Quality and the academic library

The difdif-ferent ways quality is looked at in academic libraries – assurance, assessment, review and enhancement – are examined and there is detailed coverage of the changing nature of

Trang 1

Quality and the Academic Library

Trang 2

Quality and the

Academic Library

Reviewing, Assessing and

Enhancing Service Provision

Edited by

JEREMY ATKINSON

Jeremy Atkinson Consultancy, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON

NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO

SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO

Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier

Trang 3

Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, UK

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright

by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices,

or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge

in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

ISBN: 978-0-12-802105-7

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

Library of Congress Control Number:

2015955064

For information on all Chandos Publishing

visit our website at http://store.elsevier.com/

Trang 4

To all those I have worked with for over 40 years to provide high quality services for library users

Trang 7

ABOUT THE EDITOR

Jeremy Atkinson has wide-ranging experience and expertise in the leadership, management and development of academic library services

He had overall responsibility for the strategic and operational ment of library and information services at the University of Glamorgan from 1991 to 2012 He previously held library posts at the University of Northumbria, Cardiff University and Manchester Metropolitan University.Jeremy was a key member of University-wide and Faculty quality assurance groups at the University of Glamorgan, played an important role

manage-in a number of manage-institutional quality reviews and led the development of library service agreements with Glamorgan’s further education partner colleges

For 8 years, Jeremy was Chair of the SCONUL/UCISA Working Group on Quality Assurance which involved close liaison with the Quality Assurance Agency and he was responsible for leading the pro-duction of an ‘Aide-Memoire for QAA Reviewers Evaluating Learning Resources’ As Chair of the Working Group, he was invited to give the keynote paper on the UK experience of quality assurance of learn-ing resources at the FOTIM/CHELSA Conference in Pretoria in South Africa in 2006

Jeremy has had a long-standing and active involvement in a large ber of UK strategic committees and groups, notably those of Jisc (con-tinuous involvement from 1998 to 2012), SCONUL (including 3 years

num-as a trustee and member of SCONUL Executive Board) and WHELF (Wales Higher Education Libraries Forum) Jeremy has produced a wide range of publications and conference papers on topics including change management, quality assurance, electronic resources, library collabora-tion and networked moving images His most recent experience (2012 to date) is as a Library and Information Services Consultant working with a number of high profile clients, including Jisc, SCONUL and individual

UK universities This work has included research and reviews of library and information services and projects

Trang 8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank everyone who has made this book possible: to the authors of the chapters and case studies for agreeing to be involved and for producing their contributions to time; to Glyn Jones, Harriet Clayton and George Knott of Chandos Publishing for their support at all stages of the project; and to my wife Chris, my daughter Verity and friends and col-leagues for their support, patience and suggestions during the research and editing process

Trang 9

Quality and the Academic Library.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Jeremy Atkinson

In recent years, there has been a greater emphasis on the quality, relevance and effectiveness of academic library services This has partly come about because of the financial constraints under which universities have had to operate, but also because of the implications of the strategic planning and business processes put in place by universities, the requirements of quality assurance bodies and the move to view students as ‘customers’ with service expectations and a strong consumer voice

Quality is always a rather elusive concept Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary highlight the problem: ‘The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind’; ‘The degree of excellence

of something’; ‘A distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by one or something’ The first two definitions are probably more relevant to the consideration of quality in academic libraries, but we probably all want our libraries to be distinctive and different as well as being excellent and having high standards of service

some-Beginning to think about quality and academic libraries when ing for this book, I started to appreciate the number of different aspects and perspectives Interestingly, I also recognised the many different roles that I had played in my career in helping to deliver and develop qual-ity library services and in assessing and reviewing their effectiveness As

prepar-a subject librprepar-ariprepar-an prepar-and librprepar-ary mprepar-anprepar-ager, I hprepar-ad liprepar-aised prepar-and surveyed to find out what our students, staff and researchers really wanted and tried hard

to deliver relevant and useful services I used and developed various tools and techniques to measure the effectiveness of our services I played my part in validations and subject reviews on both sides of the fence, helping

to ensure that courses and the library services to support them were up

to scratch I produced documentation and did my best to be a well pared interviewee when the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) came to

Trang 10

pre-Quality and the Academic Library

4

call to assess our institutional quality As Chair of the SCONUL/UCISA Working Group on Quality Assurance1 I tried to influence the QAA to look at library services in a more considered way during institutional reviews I was on the receiving end when consultants reviewed our library services, and then, several years later, saw the process from a different per-spective when I was a consultant reviewing another institution’s library service

This led me to want to try to capture all these different perspectives, to

hear the different voices and the views of the different players in order to produce a rounded picture of quality and the academic library So, in this book, there are views, perspectives and case studies not just from librarians, but also from university senior managers, an auditor, a QAA manager and those involved in large scale reviews of library services

The literature relating to the quality of the academic library has become substantial and complex and can be difficult for the nonexpert librarian or librarianship student to gain access to and understand The aim of this book

is to help deal with this problem by providing a wide ranging tion and overview of the area whilst, at the same time, offering a practical approach through case studies and up to date and reflective content for the more experienced information professional The book also seeks to present a different approach by:

introduc-● Providing accessible content within the overviews of each area, and

including the more readable articles in the references and further ing sections

read-● Providing signposts to the key trends, key developments and key

resources

● Covering the different aspects Introductions are provided to the

dif-ferent quality concepts and approaches The difdif-ferent ways quality

is looked at in academic libraries – assurance, assessment, review and enhancement – are examined and there is detailed coverage of the changing nature of library services and support and the approaches used to analyse quality in two of the key market segments for libraries

in students and researchers

● Looking at the changing environment in which academic libraries are

operating Consideration of quality cannot be static because of the enormous changes within and around the library services, and librar-ies themselves have to change to continue to provide high quality and relevant services Where appropriate, there is coverage of the political, economic, social and technological changes impacting on academic

Trang 11

Introduction 5

libraries, the changing nature and requirements of students and other users, the changes in scholarly communication, teaching and learning and the transformation in the roles of libraries and librarians

