faculty member is on sabbatical and we ask about the past year—will they say they have not used anything, when ordinarily, they heavily rely on our resources?
§ Alternatively, will faculty pay attention to “current year” or look at their normal course of business?
§ But “current year” should definitely be kept for ugrad survey, as it helps us to look at what resources each class uses
§ Grant cycle is 3 years—if faculty are not writing grants in this current academic year, will usage questions underreport on resource usage/importance?
o Use of importance AND satisfaction questions together could give us a better idea of where we need to improve (e.g., less heavily-used resource may still be important, especially with varying workloads over the course of a faculty member’s career. Should we not limit to the current year for faculty, as it may provide an inaccurate snapshot?)
o What can this data really tell us? How would we tell if something is low use because they are dissatisfied or if it is low use because it is not an important resource?
· Faculty use in past year vs importance to faculty—
o How to capture resources that are important but may not have been used in the past year and/or are not necessarily used on an annual basis?
o Issue: probably don’t want to ask faculty all three questions (is it important, do you use it/how often do you use it, are you satisfied with it?)
· Issues with deriving usage stats from satisfaction data—e.g., on the undergrad survey, they reported satisfaction higher than their reported usage, but can also be important—the discrepancy itself provides useful information
· “use is use”—usage questions wouldn’t tell us the type or quality of use (i.e., getting help with a paper vs asking us where the bathroom is)
· Should we ask all three questions, but cut down the number of services we’re asking about to five or so?
· Services for which usage is declining may still be important (i.e., ILL)
· Currently, the usage question is a yes/no, not a likert scale. What is the value of asking it this way?
o If we give up the usage question, we give up being able to report usage
o Likert scale is also misleading, because what might be frequent for one user wouldn’t be frequent for another
· Tip people off at the beginning with a header like “for the following services, we will ask you to think about whether you use these services, how important they are to you, and how satisfied you are with them” – makes people more likely to answer questions, rather than getting bogged down by never ending questions and quitting the survey?
· Can usage be pulled from other areas so we don’t have to ask the question (i.e., get ILL stats from ILL librarians)?
o This question helps capture the perception of services they think they use
o Capturing usage in the survey helps us correlate use and importance in a way that cannot be captured with other data sources on use
· Degree of use—do we care? à kind of an open question
· Importance might also measure unique, non-repetitive events, as opposed to regular use of an itemà potential for skewed/misleading results
Overall: committee members agree on main points with the exception of the use vs importance questions
Suggestions for resolving this issue:
· Make our ideal survey, then edit
o Need to be careful we’re not making an entirely new survey and losing comparability to prior surveys
· Create a matrix of Use, Satisfaction, and Importance with two categories: Facilities and Services
· Is there a more elegant way to ask about what library you use (that would help eliminate the need for separate facilities questions, so we only need to ask about services)?
Can we bring in some topical questions (i.e., data management) that we can change each time?
Assessment Meeting Minutes 10/26/14
Present: SDS, DF, KS, ER, LP, BD, SRS (minutes), RS, DB
Brendan went to Google Analytics workshop on GA for libraries in Washington DC, and reported back on some of what he learned:
DAG is looking to do some usability work specific to the BULS searchbox
Subgroup for Faculty Survey review will meet this Wed 10/29
Intro needs provost/IRB review but otherwise done
Minor wording and ordering changes on Page 1
Individual libraries at BU section
Whirlwind update from Grad Survey review group
Assessment Meeting Minutes 10/6/2014
Present: Linda (head), Brendan (minutes), David, Ellen, Steve, Konstantin, Sarah
1. Find things to improve about the graduate/faculty surveys.
2. Review undergraduate survey post-edits [[ ignore bracketed sections ]]
Review of Changes to Undergraduate Survey
Graduate Survey Collective Critique
Publicity Update – Sarah
General Notes and Miscellany
Assessment Meeting Minutes 9/29/14
Present: Brendan, Dan, Steve, Lisa, Ellen, Russel, Linda (chair), David, Sarah, Konstantin (minutes), Ken Liss
