ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 3 2 8 / C&RL News A plan for evaluating a small library collection By Frances Davis Enlisting support a n d involving the fa c u lty are keys to success O w ensboro Community College is a six- year-old institution with an FTE enroll­ ment of 1,494, a head count enrollment of over 2,800, and a library book collection of approxi­ mately 14,000 titles. Many hours w ere spent in the first six years reviewing and selecting titles to build an adequate collection, w hich began at zero. After those efforts, the library staff felt it w as time for a com prehensive evaluation of w hat had b ee n collected, realizing the inevita­ bility of w eak areas and the possibility o f blank areas in the collection. The Learning Resource Center (LRC) direc­ tor first discussed the need with the Instruc­ tional Resources Committee at its January 1991 meeting. The committee consists o f the direc­ tor as chair, four faculty and one college staff m em ber appointed by the president, and two students. The academic dean, the dean of busi­ ness affairs, and the director o f the learning skills center are ex officio members and attend occasionally. The group felt the n eed w as jus­ tified and agreed to help. The academic dean expressed his willingness to lend his support, and w e felt w e had a good base of support to begin. Ideas w ere discussed and the commit­ tee m ade suggestions on how w e should pro­ ceed to make the scheme successful. Devising a plan The director’s background search found no w orkable design and very little advice on how to devise a plan of action for an effective evalu­ ation. “Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Ef­ fectiveness o f Library Collections” from the b o o k published by ALA, Guidelines f o r Collec­ tion D evelopm ent (1987), w as p robably the most helpful in getting us started because it gave a quick survey of the essential elements o f evaluation and the advantages and disad­ vantages of each. A rough draft of a plan w as prepared and presented to the committee in April 1991. It consisted o f strategies for getting faculty in­ volved, logistics for implementing the project, and a m ethod for faculty to use in reporting the results. A w orksheet w as designed as a guide for faculty to use in carrying out their part o f the evaluation. It stated the goal of the project and suggested ways both to prepare for the implementation and to report on find­ ings and recommendations (see “Collection evalu­ ation worksheet” at the end of this article). The plan was refined and the committee determ ined to implement the plan the follow­ ing academic school year. It was decided that the dean a n d /o r committee members w ould present the proposal to the faculty at one of their regular meetings in the fall and a date w ould be set that w ould be most convenient for faculty. Follow -up details o n the actual implementation of the plan w ould be presented in division meetings by the LRC director. Selling the plan The proposition w as announced as planned. With input from faculty, the date was set for a th re e -w e e k p erio d b eg in n in g F eb ru ary 24 through March 13, 1992, after midterms but before finals. Each division was assigned one of the three weeks, and the director asked each division chair to place her nam e on the agenda for their next division meeting so she could present the details of the plan to the faculty and answer any questions. At each division meeting, the LRC director briefly reviewed the project and discussed its Frances Davis is director o f library services, Owensboro C om m unity College, K entucky J u n e 1 9 9 3 /3 2 9 purpose. Members of each discipline w ere asked to choose a date and time during their week to meet with each other and the director for the execution of the plan. Instruction/ worksheets were handed out and discussed, and faculty were given their assigned area of the collection; for example, English faculty who primarily taught American literature w ere given the Library of Congress area “PS.” A great deal of time was spent before these meetings by the director “fitting” the proper faculty with the proper subject area and also finding additional areas w here cross-disciplinary or additional books on the topic might fit. For example, psy­ chology faculty assigned “BF” were told books on mental health could be found in “RC 321- 571.” Some faculty did not “fit” with their as­ signed area as well as others, but remaining flexible to changes or adjustments solved most problems. Faculty were encouraged to complete numbers 1 through 4 on the w orksheet before their first meeting so they would be adequately pre­ pared to participate. R e m in d e rs w e re se n t to ea ch faculty m em b er a few days before each scheduled meeting. The director had cleared her three w eeks in order to be free to facilitate the en­ tire program. Most of the faculty came to the LRC at th e ir c o n v e ­ n ie n c e p r io r to th e scheduled meeting as re­ quested on the work­ sheet. When they came to the first meeting, the director was there to fa­ cilitate the process, an­ swer any questions, help w hen asked, but other­ w ise stay o u t o f the way. Second meetings were scheduled when needed. A great deal of leew ay w as given to groups in completing their part of the project. Because of the en­ thusiasm of the Instruc­ tional Resources Committee and the support of the academic dean, there was almost total support for the project. A few meetings had to be rescheduled and several reports were com­ pleted late, but polite reminders resulted in all but 5 out of 51 teaching faculty giving input into tire evaluation by the end of the semester. Although our collection is still very small, I think this plan might also be used successfully with a larger collection. I know the faculty are more aware now of what is available in the LRC, and in the future they will be more spon­ taneous in making recommendations for de­ veloping the collection. Overall, it was a very successful project. The unfinished part is going through the faculty’s completed worksheets and materials and handling the requests and sug­ gestions for the improvement of the collection. That will be a joy. ■ Collection evaluation worksheet GOAL: To determine areas in our library collection that need to be targeted f o r fu tu r e collection development. The goal is not a balanced collection necessarily, although some balance is desired. The goal is a collection that supports our areas of instruction. (See Collection Development Policy). 1. Before looking at assigned area of evaluation, jot down topics that you feel should be covered. Place asterisks by those you feel are more important a nd/or more popular and would require broader coverage. Think about the topics your students use for: (a) research or topical papers (b) reports or speeches (c) supplemental help for difficult subjects (d) supplemental readings 2. Make a list of any “must” titles in your area that you feel should be in the collection. (Keep in mind the question, “Will students use the title?”). 3. Spend some time browsing in the assigned area to get a feel for it, noting any topics that you may have missed. 4. Using your list of topics, list any areas with no titles or areas that need broader coverage. Please be as specific as possible. 5. Photocopy any of your textbook bibliographies that have titles you would like to see in our library. Highlight those titles. (Be aware that many of them may b e out of print, but we can try!)