● Taking a UK focus but including international perspectives Although

the editor and a number of the contributors are from the United Kingdom, the book also seeks to include an international dimension with contributions from the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Ireland and the coverage of the literature is international

in scope

I also thought it would be helpful if I asked contributors, particularly

of the case studies, to adopt an approach of critical reflection, where

appro-priate Much of the literature relating to quality and academic libraries very usefully describes and analyses developments in the field Although this approach is also taken here, I felt it was timely to ask contributors to reflect on quality approaches, developments and projects and their impli-cations, impact and significance I hope this will help readers to gain a deeper understanding of quality as it affects the academic library and the benefits and constraints of different approaches and methods and to reflect

on issues and events in their own library service

The ideas of reflective practice and critical reflection have been used increasingly in recent years in a number of professional fields, including health and care sciences The development and understanding of special-ised knowledge are essential for professional practice, and using approaches

of self-consciousness (reflection) and continual self-critique (critical tion) have been found to be useful to the development of continuing competence (Williams, 2001) In contrast, reflection has had less attention

reflec-in the management and leadership literature with managers often placreflec-ing more emphasis on action and outcomes (Gray, 2007) The pace of change

in organisations and the day-to-day demands of the workplace often leave little time for reflection

The aims of critical reflection are for practitioners to: understand the nature and meaning of practice; correct and improve the practice through self-reflection and criticism; generate models of good practice and theo-ries of application through reflection and critique of actual occurrences Critical reflection has three phases: a descriptive phase, with descriptions

of practice or events; a reflective phase, with reflective analysis of events or situations; and a critical phase, with a critique of practice (Kim, 1999)

I used this approach and, in particular, Borton’s Developmental Model (1970) of ‘What? So What? Now What?’ to develop a simple critical

Trang 12

Quality and the Academic Library

6

reflection framework for the contributors to this book to help them in the writing of the chapters and case studies This framework is given below Additional references on critical reflection are given in the Further Reading section at the end of the book

● What was the problem that was being looked at?

● What was the context for the work?

● How was the work carried out?

● What methods were used?

● Who carried the work out?

● Who were the interviewees/respondents?

● What was my own role in the work?

● What did I do?

So What?

Analysis

● Was the work effective?

● What worked well?

● What worked less well?

● What was learned about the library, the customers and the organisation as a result of the work?

● Did the methods used produce the information required to help solve the problem?

● Were the methods adapted during the work as a result of experience gained?

● How was the information obtained analysed?

● What were the main recommendations and conclusions arising from the work?

● Did they help to solve the original problem?

● Did they help to provide an effective assessment of service provision?

● How would I do the work differently if I was to do it again?

● What different methods/approaches would I use?

Trang 13

Introduction 7

ENDNOTE

1 The Working Group on Quality Assurance was a joint group of SCONUL (Society

of College, National and University Libraries) and UCISA (Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association).

REFERENCES

Borton, T (1970) Reach, touch and teach: Student concerns and process education New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Gray, D E (2007) Facilitating management learning: Developing critical reflection through

reflective tools Management Learning, 38(5), 495–517 Retrieved from < http://epubs surrey.ac.uk/7876/1/fulltext.pdf >.

Kim, H S (1999) Critical reflective inquiry for knowledge development in nursing practice

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(5), 1205–1212.

Williams, B (2001) Developing critical reflection for professional practice through

problem-based learning Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(1), 27–34 Retrieved from < http://www themedfomscu.org/media/elip/PBL45.pdf >.

Trang 14

CHAPTER 2

Quality, Universities and

Their Libraries: An Overview

Jeremy Atkinson

During the last 20 years, with an increasing government focus on market approaches and university performance and accountability, universities in the United Kingdom have become more managerial in their approach with a greater emphasis on performance, efficiency and meeting cus-tomer needs From the perspective of some academic staff, this has led to some tensions with the long standing philosophies of academic freedom and autonomy (Docherty, 2014) From the perspective of senior university managers, universities have needed to become more like businesses, with a requirement to apply business practices and techniques, including strate-gic planning, key performance indicators, quality management and service quality Similar trends can also be seen in other countries (Anderson, 2008; Arimoto, 2010)

The competitive, performance related, business focused and market led nature of current UK higher education can be clearly seen in a number of trends and developments taking place within institutions:

● The almost continuous and complex academic quality assurance cesses that have been applied, both internally (e.g course approval, vali-dation, annual monitoring, periodic review, external examiner systems) and externally (e.g quality reviews, professional body accreditations) Failure in external assessments can be extremely significant for the sta-tus of the institution and its ability to run courses

pro-● The time and effort that goes into preparation for periodic research assessment exercises, such as the REF (Research Excellence Framework) in the United Kingdom An inadequate performance can result in loss of institutional funding and reputation and potential clo-sure of poor performing departments (Ratcliffe, 2014)

● The obsession with league tables and benchmarking (national and international), with the institution continually seeking to maintain,

Trang 15

● The achievement of a Standard (e.g Investors in People, Customer Service Excellence) which can develop university staff and service quality, but which can also have competitive advantages

● The requirement to provide a range of institutional performance data for the Key Information Set1 to help students make their choice where

to study

● The implementation of rigorous and time consuming strategic ning processes, seeking to gain competitive advantage and trying to ensure integration within the institution (‘everyone singing from the same hymn sheet’)

plan-● A focus on value for money and the potential of shared services, such

as purchasing consortia, to achieve efficiencies (Universities UK, 2015).These developments have implications for structures and processes and have required universities to put in place rigorous systems to ensure that quality processes are applied consistently and comprehensively and that outcomes and feedback are acted upon to deliver continuous improve-ment In the United Kingdom most universities have an organisational structure including a central academic or quality office to ensure that academic quality processes are implemented effectively, a central research office to coordinate research processes and research assessment activ-ity, and, increasingly, a planning unit to lead on activities such as strategic planning, data returns and process improvement The increasing impor-tance of continuous process improvement can be seen in a job advertise-ment at the University of Gloucestershire in December 2014 for a Process Improvement Manager in the Planning Office with responsibility for

‘developing and supporting improvement projects and programmes across the University and developing a culture of continuous improvement …

as part of the University’s commitment to improving administrative performance’

As well as organisational structures, there are also implications for the quality methods used Quality management techniques and tools that were originally used in large manufacturing organisations in the 1980s and 1990s have been looked at by universities keen to eliminate waste,

Trang 16

Quality, Universities and Their Libraries: An Overview 13

create more value for customers and carry out continuous improvement Approaches such as Total Quality Management were particularly popu-lar at one point, but now tend to be overshadowed by ISO 9001, Lean Management and Six Sigma Lean thinking has been applied in institu-tions such as Cardiff University2 and University of St Andrews3 in the United Kingdom (Hines & Lethbridge, 2008) and in a number of univer-sities in the United States (Comm & Mathaisel, 2005) Other techniques such as Six Sigma have been applied to academic processes as well as corporate university processes (Pryor, Alexander, Taneja, Tirumalasetty, & Chadalavada, 2012), but there is also a recognition that there can be chal-lenges in applying these corporate quality approaches in what can often

be significantly different environments (Jenicke, Kumar, & Holmes, 2008) When applying service quality techniques in universities, there can also

be difficulties in defining customers and measuring customer satisfaction (Quinn, Lemay, Larsen, & Johnson, 2009)

