The Relationship between Collection Strength and Student Achievement

Advances in Librarianship 08/2012; 35:113-132. DOI: 10.1108/S0065-2830(2012)0000035009


This chapter examines how selected accrediting bodies and academic librarians define collection strength and its relationship to student achievement. Standards adopted by accreditation bodies and library associations, such as the Association of Research Libraries, are reviewed to determine the most common ones which are used to assess library collections. Librarians’ efforts to define and demonstrate the adequacy of library resources are also examined in light of increased focus on institutional accountability, and requirements to provide planned and documented evidence of student success. Also reviewed are the challenges faced by academic librarians in a shift as they shift from traditional collection-centered philosophies and practices to those which focus on client-centered collection development such as circulation analysis, citation analysis, interlibrary loans, and student satisfaction surveys to determine collection use and relevance. The findings from a review of standards and existing library literature indicated that student use of library collections depends on faculty perceptions of the library and whether they require students to use library resources and services for their research papers. Through marketing strategies, improvement of student awareness of collections and library services, the chapter concludes that multiple collection-related factors influence the academic success of students, not just the size and importance of library collections per se. The significance of the chapter lies in its identification of halting and difficult adjustments in measuring both collection “adequacy” and student achievements.

19 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – The purpose of this article is to describe the quantitative evaluation of an engineering monograph approval plan using circulation analysis. Design/methodology/approach – The circulation frequency of titles purchased under the approval plan was analyzed, and compared with the circulation frequency of all engineering books during the same time period, purchased both individually and through the plan. Findings – It was found that 23 percent of the approval plan books circulated, compared with 6 percent of engineering books as a whole. There was considerable variation in circulation frequency between engineering disciplines, but approval plan books circulated much more frequently in all subject areas. Research limitations/implications – This study assesses circulation only during the most recent complete year, which means that the approval plan books are all new books. However, more than half of the books in the engineering collection are less than ten years old, so age is unlikely to be the only reason for the much higher circulation of approval books. Practical implications – Since this evaluation concludes that the approval plan does have value for Rowan University's users, such a plan might be worth considering by other academic libraries looking for a better way to obtain new engineering monographs which serve user needs. Originality/value – While the circulation data described in this study reflect the unique needs of the Rowan University user community, they can serve as a useful benchmark for engineering librarians who want to assess the usage of their monograph collections. The study also has value for academic librarians who are evaluating an approval plan from YBP or another vendor.
    Collection Building 04/2007; 26(2):59-62. DOI:10.1108/01604950710742095
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In most debates over its future, the university is represented—by both its critics and its champions—as a secular temple for learning, a sacred space freed from the more mundane concerns that trouble other institutions. But lately this lofty image looks increasingly tarnished, especially with regard to public research universities. There, a new class of administrative professionals has been busy working to make colleges as much like businesses as possible. In this eye-opening exposé of the modern university, Gaye Tuchman paints a candid portrait of these wannabe corporate managers and the new regime of revenue streams, mission statements, and five-year plans they’ve ushered in. Based on years of observation at a state school, Wannabe U tracks the dispiriting consequences of trading in traditional educational values for loyalty to the market. Aping their boardroom idols, the new corporate administrators wander from job to job and reductively view the students as future workers in need of training. Obsessed with measurable successes, they stress auditing and accountability, which leads, Tuchman reveals, to policies of surveillance and control dubiously cloaked in the guise of scientific administration. Following the big money to be made from the discoveries of Wannabe U’s researchers, Tuchman probes the cozy relationships that the administration forms with industry and the government. Like the best campus novelists, Tuchman entertains with her acidly witty observations of backstage power dynamics and faculty politics, but ultimately Wannabe U is a hard-hitting account of how higher education’s misguided pursuit of success fails us all.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Improving on ideas developed in Brief Tests of Collection Strength, this paper presents coverage power tests, an empirical method for evaluating collections in all types of libraries by means of ranked holdings counts from OCLC's WorldCat. The new method measures library coverage of subject literatures across levels of the WLN or RLG collection intensity scales that are increasingly difficult to attain. It defines literatures and collections unambiguously, permits objective comparisons of libraries, and is potentially automatable. Results of 38 tests in nine subjects at 30 libraries have high face validity in rating collections. Graphical analysis with the new method also clarifies the bibliometric relation between individual collections and subject literatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of College & Research Libraries is the property of American Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
    College & Research Libraries 03/2008; 69(2-2):155-174. DOI:10.5860/crl.69.2.155 · 0.82 Impact Factor
Show more


19 Reads