Next meeting: Monday 10/6, 2pm-3:30pm, Mugar Administrative Conference Room
1. Minutes, announcements, changes to the agenda?
2. Publicity update (Sarah)
3. Full committee high-level review of the Graduate Student Library Survey
4. Discussion about Undergraduate Student Library Survey (Undergrad sub-group)
5. Next steps?
Assessment Meeting Minutes 09/15/2014
Present: Brendan, Dan, Steve, Lisa, Ellen, Russell, Linda (chair), David (minutes), Sarah
Next Meeting: Monday, 9/29, 2pm-3:30pm, Mugar Administrative Conference Room
Following Meetings: For rest of year, will be meeting every other Monday at 2pm, except for one Friday: 9/29, 10/17 (), 10/27, 11/10, 11/24, 12/8, 12/22
Sarah: Remind reference librarians about the ongoing MINES survey
Linda: Ask for input from Ken Liss on questions about instruction and services (Q8 & Q9 in undergrad survey).
Steve: Propose question to capture undergraduate use of "reserve" materials
David: Talk to JD about question on bibliographic managers, and which ones to list in question.
Brendan, Dan, and Lisa: Work on undergrad survey for next meeting, including, comparing to MIT and UW surveys, looking at qualitative data from last survey, and proposing any needed wording changes.
Sarah, Ellen & ???: Similar work (for future meeting) for grad survey.
Dan announced improvements to the websites Google Analytics, which now track searches from across site, including branches.
Russell introduced our newest member, Ellen Richardson, Assistant Librarian for Administration at the law library.
Brendan showed the current state of the survey. We have had almost 3,500 results so far, with an extremely high completion rate. Brendan has downloaded the data (so far) into Excel to do some preliminary analysis, including parsing the URL to let us see what resource is being visited. Extremely impressive.
Brendan will share data with anyone on committee who is interested. We can look at it and use it, but remember it is preliminary and hasn't yet undergone complete analysis.
Linda reported that until we hear from Provost (nothing yet), we still don’t know for certain whether we will do everyone in next survey, or only faculty. We will finish work on updating undergrad survey; then do the faculty survey update, in case that is the only survey we administer.
Decided that for each survey we will do pass as a group to make sure we have right questions, without wordsmithing. Then break into groups to look at wording and compare to other surveys.
Sarah suggested we may want to speak to Ken Liss to find out if the questions on instruction and services (Q8 & Q9) are really the metrics he wants to track. Linda will do it.
For the questions about facilities (Q13), we need to rethink our categories. "Furniture" can be confusing. Seating vs. Chairs. Outlets. Lighting.
On Q18 regarding course reserves, Steve brought up wanting to know about where students are getting resources we traditionally think of as e-reserves (e.g., the library's e-reserves system, Blackboard, faculty web site, etc.). There was a lively discussion on whether undergrads (as opposed to faculty) are the right ones to ask, and whether a question can be written that captures what we want to know from undergrads. Steve will work on possible wording for question.
Sarah remembered there being useful feedback on survey in qualitative data. When we break into groups, groups should look at qualitative data for their survey for comments about the survey.
Q21: The question was changed from Yes/No to a scale; need to change wording of question to reflect change.
Decided that if undergrads answer "Yes" to Q22 about using bibliographic manager, there will be a further question asking which one(s) they use. David will talk to JD about what should be on list.
Because the wording for the comments boxes refers to the page titles, we need to add header to pages, or change wording of comment question.
Some time was spent on the perennial use vs. importance vs. satisfaction problem, with no solution.
Brendan, Dan, and Lisa volunteered to work on detailed wording for undergrad survey by next meeting. This will include comparing to MIT and UW surveys, and looking at qualitative data from last survey
Sarah & Ellen volunteered to look at wording for Grad survey (for future meeting).
Brief discussion of a replacement for the irreplaceable Lisa, who is leaving us. We are a large group, so we don't have to replace her. Linda suggests we consider needed skills in making decision.
Assessment Meeting Minutes for 07/31/14
Present: David (temp chair), Dan (minutes), Steve, Brendan, Lisa
Next meeting: TBD - Doodle; Administrative Conference Room Mugar
Lisa lead discussion of the last sheet in this Google Doc, called "Comparing Under Q BU, UW, MIT".
- not much different from our to UW's survey: their survey is nice and very short
- Answer rows on MIT survey Q2 are nicely specific.