What does this changing environment, with its greater emphasis on customers, performance and efficiencies, mean for academic libraries? When I was a senior library manager talking to new members of staff

I always tried to emphasise a simple message – that we wouldn’t have jobs

if it wasn’t for our users and that our aim should be to try to deliver the best possible service for them Updated to the new environment, academic librarians will need to adopt (and embrace) new approaches and method-ologies to assess and improve the quality and performance of their services and be able to demonstrate to their customers and managers the relevance and value of their services

Although not without its challenges in terms of making appropriate links and gaining acceptance, librarians need to try to ensure that they are plugged in to the university corporately, for example through the develop-ment of plans closely aligned to university strategies (McNichol, 2005) They will also need to secure appropriate involvement in academic pro-cesses, such as course approval and validation, subject review (Costella, Adam, Gray, Nolan, & Wilkins, 2013), accreditation (Stratford, 2002) and quality audit (Balague, Duren, Juntunen, & Saarti, 2014)

In this demanding quality and performance environment, there are two key challenges for library managers:

● They need to create a culture of assessment amongst their own staff and

their users (Lakos & Phipps, 2004)

● They need to ensure that they and their staff are embedded with the rest

of the university at all levels (Dewey, 2004)

Trang 17

in the United Kingdom and the role of the Quality Assurance Agency; and Helen Fallon and Jon Purcell reflect on a quality review from the per-spectives of both reviewer and reviewee

ENDNOTES

1 Key Information Set: https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/find-out-more/key-information-set

2 Lean at Cardiff University: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/lean/about/cardiff/index.html

3 University of St Andrews Lean University: Doing Things Differently: andrews.ac.uk/lean/

https://www.st-REFERENCES

Anderson, G (2008) Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university Organization,

15(2), 251–270.

Arimoto, A (2010) The academic profession and the managerial university: An international

comparative study from Japan European Review, 18(Suppl S1), S117–S139 Retrieved

from < http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage =online&aid=7 451384&fulltextType =RA&fileId=S1062798709990354 >.

Balague, N., Duren, P., Juntunen, A., & Saarti, J (2014) Quality audits as a tool for quality

improvement in selected European higher education institutions Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 40(5), 529–533.

Comm, C., & Mathaisel, D (2005) A case study in applying lean sustainability concepts to

universities International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(2), 134–146.

Costella, J., Adam, T., Gray, F., Nolan, N., & Wilkins, C (2013) Undergraduate program

review processes: A case study in opportunity for academic libraries Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 39(2), 169–174.

Dewey, B I (2004) The embedded librarian: Strategic campus collaborations Resource

Sharing & Information Networks, 17(1–2), 5–17.

Docherty, T (December 4, 2014) Thomas Docherty on academic freedom Times Higher

Education Retrieved from < docherty-on-academic-freedom/2017268.article >.

https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/thomas-Hines, P., & Lethbridge, S (2008) New development: Creating a lean university Public

Money and Management, 28(1), 53–56.

Jenicke, L O., Kumar, A., & Holmes, M C (2008) A framework for applying six sigma

improvement methodology in an academic environment The TQM Journal, 20(5),

453–462.

Lakos, A., & Phipps, S (2004) Creating a culture of assessment: A catalyst for organizational

change Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 4(3), 345–361.

Trang 18

Quality, Universities and Their Libraries: An Overview 15

McNichol, S (2005) The challenges of strategic planning in academic libraries New Library

Quinn, A., Lemay, G., Larsen, P., & Johnson, D M (2009) Service quality in higher

educa-tion Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(2), 139–152.

Ratcliffe, R (December 17, 2014) REF 2014: Why is it such a big deal? Guardian

Retrieved from < http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/ dec/17/ref-2014-why-is-it-such-a-big-deal >.

Stratford, S K (2002) Surviving a distance learning accreditation visit Journal of Library

Administration, 37(3–4), 489–501.

Universities UK, (2015) Efficiencies, effectiveness and value for money London: Universities

UK Retrieved from < http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/ 2015/EfficiencyEffectivenessValueForMoney.pdf >.

Trang 19

CHAPTER 3

The Institutional HE Quality

Perspective

Ann Holmes 1 and Fiona Parsons 2

1 Formerly Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom

2 Directorate of Academic Support, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom

INTERNAL MEASURES

There are a number of key drivers both internal and external for assuring and enhancing the quality of an institution’s academic library, or Library and Information Service (LIS) In addition, the institution’s own strategic plan should reflect the position of LIS as an enabler in delivering the University strategy and its sub-strategies, such as Learning & Teaching, Research and the Student Experience The reflection of the role of an academic library

in the institution’s strategic vision should then be mirrored in the ment’s own plan and annual operating statement, along with the allocation

depart-of appropriate resources to ensure that the plan can be delivered

If we reflect on an institution’s own quality assurance processes that are intended to underpin and lead to the enhancement of learning opportu-nities, and within that general term the academic library service, we find that relying on internal quality assurance frameworks to deliver improve-ments may be more hit and miss It is an expectation of the Quality Code that Higher Education providers have formal processes for programme approval (QAA, 2013a) This is now embedded into most institutions’ quality assurance policies and procedures Programme approval is nor-mally a two-stage process: the first stage usually takes the form of out-line planning permission which may not directly involve the academic library; at the second stage, i.e the formal validation and approval of the programme, the library service should be involved as the service is key

in ensuring the delivery of an ‘excellent’ student experience through the provision of learning opportunities The validation process may involve

a member of the academic library service, possibly a subject librarian, as

a panel member on the presenting team or, as is becoming increasingly more common, a virtual validation with library staff providing comments

on whether the proposal can be supported and the impact on resources

Trang 20

18

It is arguable whether on occasions the full resource implications of this ‘signing off ’ by an academic library service is fully appreciated by the institution Institutional academic planning is not always aligned with institutional fiscal planning Faculty and academic departments are not necessarily aware of the requirements, not only for additional scholarly resources, but also of the broader impact on library services It is notice-able that there is no single sectoral view of ‘best practice’ in developing budgetary models for academic library resources In the context of con-vergence of IT and Library services, the ‘disconnect’ between academic planning, and impact on the service, can be even more marked in the case of IT Services Questions such as software purchase and deploy-ment, access for students to appropriate devices, and support services, can be completely absent from planning and validation processes The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education report into TNE (Lawton & Jensen, 2015) noted that IT Services are almost invisible in planning for TNE (Transnational Education) and overseas curriculum development This, in spite of the fact that digitised information resources are critical to successful delivery of any academic programme, whether UK or overseas

