|
As presented in Dr. Eileen Schroeder's Building Library
Media Collections class (UW-Whitewater, Fall 2003), the following
qualitative or quantitative methods are used to assess the
collection. Often, an external standard is identified and used as a
benchmark. Most schools will use collection statistics or a modified
version of collection mapping.
 | Statistics From Circulation / Inventory / Acquisition Systems.
These statistics may demonstrate the library's purchasing patterns by
showing in which call number groups the most items were added in a
period of time. They can provide collection profiles of numbers of
items and their copyright dates in call number groups. If the
collection is very large a sampling of items could be analyzed. |
| Expert Opinion. This is used most in schools when
teachers are asked to judge the value of the collection for their
curricular needs. It is often useful to provide a brief questionnaire
to teachers immediately after completing a unit asking them to judge
the value of the resources available to them and their students.
Print, audiovisual, electronic, and Internet resources could be
assessed in the topics covered by the unit. |
| Checklists or Standard Bibliographies. Lists such as Elementary
School Library Collection and Children's Catalog could be
used to judge a school collection, but this makes the questionable
assumption that these lists representing the composite wisdom of
numerous specialists fits with a school's needs. This rather arbitrary
selection of sources contains items that may not be of equal value,may
omit others that may be of equal value, and may not match needs of the
clientele of the library. It is very time consuming and seldom used. |
| Comparison to Another Library's Collection. While this
is easier with online catalogs, it is sometimes difficult because
classification practices vary. In schools where curriculum and student
populations differ, this may not provide useful data. |
Making checklists or comparisons to other schools is difficult because
of the differences in communities and schools. Teachers can function
as the "experts" within their areas of expertise for
evaluation purposes.
Collection Mapping
Using the assumption that the collection should be tailored
specifically to the school it serves, David Loertscher developed a
technique for counting the total collection and profiling it from three
points of view:
| As a basic collection serving
a wide variety of interests & needs (i.e., breadth of collection) |
| As a group of general emphasis
collections (i.e., supporting broad areas of the curriculum and
representing intermediate depth in a collection) |
| As a group of specific
emphasis collections (i.e., supporting individual units of instruction
and representing greater collection depth) |
In this method, the LMS can evaluate areas when they are used during
the year, not all at once. The method considers the needs of courses,
individual topics of instruction, and particular technologies. This
involves:
- Developing a list of courses
and units covered.
- Listing how many items are
held in each area and compare this number to how many are needed
according to Loertscher's formula.
|
|
Recommended
|
Purpose
|
|
Base collection
|
10 books and av items per student or 3,000
items, whichever is greater
|
Breadth of collection
|
|
Course materials (general emphasis)
|
2 items for each student in course or 500
items, whichever is greater, for each course using resource-based
teaching
|
Intermediate depth collection
|
|
Unit materials (specific emphasis)
|
1 item per student in topical study or 250
items, whichever is greater, for each resource-based teaching unit
|
In-depth collection
|
- Constructing a graphic
representation of items owned in general emphasis areas and one of
items owned in specific emphasis area, comparing all courses and units
taught in school that use library resources. Loertscher provides
benchmarks for rating the collection in these areas. To get a quick
estimate of how many items should be in the library, multiply the
number of students in each course or unit by the superior or exemplary
rating factor to get the ideal amount. For example, if there are 195
high school students taking a course on the environment at one time,
your collection would be exemplary if you have 1365 items. If you have
about 205 items. You would have a good collection if you had 117 items
and a fair collection if you had only 59 items or less. It is
important to remember this focuses on collection, not access to
materials outside the library, through databases or Internet resources
or items borrowed from other libraries.
|
Rating
|
Course (goal of 2 items per student)
|
Unit (goal of 1 item per student)
|
|
Fair
|
0.30
|
0.10
|
|
Good
|
0.60
|
0.15
|
|
Superior
|
1.05
|
0.25
|
|
Exemplar
|
7.00
|
2.00
|
The technique also suggests considering materials available through
networks (electronic or interlibrary loan) but does not give a specific
method for incorporating this information into the calculations. He also
recommends asking students and teachers to rate materials on diversity of
formats, currency, relevance, adequacy of duplicate copies and
appropriateness of reading level to go beyond sheer counts to determine
how many of the items are actually useful. This technique can be used to
discover collection weaknesses, redirect collection efforts, and focus on
developing specific areas. For more information on this technique, see
David Loertscher's Taxonomies of the School Library Media Program
(Libraries Unlimited, 1988, chapter 9).
[ Back
] [ Top ] |
|
Up
Use-Centered
Collection Evaluation
|