- We also looked at MIT Q11's layout (aware | importance). We considered how this might apply for us, considering we often ask about use/importance/satisfaction. We looked at our questions 9, 25, and 26 in comparison.
- We have something very similar to MIT's Q12.
- MIT Q16 + Q18 include library instruction outside of a class; probably not that useful for BU (could mean HGARC events etc?).
- MIT did not ask overall importance of libraries
- MIT Q24, the $100 to spend question. Poorly worded and makes respondent add - not good for fatigue.
- Lisa also noted that there may be some Qs from MIT not represented at all on the spreadsheet. She did not include them because there were no comparable Qs on our survey.
Discussion of editable surveys on Quatrics
David began this with the question of when, exactly, might it be favorable to combine the data coming from undergrads, grads, and fac. There seem to be very few questions where we would want to do this, and without weighting the numbers for response rate, the numbers would be skewed. We decided to begin composing Qs on three separate surveys.
As we will begin editing the Qualtrics surveys, Dan will share the archival surveys on Qualtrics, but set permissions so that no one can edit them.
We began looking at the faculty survey questions on Qualtrics. We considered the frequency of physical and virtual visits, which were combined in 2010 but later separated, and we added a "during the current academic year" phrase as well. We looked at the undergrad survey in comparison, and realized we should edit that first as it was the latest, and would need the least editing.
Do we need to ask about majors again? Used those to send comments to specific librarians, etc.
Brendan noted the prevalence of the N/A option on many questions, and we noted the consultants advised having this "way out" for respondents.
Our question 13 - piped text from previous question to set up to work in Qualtrics. Steve is satisfied with the options on Q19, to look at changes over time.
MIT asks about USE of more specific sources or collections than we do. We considered setting up our Q differently, but we do have many other statistical sources on collection usage, so we decided NOT to add any about specific USE other than the options we already have listed in the survey.
Brendan suggested that we could create a numbering system that would indicate which questions are longitudinally useful.
We completed an initial run-through of the questions on the undergrad survey, with some edits left for Brendan to finish up later, as he was "driving" the Pardee room computer and editing on the fly.
Scheduling next meeting
We looked at scheduling, but could not get around vacation schedules. David will send a Doodle out to help schedule it.
Assessment Meeting Minutes for 7/14/2014
Present: Linda (chair), Brendan, Konstantin (minutes). Lisa, Russell, Steve, David
Next meeting: Thursday, 7/31/14 at 12pm (at Pardee)
- Ask Bob Hudson to talk to Provost (Linda)
- Look at the questions (David)
- Discuss Brendan's action plan (all)
- Take a look at Konstantin's analysis (all)
- Update numbers on the spreadsheet (Dan)
- Create the Google doc (David)
- Wording, style, etc. - comparison of MIT and U of W - tabs: faculty (Konstantin), grad (Helen/Russ), undergrad (Lisa)
Russ suggested adding Helen Richardson for membership on the Assessment Committee. (all agreed)
Dan talked about Google Analytics - workshops - comparison functionality, bounce rate, exit rate.
Dan reported on survey transfer. To access surveys on Qualtrics: go to bu.edu/qualtrics
Discussion followed in regards to our survey plan
Brendan's report: meeting with Pam Andrews (Lauren Hess replaced Pam in 7/14). Creation of panels. We discussed the advantages and disadvantages of working with the Provost office.
Konstantin raised a question if BMC affiliates will be included in the panel.
Assessment Meeting Minutes for 6/2/2014
Present: Linda (chair), Brendan (helped with minutes), Konstantin, Lisa, Dan, Russell, Steve, Sarah, David (minutes)
Next meeting: Thursday, 6/19/2014 at 2pm
Brendan: MIT Survey:
Dan: Transferring Surveys
Russ: Comparing UW grad & undergrad surveys
Lisa: Ithaka Survey
Assessment Meeting Minutes for 05/19/14
Present: Linda (chair), Brendan (minutes), Russell, Dan, Sarah, Konstantin, Steve, David,
Next meeting: Monday, June 2nd, 1:00-2:30; Administrative Conference Room Mugar
- Russ: Compare UW grad & undergraduate surveys.
- David: Compare undergrad & grad BU reports.
- Dan: Transfer all other BU surveys
- Konstantin: Compare the other BU surveys to each other.