In any event, even though programme proposals may be part of a broader institutional wide programme planning process, it is still a fairly reactive approach to quality assuring and enhancing academic library ser-vices This is also the case where academic libraries are involved in the periodic review of programmes or subject areas Institutions schedule peri-odic review on a rolling programme whereby subject areas or programmes are reviewed every 5–6 years Again the Quality Code places an expec-tation on higher education providers that programmes will be subject to review (QAA, 2013b) For the most part periodic review processes have a tendency to be retrospective, based on an evidence base of annual moni-toring, external examiners reports, and a range of student surveys As part

of the process it is customary for the subject area under review to produce

a self-evaluation document that is reflective and evaluative – a challenge in itself Whilst periodic review should provide an opportunity for change, in many cases this may be quite limited and unless issues have been identi-fied for the library service in the evidence, it is not necessarily an effective way of quality assuring or enhancing the LIS provision It is also likely that where issues have been raised in surveys, etc., that these will have already been addressed by the service

Disintermediation of information and consequential concerns about the visibility of academic libraries is widespread The academic library

Trang 21

The Institutional HE Quality Perspective 19

community has been dealing with the issue of how best to demonstrate its value for years, especially value to students Whilst a good deal of evidence

is collected, much of this is evidence of activity rather than evidence of value and impact, especially value to and impact on teaching and research staff and learning opportunities

In the United Kingdom, driven by the QAA Quality Code, all tutions delivering higher education programmes will have some form of annual monitoring of programmes (QAA, 2013b) This has traditionally been a retrospective activity conducted at the end of an academic year reflecting on the performance of a programme or course or suite of pro-grammes and informed by module evaluations, surveys, external exam-iner reports and a range of data on enrolments, retention, progression and completion The scope within this process for capturing anything other than local student views on library services tends to be limited, as the focus (one might say quite rightly) has been on the programme or course.Whilst annual monitoring will usually result in some form of action plan, the approach reinforces a more retrospective and reactive approach

insti-to quality assurance and enhancement Some institutions have moved or are moving to continuous improvement monitoring which provides for

a more proactive approach to monitoring with a real focus on ment If timed appropriately all students may benefit from this process The information on the programme is a ‘living’ document rather than a snapshot and there may be opportunities for the model to be adapted for use by services However there are limitations in that continuous improve-ment monitoring is very dependent on staff being actively engaged in what can be an onerous process

enhance-Libraries continuously seek appropriate, and systematic, ways to ture evidence of their value Creaser and Spezi (2012) point out that

cap-‘libraries genuinely want to do well and serve their community of users’ Their report focuses on value to teaching and research staff, and they conclude that libraries can show their value to teaching and research staff most effectively by describing this in terms of benefits, for example, staff time saved (e.g in identifying and obtaining access to information resources), increased quality of student assignments, and increased contact hours Indirectly, such value to teaching and research staff will translate into value for the student

One key internal driver for assuring and enhancing the quality of the library service is the student experience, although this raises the ques-tion whether students know or recognise what a ‘quality’ library service

Trang 22

There is a range of mechanisms which libraries adopt in seeking input from students and other stakeholders to enhance service develop-ment Ideally, internally one would expect to see a continuous improve-ment monitoring approach leading to proactive enhancement Positioning libraries appropriately within an institutional continuous improvement approach is challenging In converged services – whether Library and IT,

or Libraries with other student services – an additional challenge exists

of establishing a consistent approach to measuring satisfaction and quality across the whole service Adopting an approach such as the student life-cycle approach taken at Liverpool John Moores University, may provide

a way forward Appleton (2012) describes the development and adoption

of a quality assurance framework which accommodates differing service providers within a converged service directorate Through focus on the student experience, rather than the service provider, evidence can be col-lected of impact at different points in the journey Student learning oppor-tunities can therefore be evaluated in a holistic way, using a consistent and

‘fit for purpose’ framework

SURVEYS

Surveys can be used not only to provide a snapshot of student opinion but also the opportunity to undertake a longitudinal study of the service However, we wonder, in reality, how effective are surveys in improving the service? There are various survey mechanisms for reviewing and assessing the provision used across the sector: course and module evaluations which feed into annual monitoring – these tend to focus on the subject and the resources to support the module and programme including books, jour-nals and computers This type of evaluation tends to focus on ‘hygiene’ factors, and rarely looks at the broader service value

Trang 23

The Institutional HE Quality Perspective 21

There may be internal institutional wide surveys which capture the student experience and complement national surveys However, as students generally associate themselves with a course or programme, responses tend to provide a narrow view of their experience

There are of course a range of external surveys, not least the National Student Survey,1 and the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey & Postgraduate Research Experience Survey2 which attempt to drive up the quality of the student experience These surveys include questions about resources including the library service and at the very least provide an opportunity for benchmarking by institutions, but tend to lack the detail for identifying and sharing good practice between service providers How institutions use the outcome of such surveys varies by institution Many may subsume the outcomes into the annual monitoring process where the view of the library services may be diluted by scores for teaching & learn-ing, feedback etc Others may expect separate responses and action plans

to be monitored through the various committee structures However, in each case these surveys whilst providing a snapshot for quality assurance

of the library provision do not necessarily provide a strategic approach to quality assurance and enhancement

The Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL)3 runs its own annual statistical survey which has the bene-fit of a strong longitudinal data set In itself, it is not an evaluative tool, although the data set has been mined for a variety of purposes, includ-ing institutional benchmarking, and trend analysis The contribution of the SCONUL survey to evaluation of academic libraries has been indirect, therefore, but it remains a significant feature in the performance measure-ment landscape

OTHER MECHANISMS

Most academic libraries, recognising the limitations of surveys for ing intelligence on the quality of library services, seek to implement other approaches to obtaining views on service quality The discussion of good practice through journal articles, conference presentations and professional networks, indicates adoption of a sometimes bewildering variety of tools These range from the well-established, such as benchmarking and perfor-mance measures (KPIs, balanced scorecard) to the fashionably new, such as the increasing use of analytics

