DOC

CAUL Meeting 3-4 April 2008

By Christine Rogers,2014-05-07 12:05
10 views 0
CAUL Meeting 3-4 April 2008

    Attachment 1

    CAUL Best Practice Working Group (BPWG)

    Meeting of the BPWG held on 18 September 2008

    Skycity, Darwin NT

1. Attendance

    Present:

    ? Helen Livingston, University of South Australia (Chair)

    ? Graham Black, Central Queensland University

    ? Liz Curach, University of Western Sydney

    ? Philip Kent, Victoria University (Minutes)

    ? Leeanne Pitman, University of Ballarat

    ? Ruth Quinn, Charles Darwin University

    ? Derek Whitehead, Swinburne University

     Apologies

     Des Stewart (SCU)

2. Record of Last Meeting

    The Minutes of the last meeting held on 3 April 2008 were accepted as correct.

    Helen Livingston noted that the Work Group had fallen behind its planned deadlines. It was agreed

    that the BPWG would meet between CAUL meetings via teleconference which has been successful

    for the Information Literacy Working Group.

3. Customer Satisfaction Survey

    Helen Livingston and Philip Kent reported that they had met with Mike Samarchi (Insync) to refine

    the questions and to plan a way forward for the updated survey instrument. Mike had confirmed

    that many of the suggestions from the BPWG aligned with his views derived from recent surveys.

    The WG reconsidered the current draft and offered suggestions for improvement. It was agreed

    that the survey needed to be kept as generic as possible to ensure consistency. It is possible to

    add examples (e.g. local terminology and service names) to clarify the questions for the local

    context if required. It was also noted that there was inconsistency in language between “Academic”

    and “learning/research “needs. It was agreed to change all instances to “learning/research”.

    It was agreed that the proposed questions in the Communications section were satisfactory.

    It was noted that the staff related questions previously in the Service Delivery section had been

    removed and it was agreed that this was appropriate.

    With regard to the Facilities and Equipment section it was noted that Q12 was important due to

    increasing complaints about excessive noise. In Q17 a typographical error in „photocopying‟ was

    noted.

    With regard to the Library Staff section, it was noted that this had been reduced in a bid to pick out

    key issues. The number of questions has been reduced to 4 previously 8. Q19 appears to be

    most important from recent results. The changes attempt to bring together staffing themes that

    were previously in several sections under one heading.

    It was agreed that the Information Resources section need to be „beefed up‟ in order to differentiate

    between needs for different formats. It was agreed to split Q23 into 2 separate questions:

    Attachment 1

    o Books/AV meet my learning/research needs

    o Journals (print and online) meet my learning/research needs

It was agreed to change Q24 to: Online (not electronic) resources meet my learning/research

    needs. It was noted that Q25 tried to put the student view language such as „off-campus‟ is not always understood consistently. Q27 on the catalogue is very important and needs to be retained.

    Feedback on Q 28 suggested that while institutional repositories are emerging services, they are

    not widely understood as yet. However it was suggested that electronic reserve is universal and

    the question should be reframed to read: e-reserve meets my needs.

There was some discussion on LibQual and it was noted that at UniSA, large numbers did not

    complete the whole survey. Philip Kent noted that VU‟s partner University, the University of Texas

    at El Paso had dispensed with the instrument for this reason also.

Suggested changes on Part 3 were proposed based on Insync feedback on the recent University of

    Melbourne experience. Q3A on overall satisfaction is to be retained. Q3B should be changed to:

    Please give us comments about the Library, both positive and negative. In Q3C „flier should be changed to „flyer‟. It was also suggested that this be amended so that various options could be

    ranked, perhaps through picking the top 3 mediums. Q3E should be reworded to „How often do

    you come into the Library‟. Q3G should be reworded to: „How often are you around on campus?‟ It

    was confirmed that Q3 E, F and G should have the same series of options.

    It was detected that the draft questions included inconsistent use of „Electronic and Online‟ (e.g. Q8, Q24, Q3F. It was decided to prefer „Online (e.g. Q24 to read: Online information resources

    meets my learning/research needs.)

    Derek Whitehead suggested the addition of another box where students could tick „Domestic or International‟. This had worked well at Swinburne recently.

The proposed new Price Structure from Insync was discussed. It was noted that some prices had

    increased. Mike Samarchi had indicated that in some cases they had underestimated the amount

    of effort required (e.g. qualitative data analysis). It was suggested that the open question analysis

    should cover 3 not 2 questions for consistency. Option B needs to add to $10,000. This feedback

    needs to be directed to M Samarchi (Action: Chair).