- Brendan: Compare the other BU surveys to each other & troubleshoot Qualtrics issues.
- Sarah: Determine any problems with ceasing to collect discipline information & survey keeper
- Brendan received a promotion to Assessment Data Specialist (or something like that). Now we can offload all our projects onto him!
Plans for New Survey:
Linda brings up two important questions:
Dan's update - Uploading Old Survey to Qualtrics:
David's update - Reviewing Survey Reports:
Russ - Analyzing UW Survey:
Out of time. Next meeting decided for June 2nd.
Assessment Meeting Minutes for 04/03/14
Present: Linda (chair), Dan (minutes), Russell, Brendan, Lisa, David, Konstantin
Next meeting: Thursday, May 1st 1-2:30; Administrative Conference Room Mugar
Linda will serve on a panel at an OCLC meeting at Brandeis on April 22nd called "Getting the Right Fit: Tailoring Assessment Strategies for your Library." More info is available here.
MINES is proceeding very smoothly now. We have had a 0% drop out rate. We need to think about how to back up the data periodically. David believes we can download the data at any time, and we agreed that perhaps a schedule should be followed to download and backup the data periodically, although IS&T seems to trust the cloud.
Faculty Survey planning
We began planning for a faculty survey, not in exact order of the agenda, but the info is here below.
i. Game plan- general, but not unanimous, consensus to perform surveys individually instead of grouped. We also decided to renew Survey Monkey (Linda will do this) once more as the deadline is fast approaching and it may come in handy
ii. Developing the survey - will follow these steps
1. comparing to other surveys - Small groups will do initial comparison work and then bring suggestions to an AC meeting for all to discuss. Brendan will create a google doc in case groups wish to post something before meetings.
a. Dan will transfer the prior BU faculty survey from Survey Monkey to Qualtrics and look for any differences (particularly in skip logic). Dan will create 2 copies on Qualtrics - one to edit and one for posterity.
b. Linda and Konstantin will then look over comparisons from our own grad and undergrad surveys
c. Next, Lisa and Brendan will look at comparisons to the MIT survey
d. Lastly, Russ and possibly others will compare to UW and Ithaka instruments
2. final pass thoughts - examine possibilities of skip logic, questions or other items to eliminate to keep the survey short, and look through our survey keepers list
iii. Timeline - We're thinking about Spring 2015. Russ expressed that we should be mindful of the timing, as Law faculty will be relocated during Spring 2015. Survey fatigue
iv. IRB - Linda will accomplish
v. Publicity/Recruitment - poster from Anita Greene group and emails
vi. Launch - nothing noted
vii. Analysis, quantitative - nothing noted
viii. Analysis, qualitative - have no one currently for this. there is the possibility of going back to tag previous surveys.
ix. Report writing - will likely rely on in-house talent.
x. Staff involvement in changes - we need to examine this more.
Assessment Meeting Minutes for 01/29/14
Present: Linda (chair), Brendan (minutes), Russell, Lisa,
David, Steve, Konstantin, Sarah, Dan
Next meeting: Friday, Feb. 14th (Valentine's Day) 2-3:30; Administrative Conference room Mugar
- Russell will be joining us henceforth as a new member of the Assessment Committee. Welcome!
Tuesday, 1/21 Phone Call w/ UMass Amherst’s Rachel Lewellen
Present were David, Steve, and Sarah and Linda. Overall, a very positive, informative call. UMA started out with a year long implementation and collected data from all users who started Ezproxy sessions during two, 2 hr. periods per month. In UMA's second year-long implementation of MINES, they switched to n = 140, and then reduced finally to n = 120. It’s important not to change n too far along so that data won’t have to be excluded, although Terry Plum implied that collection data can be adjusted if a change to N is needed during an implementation. Over 70% of surveyed users completed the survey at UMass (!!!), no complaints registered, not even about frequency. UMA did not have a comment box, but did have an email link. They only received one email. UMA included a question about why survey taker is using the resource. Shared graphs are promising; of note the URL collection stats of those surveyed generally reflects the URL collection stats of the entire user-base (ie statistically relevant data). Very promising overall!
Let’s apply this to our
- We can use the URL data that will be gathered, but it will involve more involved analysis than other sources of data.