Trang 24

provid-Quality and the Academic Library

22

The use of analytics in higher education attracts some controversy In reflecting on the utilisation of analytics in the library, we note that there is still limited research on its value We have already noted that evaluation of impact on the student experience is most effective when academic libraries’ contribution is considered as part of a holistic, joined up, and strategic approach Learning analytics uses data about students and their activities to help institutions understand and improve educational processes, and provide better support to learners Contribution of library activity data to analytics programmes will help libraries to position themselves in a key role in their institutional understanding of the learner journey

Many institutions have user groups on which students sit to inform the development of the service In addition more formally there may be service level agreements pertaining to the library and other services For example the American Library Association has published Standards for Libraries in Higher Education4 based on size, usability, diversity, accessi-bility and technologies Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) may also impose requirements on libraries as part of the accredi-tation process These requirements will normally be identified during vali-dation or periodic review Some PSRBs are more proactive than others

in visiting institutions to check such things as holdings, others will accept

a database For example, the NHS provides a toolkit to enable a ity assessment of library services which extends to human and material resources.5

qual-QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY

The Quality Assurance Agency is the body with responsibility for assuring quality and enhancement in UK higher education Higher Education Review (HER)6 conducted by QAA to which all providers

of higher education are subject, be they Universities, Further Education Colleges or private providers with degree awarding powers, asks ques-tions of institutions about their library service and its role in enhancing the learning opportunities of its students As part of the HER methodol-ogy there is a judgment on the quality of learning opportunities and on enhancement

The outcomes of the HER are informed by the expectations lined in the UK Quality Code As we have seen, Part B of the Quality Code focuses on student learning opportunities through from programme development and review (B1), learning and teaching (B3), assessment (B6),

Trang 25

out-The Institutional HE Quality Perspective 23

student development and achievement (B4) and through the tions set out in the Quality Code raises questions about student learn-ing opportunities and how the library and associated services meet the learning needs of the institution’s students If we look at B3 this requires

expecta-‘HE providers, working with their staff, students and other stakeholders to articulate and systematically review and enhance the provision of learning opportunities and teaching practices so that every student is enabled to develop as an independent learner, study their chosen subject in depth and enhance their capacity for analytical, critical and creative thinking’ The HER process in testing this expectation may wish to know how the ser-vice provided by the library enables this expectation to be met: for exam-ple the qualifications and experience of library staff and how their staff development needs are identified and met; the evaluation of the service; the learning environment, physical, virtual and social; the support provided

to students Does the library service have a role in developing the tions academic staff? If so what is it, and how is it evaluated?

institu-Expectation B4 requires ‘Higher Education providers to have in place, monitor and evaluate arrangements and resources which enable students

to develop their academic, personal and professional potential’ Again the library services may need to explain their role in enabling student devel-opment, particularly where they have an input into the development

of study skills, digital literacy, and research skills and how their staff are appropriately qualified to undertake these activities It is also within this particular expectation that questions may be asked about the quality and suitability of learning resources and the support provided to students to enable them to use them

We would argue that the impact of QAA review should not be underestimated Under the HER methodology there are four judgments relating to learning opportunities: commended, meets, requires improve-ment and does not meet The last two judgments are ‘failing’ judgments and have serious implications for institutions, not least that the frequency

of review will move from 6 years to 3 years and the institution will be unable to use the QAA ‘kite mark’ until they have been given a clean bill

of health As part of the review process reviewers speak to a wide range of students both on and off campus, full and part-time, undergraduate and postgraduate, taught and research, to reflect the diversity of the student body They will also meet with the Head of Library Services and possibly staff involved in skills development where that is a service provided by the library The purpose of these meetings is to triangulate the views of those

Trang 26

down-Whilst the Higher Education Funding Council7 is currently ing on the quality assurance of higher education and whether QAA will continue to be contracted to undertake this work, there is little doubt that government will expect there to be a review process and appropriate body tasked with implementing it to ensure that internationally UK higher education continues to be seen as excellent Furthermore many countries have their own equivalent quality assurance body and review methodol-ogy and in some cases look to the United Kingdom to advise on HER, for example, Mauritius,8 Singapore,9 Australia,10 Europe.11

consult-IMPACT

So what impact do institutions’ quality assurance processes and works have on library services? Are they the most effective way in qual-ity assuring and enhancing library services? For some staff, both academic and professional support, internal quality assurance policies and proce-dures are perceived as overly bureaucratic – barriers to academic freedom and hurdles to be surmounted However, such frameworks where they are well established provide institutions with a range of checks and bal-ances through validation, monitoring and review which allow the student voice to be heard and in turn lead to enhancement of student learning opportunities For example, one issue common to many HE institutions has been library opening hours with students demanding longer opening hours even though the reality is that only a few students may want physi-cal access to the library at 2.00 in the morning The response of library services has been to respond positively to such requests in a manageable way Likewise access by students to materials off-campus has been facili-tated by responding to the student voice

frame-However, whilst these processes provide leverage for students and indeed staff, they are not necessarily the most effective means of quality assuring and enhancing the library service Certainly the view of Karen

Tang (2013) is that excellence is achieved outside traditional quality ance processes

Trang 27

assur-The Institutional HE Quality Perspective 25

External metrics and benchmarking informing internal planning and key performance indicators may be a more effective and proactive approach

in ensuring a strategic approach to quality assurance and enhancement

It is noticeable that there is little reference to the QAA and HER

as a means of generating improvement in library performance in the

Proceedings of the Northumbria International Conferences on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services Many tools are refer-

enced, including, for example, LibQUAL+ , ClimateQUAL and Balanced Scorecard, with reports and case studies reviewing their implementation presented However, the HER and preparation for the HER involving, as

it does, the preparation of a self-evaluation document and a student ten submission, promotes the concept of mature quality enhancement processes – as outlined in Wilson and Town (2006)

writ-Finally, in considering what has been written about the quality ance of libraries, the focus seems to be on the identification and deliv-ery of improvements to the provision in its broadest sense through quality assurance processes and performance management and metrics As a result

assur-it may be that ‘excellence’ is not necessarily achieved using tradassur-itional quality assurance processes but is more likely to be attained through strate-gic planning processes aligned with key performance indicators that pro-vide accountability

7 HEFCE Review of Quality Assessment: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reg/review/

8 QAA Audit of Tertiary Education Institutions Mauritius: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ reviews-and-reports/audit-of-tertiary-education-institutions-mauritius

9 Council for Private Education Singapore: http://www.cpe.gov.sg

10 Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency: http://www.teqsa.gov.au

11 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education: http://www.enqa.eu

Trang 28

26

REFERENCES

Appleton, L (2012) Assuring quality using ‘moments of truth’ in superconverged services

Library Management, 33(6–7), 414–420.