Questions of ownership and access to data were raised. It should be possible for universities to

    retrieve their raw data back even though the copyright is held by Insync. Philip Kent noted the

    need for Terms associated with completing the survey. There needs to be an „I agree‟ click through for the terms. Derek Whitehead advised that the Swinburne form of words on survey terms would

    suffice.

Derek also noted his recent email seeing expressions of interest in running a Survey on Overseas

    Operations. He referred to the similar survey previously arranged via VU and noted that Swinburne

    was seeking interest in a consortium price. In their experience Swinburne didn‟t want to aggregate overseas into local campus data.

    4. Materials Availability Survey

The recent work by La Trobe and UniSA using the survey was noted including the report by Eva

    Fisch and Stephen Parnell. It was noted that while the survey form was out of date it had been

    extremely useful for benchmarking purposes.

It was agreed that it was necessary for someone to rework the tool in order for it to be used widely.

    It was suggested that we need to pay someone to complete this. It needs to be developed by

    someone with a strong Library background and the importance of getting the questions right could

    Attachment 1 not be underestimated. It was important to have a consistent and usable tool for benchmarking

    purposes. It was agreed that a working group would be convened to write a brief. Membership will

    include: Stephen Parnell, Gary Hardy, and Swinburne‟s web usability person. (Action: Chair + Derek Whitehead).

The draft brief is to be circulated within BPWG for comment and the CAUL Executive will be

    approached to fund the project. (Action: Chair).

    5. Collections Council of Australia Research Performance of Collecting Institutions

    “The BPWG consider the CCA comments in relation to research performance of collecting

    organisations.” (From CAUL Executive)

It was noted that this issue is primarily about digital research collections and their performance in

    supporting scholars. Members of the BPWG were uncertain as to what was required. It was

    suggested that we might start off with a CAUL survey to determine what we do now i.e. to assess the current state of affairs. It was also suggested that a satisfaction survey maybe the way to go.

    Derek Whitehead suggested that we could ask Margaret Birtley if the draft CAUL survey covers

    what she is interested in. (Action: Chair to speak to Margaret Birtley and draft a survey).

    6. Workforce Planning

It was noted that the CAUL strategic plan allocated an investigation of Workforce requirements to

    the BPWG. It was noted that Felicity McGregor‟s presentation at the last CAUL meeting sparked

    increased interest in cadetship schemes. It was agreed that the answers are not clear do we want to train librarians for skills in addition to their library skills or do we want to hire in specialists

    additionally?

Linda Luther‟s Workforce Plan at UTas was noted and Philip Kent advised that he was happy to

    share VU‟s recently completed Workforce Plan. . (Action: Philip Kent).

    It was agreed that we need to monitor what is happening overseas and in our HR areas (Action: all to check locally)

It was agreed that the BPWG could add value through summarising what is going on in sector? It

    was agreed that we should monitor the outcomes of Gillian Hallam‟s Nexus project (Action: Helen Livingston and Graham Black with regard to ATN and QULOC‟s work with Gillian Hallam).

Derek Whitehead will continue to be a conduit to ALIA‟s work. For example the increase in mature

    aged library students was noted e.g, former teachers, nurses, and students with fine arts degrees

    embarking on second careers. It was also noted that Charles Sturt and UniSA had conducted

    recent reviews of their library schools and were exploring relationships with major libraries.

    7. Statistics

7.1 NZULS Working Group draft minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 June 2008 were noted.

7.2 BPWG Actions

    Attachment 1

    It was noted that Leeanne Pitman is the BPWG conduit to the CAUL Statistics Focus Group. It was

    noted that NZ is very focussed on having KPIs. The Statistics Focus Group is seeking our advice

    on how to respond.

It was suggested that we don‟t want Standard ratios to be used as KPIs as Better Practice is about

    „fit for purpose‟. It was suggested that there was a danger in going back to Mackinnon benchmarks through a KPI approach.

It was suggested that smarter students is the real outcome that we are seeking. Philip Kent

    mentioned that VU Student Dividend project under development with ACER. They will test

    students at the beginning and end of their coursework as well as several years later, in order to

    measure the value of the VU approach.

Helen Livingston noted work at UniSA on measuring English language competence.

It was agreed that we needed to go back to Statistics group for clarification on what was required

    from the BPWG. (Action: Leeanne Pitman).

    8. Any Other Business

There was no other business

    9. Next meeting

It was agreed that Helen Livingston would arrange a teleconference for about one month hence.

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com