- Konstantin: “We should use ‘BMC Resident’ for primary status question”. Everyone agrees with the tactful word choice.
- Google Chrome is being problematic for everyone with scrolling issues (only for most recent update). It may interact with survey if someone tries to get to bottom of primary status list. “Maybe we can change the number of visible items on the dropdown list” suggests David. Brilliance! Later, “Alas, we cannot do that” informs David. Foiled by technology again. We shall investigate during test period whether Chrome will be problematic
- “High school student shouldn’t be at top of list. It’s not ordered by age (Brendan grumbles), so we should order it by the groups most likely to use it, ie put High school students below staff on the drop down list. General consensus, Brendan dissents vehemently. Too bad for him.
- David’s suggestion to get the sponsored question to drop down works. An excellent solution to the problem we were having.
- “email@example.com” to be changed to “firstname.lastname@example.org” so assessment committee members can personally field survey questions.
- On criteria for assigning
survey-testing: “Perfect for those who have miffed you!”
- Thoughts on n:
* Larger student base and greater usage means n can be larger (or smaller? No, larger… we think).
* We can change n within the first month if our number doesn’t suffice.
* Linda: “Let’s go around and see what everyone thinks is reasonable.” Crickets
* After some deliberation, Brendan: “100 or whatever is reasonable”.
* Number-crunching Steve: “100 gets us just enough data with 70% expectation rate.”
Directions will be on the site. Mugar to have two demo sessions on Friday and Monday, one in the morning, and one in the evening. Everyone else to schedule demos for the other branches. Remember, we want to test on as many platforms as possible, even mobile ones. Also we need to test for blank survey results. Proposal: Go live on 11th @ 12:00? … eh, maybe not. We’ll see.
- Steve, on n: “Yes means no, and no means yes”
- Russ, on difference between Law Library and other libraries: “We actually provide service” (excellent smack talk, if I may say so)
- Linda: “How does Valentines day work for everyone?” All concur. There will probably be Valentine’s goodies, and Brendan will probably bring something (he didn’t mention this though).
Assessment Meeting Minutes for 01/16/14
Present: Linda Plunket (chair), Dan Benedetti (minutes), Russell Sweet, Brendan DeRoo, Lisa Philpotts, David Fristrom, Tim Lewontin
Next meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 29th 2-3:30; Administrative Conference room Mugar
MINES Initiative updates
Nearly ready to implement, but need to set up staff testing on a test website. We will be looking for any minor issues, probably with 'refnews' staff, with Linda working out which staff should test what databases. Sarah will be writing up the instructions for staff testing, and all should review them. Russ also notes we should start the surveying early enough before finals, or alternatively wait until early June.
A) Some institutions are putting open access databases behind ezproxy in order to track through MINES. David reminded us that many patrons go straight thru google to resources, so we won't be able to get them. Tim pointed out that we don't send pubmed thru ezproxy because of the way their website used to work, but we can now. Because of possible complications with redirects, we should carefully test the performance of very important databases like pubmed.
B) We worked on the wording of the MINES questions. Terry Plum had two suggestions on wording: 1-that we don't need an 'other' on q2.CORRECTION BY LINDA: TERRY'S COMMENT WAS NOT THAT WE DIDN'T NEED IT BUT ASKED IF RESPONDENTS WOULD KNOW THAT OTHER REFERRED TO OTHER-AT-BU. 2- on the 'purpose' question, to include 'research unfunded (faculty)', because it is primarily faculty that do research and she wanted to distinguish this from scholarship. We decided to change this to "unfunded research and scholarship" and not include '(faculty)' or '(students)' in answer options. We also decided to add an answer option for 'library staff'. Brendan caught an incorrect plural of "affiliates'. Finally, a question for Konstantin came up: If asked to give their primary status, would faculty on the Med campus be confused between a 'faculty' option and an 'affiliate' option?
C) Two places are trying to get answers on what resources patrons are using, thru MINES: Umass Amherst and Univ of Toronto. There will be a call with Rachel Lewellen, Assessment Librarian from Umass Tuesday (01.21, 10am) that all who can should attend. Umass is also increasing the number of times the survey will be filled out, by having the survey pop up more often. We decided that we should also track resources, and David will look at Qualtrics closely to see if we can get this easily, as it seems should be possible.