Creaser, C., & Spezi, V (2012) Working together: Evolving value for academic libraries

Loughborough: Loughborough University Retrieved from < https://dspace.lboro ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/13476 >.

Lawton, W., & Jensen, S (2015) An early warning system for TNE: Understanding the future global

network connectivity and service needs of UK higher education Redhill, Surrey: Observatory

of Borderless Higher Education.

QAA, (2013a) The UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B1: Programme design,

development and approval Gloucester: QAA Retrieved from < http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-code-part-b >.

QAA, (2013b) The UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B8: Programme

monitoring and review Gloucester: QAA Retrieved from < http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-code-part-b >.

Tang, S (2013) Quality assurance improvements in Australian university libraries Performance

Measurement and Metrics, 14(1), 36–44.

Wilson, F., & Town, J S (2006) Benchmarking and library quality maturity Performance

Measurement and Metrics, 7(2), 75–82.

Trang 29

Gemma Long and Danny Saunders

Quality Assurance Agency, United Kingdom

PRINCIPLES

Quality assurance in the United Kingdom was founded on the principles

of coregulation between government and institutions It takes account of degree-awarding bodies’ academic autonomy, giving them scope to design, deliver and award programmes according to their local management frameworks.1 It expects institutions to take account of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (the Quality Code) (QAA, 2012–2013), com-prising national frameworks for higher education qualifications, subject benchmark statements, and a series of chapters for providers on setting, maintaining and assuring the standards and quality of higher education provision They provide the external reference points for higher educa-tion quality assurance, developed in partnership with higher education institutions

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) reviews institutions against both these external reference points and their inter-nal management frameworks on a periodic basis Established in 1997, QAA is remitted to promote and maintain the quality and standards of

HE in the United Kingdom, and enhance teaching and learning through the identification of good practice (QAA, 2007) Its governance, consist-ing of representatives from institutions and those from higher education funding councils, demonstrates that quality assurance arrangements remain co-owned by institutions through their representative bodies QAA reviews institutions according to specified review methods, using review teams of independent and impartial peer reviewers and student review-ers recruited from across the UK HE sector The use of peer review builds

on the United Kingdom’s history of external examining and using peer

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802105-7.00004-X DOI:

Trang 30

28

academics as appropriate judges of quality and standards (Hannan & Silver,

2006, p 57)

REVIEWING HIGHER EDUCATION

QAA reviews in England, Wales and Northern Ireland make decisions on the extent to which the following judgement areas meet UK expectations:

● The setting and maintenance of academic standards, both institutional and threshold academic standards

● The quality of learning opportunities, including programme approval, admissions, learning and teaching, enabling student achievement, stu-dent engagement, assessment, external examining, programme moni-toring, complaints and appeals, arrangements for working with others and research degrees

● Information about a provider’s higher education provision, and whether it is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy

● The enhancement of student learning opportunities

Review teams also make a series of recommendations and identify tures of good practice In addition, the Higher Education Review (HER) method used in England, Wales2 and Northern Ireland can affirm actions

fea-an institution takes to address shortcomings HER considers these four judgement areas as core elements and in addition has a thematic element where institutions choose from available themes considered worthy of fur-ther analysis Enhancement-Led Institutional Reviews in Scotland make

an overall decision on whether the institution demonstrates effectiveness, supplemented by identifying positive practice and areas for development

In order to reach these judgements, review teams start by ing a desk-based analysis of the institution’s arrangement for managing these judgement areas – and how they take account of external refer-ence points – in order to establish the extent to which they meet defined Expectations set out in the Quality Code Teams further this analysis by visiting the institution for between 1 and 5 days, meeting with staff and students to test their understanding of the institution’s arrangements This enables the team to form judgements on the review areas at a private team meeting held towards the end of the visit

undertak-In addition to meeting people during the actual visits, QAA reviews involve the collection and analysis of various forms of written evi-dence detailing the effectiveness of an institution’s management pro-cesses Typically, these include minutes, committee terms of reference,

Trang 31

Academic Libraries and Quality Reviews Within the United Kingdom 29

internal and external reports, management data, and samples of materials given to students This information provides primary evidence on which the team can evaluate the institution’s arrangements It enables review-ers to reference their findings report, to support positive comments and triangulate negative assertions This helps to ensure that reviewers make sound evidence-based decisions, and the reports can withstand challenges Institutions are invited to comment on the factual accuracy of the draft reports, and they are entitled to challenge negative judgements through a formal appeals process Each review concludes when QAA’s final report and the institution’s action plan are published Where there are unsatisfac-tory judgements, the institution concerned engages in a follow up process with QAA

THE QUALITY CODE

Any review of a higher education institution includes consideration of the arrangements for staff and students to benefit from an academic library Many review teams will ask to meet staff from institutions’ professional support services, including those responsible for library provision, in order

to explore their role in supporting the institution’s learning, teaching and research The Quality Code includes a number of references to librar-ies, with each section of the Quality Code setting an Expectation about higher education provision There are 19 Expectations in total across parts

A, B and C of the Code Chapters supporting the Expectations in Parts

B and C are supplemented by ‘indicators of sound practice’ (‘indicators’), that is, activities that can enable providers to meet the Expectations The significant parts of the Quality Code for academic libraries are considered

in turn below

B4: Enabling Student Development and Achievement

This chapter focuses on how institutions support students to take sibility for their own learning Indeed, if students are intended to be inde-pendent learners, then in many instances it is the library and associated resources that enable them to discover and learn The chapter establishes

respon-an Expectation that ‘Higher education providers have in place, monitor and evaluate arrangements and resources which enable students to develop their academic, personal and professional potential’, and encourages insti-tutions to have established links between institutions’ professional services and academic departments An institution’s approach may be articulated by

Trang 32

effec-a continuum from teeffec-aching leffec-arge cohorts, to providing personeffec-alised port for students To facilitate this, institutions need established processes and procedures for particular inter-departmental activities, such as librar-ies working with academic teams to update reading lists, or to provide the resources necessary to support new programmes Similarly, where institu-tions work with partners to provide learning resources, for example with other libraries and collections, agreements should be recorded and com-municated to students

sup-Institutions are responsible for ensuring staff are competent to provide the support that enables students to achieve They may use student feedback

to inform an approach to developing staff Chapter B4 emphasises the need for the planning and provision of learning resources in order to take account

of the diversity of students, including those with access needs, so that tions anticipate and remove unnecessary barriers to learning resources This can include considering the needs of students learning at a distance, who are on placements or in work-based learning Enabling students to make the most of learning resources involves developing their assessment, research and referencing skills so that they can succeed academically It involves develop-ing students’ digital literacy so they can thrive in online and virtual learn-ing environments (VLE) – including library systems, using digital resources appropriately and allowing them to give feedback This is also reflecting in Chapter B3: Learning and Teaching, which considers the provision of learn-ing opportunities as part of its Expectation

institu-B1: Programme Design, Development and Approval

Chapter B1 establishes the Expectation that institutions, ‘in ing their responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, oper-ate effective processes for the design, development and approval of pro-grammes’ The chapter goes on to describe indicators of sound practice, such as the involvement of others in programme design, development and approval This may include the involvement of experts, and a wider sub-ject community that could extend to learning technologists, librarians and

Trang 33

discharg-Academic Libraries and Quality Reviews Within the United Kingdom 31

educational developers A further indicator concerns oversight of processes for programme design, development and approval, so that the programme development is considered as part of strategic resource planning This ensures that learning, human and physical resources that support new pro-grammes are considered at an early stage

B8: Programme Monitoring and Review

Regular programme monitoring and review enables institutions to check that their programmes remain at the correct level, and that learning oppor-tunities support students to achieve the learning outcomes Chapter B8 sets out the Expectation that includes the institutions’ ‘operation of effec-tive, regular and systematic processes for monitoring and for review of pro-grammes’ Indicators of sound practice, like in Chapter B1, suggest that such processes involve the wider academic community, such as librarians, learning technologists, students and external experts Review processes may identify learning resource issues, highlighted in student feedback or external exam-iners’ responses Alternatively, they may result in changes to programmes and learning opportunities that need to be appropriately resourced

B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others

This chapter concerns institutional arrangements for managing higher education with partner organisations that provide learning and teaching, and the use of specialist facilities which enable students to achieve spe-cific learning outcomes As such, agreements with other bodies that allow students access to specialist collections could come within scope of this chapter’s Expectation if that access is integral to students meeting learn-ing outcomes The Expectation here is that ‘degree-awarding bodies take ultimate responsibility for academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities, irrespective of where these are delivered or who provides them Arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with organisa-tions other than the degree-awarding body are implemented securely and managed effectively’

B11: Research Degrees

The Quality Code expects institutions to have research environments that provide secure academic standards, and that offer students quality oppor-tunities and the support they need to achieve successful academic, per-sonal and professional outcomes from their research degrees The strong

Trang 34

32

emphasis here on the research environment has implications for academic libraries and their role in enabling students to learn about their field, to learn about research and to conduct the research itself There is a further indicator suggesting that providing an environment recognised as excellent

by the subject community is sound practice This would include access not just to academic expertise and opportunities to exchange ideas, but also

to learning and research tools such as libraries, electronic resources and publications

Part C: Information About Higher Education Provision

The Expectation in Part C of the Quality Code concerns whether mation that institutions publish about their higher education provision is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy This covers information that institutions publish about their programmes for a variety of audiences, and the information provided internally for current students In meeting this Expectation, institutions benefit from having specific policies and proce-dures for assuring the quality of information, including reflective, evalu-ative processes and feedback from others Institutions also need to take account of the diversity of their audiences in providing information

infor-Information for prospective students is the subject of an tor describing how institutions provide information to help select pro-grammes through understanding the academic environment for future studies in and the resources that will enable achievement This information may focus on the curriculum, research, assessment and the relevant fac-ulty, but it can also be supplemented by information on library and learn-ing technologies and resources The chapter goes on to describe how the information for current students detailing what students can expect from their institution is a further indicator of sound practice

indica-PERCEPTIONS FROM THE ACADEMIC LIBRARY COMMUNITY

There is no definitive pattern or direction for the review of academic libraries; instead each institutional visit will be informed by the content and priorities within the specific self-evaluation document A review panel will be sensitive to the mission of a university or college, and will locate library support within a broad context for learner provision Large and established universities are likely to have research agendas demand-ing extensive and up-to-date journal provision, for use by final year

Trang 35

undergraduates completing dissertations, research students and lecturers preparing articles for publication By way of contrast, colleges of higher education offering a small number of higher education programmes to relatively small cohorts of certificate and diploma students might have more interest in providing a range of text books and learning resources.Reviews map, therefore, the declared rationale and context for higher education of each institution to the actual quality of provision and the learner experience There are some guiding principles which allow suc-cessful preparation for pending quality assurance reviews Under previ-ous review processes, the SCONUL/UCISA Working Group on Quality Assurance (SCONUL, 2003) produced a general Aide Memoire identify-ing broad areas that are frequently explored with computing and library service providers This checklist provides an excellent structure for illus-trating a range of audit interests and queries emerging within review teams when considering academic library provision We have mapped these to some of the more obvious reviewer expectations for evidence

Strategy, Planning and Liaison

The key starting point is the reviewers’ interests in systems and procedures,

in addition to the more obvious query regarding sufficiency of resources There may be an expectation surrounding not only the existence of a strategy, but also systems for regularly monitoring and updating planning documents based on a range of feedback from stakeholders There will also be an interest in the methods used by library staff to map learning outcomes declared within new and well established validation documents

to the library provision The underlying interest is in communications between different parts of the institution, and with collaborative partner organisations

Examples of Evidence

● A clearly defined stand-alone strategy document for library provision,

or a dedicated section within a broader strategy

● Agendas and minutes from relevant committees showing how library provision has been planned and monitored

● Action points emerging from feedback leading to strategic change or amendments

● Examples of library-related content within annual monitoring by courses, departments, faculties and the institution

Trang 36

34

Evaluation and Feedback

Strategic planning for library provision will be informed by the regular analysis of information drawn from a variety of stakeholder groups includ-ing students, staff, and external and partner organisations associated with the setting and maintenance of standards The key question involves asking how this information is then embedded within service improvement

● Internal student and staff survey data compiled by libraries themselves

● Information gleaned from department, course and faculty annual monitoring

● Focus group information involving stakeholders

● The National Student Survey (NSS)

● ‘You said, we did’ information for students and staff

● Library and catalogue usage data

● Minutes from service user or library services committees or working groups

Relevance of Learning Materials

Provision can be explored through following paths of enquiry linked to the quantity and quality – what the SCONUL/UCISA Aide Memoire defined as ‘adequacy’ and ‘quality’ – of provision Reviewers will take an interest in the methods used to identify relevance and the possible need for updating or changing resources They will be guided by the learning outcomes as stated in programme specifications, in addition to the evalua-tive commentary within the self-assessment document

● Methods used for identifying the need for updating

● Validation documents for new courses reflecting the planning process for securing additional learning resources

● Arrangements for subject experts among library staff

Trang 37

Availability and Accessibility

The matching of the location of services to the needs of students and staff

is likely to be a key consideration within the audit process In addition to the typical full time campus-based undergraduate and postgraduate stu-dent population, reviewers will be interested in the documented experi-ences of a diverse range of students such as those who study part-time, are disabled or have additional learning needs, or those located at part-ner organisations away from a main university campus There will also

be interest in the adequacy and quality of library study accommodation, including workstations and electronic networking With particular ref-erence to work-based learning and collaborative provision with other organisations, the effectiveness of distance learning facilities and support will draw the attention of review panels

● Quality assurance committee minutes

● Use of student feedback, including from student representatives

● Action plans responding to student and staff feedback about access to resources

● Evaluations of distance learning provision/part-time students’ provision/disabled students’ provision

● Collaborative partner review documentation

● Annual monitoring documents from courses, departments and faculties

● NSS data

● Review reports from visiting external organisations, including PSRBs

● Definitions of HE space including minimum standards for computing and support resources

User Support

The provision of training and information skills will be an important theme for audit trails, especially in relation to systems and procedures for giving support and advice for students, and for implementing appropri-ate human resource development programmes for academic and support staff Exploration will extend beyond provision opportunities, and include methods and procedures for promoting services and responding to needs

or queries from a variety of users An added consideration can include tems and strategies for enhancing library staff themselves through continu-ing professional development processes and initiatives

Trang 38

sys-Quality and the Academic Library

36

● Staff development plans

● Student induction arrangements

● Guides and advice on library services

● Processes for aligning staff development plans with strategic context and trends in user feedback

● Bespoke or generic training for staff and students on information skills and digital literacy

EVIDENCE OF GOOD PRACTICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

The review process depends heavily on the use of ‘trails’ where specific interests and enquiries are traced through a series of documents within the evidence base Such exploration can lead to sets of questions for guid-ing discussions with staff and students in order to see where old trails end and new ones begin This chapter concludes with a meta-analysis of the findings of a sample of quality assurance visits to universities and colleges within the United Kingdom by QAA teams engaging in institutional review The QAA has designed a ‘Knowledgebase’ for this purpose, listing good practice as well as recommendations from all of the published review reports for higher education providers The authors completed a content analysis of this information in order to identify six prominent quality assurance strands related to libraries from the findings of review teams

Strand 1: Resourcing

Recommendations relevant to resources include improving or expanding library provision in order to keep pace with future higher education needs and develop specialist areas aligned with institutional missions and strate-gies Obvious examples include ensuring the provision of sufficient num-bers of library staff and specialist subject advisers, extending book-stocks, providing appropriate study areas and using information technology suites equipped with the latest hardware and software

The success of resourcing strategies will often become apparent through triangulation by reviewers between sources of evidence

External examiners confirm that resources are sufficient to support learning The course approval processes of awarding bodies identify the appropriateness of physical, staff and electronic resources Programme teams plan resource needs before the start of a semester, and as part of their quarterly reporting cycle Significant improvements have been made to library space, book stock, e-journals

Trang 39

and wireless access The student written submission identifies high levels of satisfaction with resources at the School and students who met with the team concurred [Good Practice finding from a Review for Educational Oversight]

QAA (2012a) , paragraph 2.15, p 9

With reference to colleges in particular, review teams identified the importance of ensuring provision which includes access to library provi-sion by distantly located awarding bodies as well as more local provision within the colleges themselves

The review team found that the College is highly responsive to procuring new materials, especially through the Centre, where students reported they are always able to access the texts they need Therefore, while students are able to access resources at the University of Huddersfield, they rarely need to do so in practice [Good Practice finding from a Higher Education Review]

Another important consideration involves provision for part-time students who may not always have the time or opportunity to visit a higher education campus on a regular basis during weekdays in term-time The recognition of extended opening hours during evenings and weekends and the creation of helpdesks within library areas figured as examples of good practice, especially when such learning support is located within a broader institutional strategy

Strand 2: Management and Leadership

Reviewers search for clearly defined responsibilities and ability for leadership and management positions within academic librar-ies This embraces the identification of dedicated roles and individuals, but it also extends to more general library teams Examples of evidence can be drawn from committee minutes and feedback surveys regarding the management of stock and services The effective leadership of learn-ing resources centre managers can feature in review reports, alongside the management of the stock based on the strategic planning of resources

account-The development of the College Reporting System to provide an effective tool

to allow tutors to monitor students’ pattern of use of library books and to plan the purchase of additional learning resources [Good Practice finding from an Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review]

QAA (2011) , p 6

Trang 40

Successful leadership and management practices can also be denced through the development of collaborative partnerships with other organisations – including local authority libraries – in order to provide improved access to a wider range of learning resources for part-time students

evi-The Academy has a Creativity Centre with workstations that provide access to online resources through the student portal MyACM Students have access to library services at the University of Surrey by purchasing corporate lending cards [Good Practice finding from a Review for Specific Course Designation]

QAA (2014d) , paragraph 2.16, p 8

Strand 3: Reading Lists, Core Texts and Journals

The provision of sufficient and appropriate academic literature is an area allied closely to the theme of resourcing There is a particular interest in sys-tems and procedures that allow for the comprehensive review of reading lists

by academic departments and libraries or learning resources centres in order

to ensure currency This leads reviewers to seek evidence underlining cessful and established working relationships between library and teaching staff to ensure resources, for example key books and journals, are kept up to date Numerous recommendations within institutional reports point to the need to improve provision of reference copies of essential core texts held

suc-in libraries, and suc-introduce short loan systems that are responsive to students needing access to learning materials during peak assessment periods

Strand 4: Feedback from Students and Staff

The use of more frequent and detailed surveys by academic libraries for gathering the views of staff and students is a frequent subject for reviewer recommendations The development of more sophisticated qualitative methods for exploring in-depth issues and perspectives is also a feature for reporting by reviewers, including the use of focus groups following the outcomes of annual user satisfaction surveys

Good practice observations cite evidence demonstrating the lar sampling of user satisfaction throughout the academic year, including

Định dạng
Số trang	293
Dung lượng	3,74 MB