3.+Collection+Evaluation

__//**Collection Evaluation Chemainus Secondary:**//__ __Resources which reflect the Science 10 Curriculum__

The purpose of this report and the data gathering was to take a close look at the Science area of the collection at Chemainus Secondary School, in particular those resources that match the Science 10 curriculum. Data was collected from L4U reports, TitleWave analysis, observation, and discussion with staff and students.

__//**Process:**//__ I followed the process suggested in the website [|School Library Media Specialist]: First I Identified "what information needs to be collected" on my selected area: books, resources, useage, age, etc.

Next I determined "how the information will be collected;" I looked through the readings to determine the types of reports I needed to generate and realized L4U might cause me problems, went to TitleWave, and also more qualitative analysis ideas.

Then I determined "how the information will be organized and analyzed;" First creating charts and then reviewing the charts in light of what I know and want to achieve with this section of the collection.

Finaly, I will "determine how information will be use and shared:" At this point, I will wait to share my data until I have a clear plan of what I will do to remedy the issues that have come to light.

=Quantitative Analysis:=

Rebuilding the science was a focus area last year. ||
 * Chart 1: General Information re: 500s**
 * (adapted from [|Arizona State Archives])**
 * Number of items in the 500s || 670 ||
 * Circulation of the 500s || 38 are currently out, but data was reset at the end of last school year, so it is impossible to create a report for last year. ||
 * Average age of the 500s || 1988 ||
 * Age sensitivity 500s || 520-529 Astronomy/Allied Sciences 41 items 100% older than 5 years ||
 * || 570-579 Life Science/Biology 95 items 83.33% older than 5 years ||
 * 500s as a % of collection || 7.8% ||
 * || FLR .2%- ||
 * || Wilson .2%+ ||
 * No. Per Pupil || 1.75 items per student ||
 * Expenditures || Over the past 18 months $1400 Raise a Reader grant and $700 of library funds have purchased new materials
 * 500s as a % of collection || 7.8% ||
 * || FLR .2%- ||
 * || Wilson .2%+ ||
 * No. Per Pupil || 1.75 items per student ||
 * Expenditures || Over the past 18 months $1400 Raise a Reader grant and $700 of library funds have purchased new materials
 * No. Per Pupil || 1.75 items per student ||
 * Expenditures || Over the past 18 months $1400 Raise a Reader grant and $700 of library funds have purchased new materials
 * Expenditures || Over the past 18 months $1400 Raise a Reader grant and $700 of library funds have purchased new materials

My first reactions to Chart 1 was disappointment. I spent a great deal of time last year weeding this section of the collection and working with the science department to purchase new materials. I was glad to see that the amount of books we have is adequate, but with the age and age sensitivity being so problematic, the actual number is insignificant. The inability of my system to go back into last year's circulation is also frustrating, but it highlights the importance of looking closely at the collection every June, perhaps after inventory.


 * Chart 2: Analysis by 10s (510 omitted as it is Math)**
 * Dewey 10s || Items || average age || Correlated Unit in Science 10 ||
 * 500 || 54 || 1992 || //**Processes of Science**// ||
 * 520 || 49 || 1989 ||  ||
 * 530 || 54 || 1989 || **//Physical Science: Motion//** ||
 * 540 || 30 || 1990 || **//Physical Science: Chemical Reactions and Radioactivity//** ||
 * 550 || 90 || 1990 || **//Earth and Space Science: Energy Transfer in Natural Systems//**
 * E//arth and Space Science: Plate Tectonics//** ||
 * 560 || 8 || 1991 ||  ||
 * 570 || 120 || 1989 || //**Life Science: Sustainability of Ecosystems**// ||
 * 580 || 42 || 1985 || //**Life Science: Sustainability of Ecosystems**// ||
 * 590 || 202 || 1985 || //**Life Science: Sustainability of Ecosystems**// ||

After completing Chart 2, I was happy to see that areas reflected in the curriculum are well stocked in the library. If students or staff are searching for resources, then they will find materials to support the curriculum. While the chart shows general areas, it made me wonder about key term searches for the actual outcomes of Science 10. How easy is it to search for items in the curriculum? This wonder was one that opened a can of worms that might not be sorted out for months!!

While it may not fit with any formal criteria for collection analysis, I decided that a collection is only as good as it is able to be searched accurately by students, and it is only as good as they find the system usable. As a result, I gave my two library helpers (grade 11 students) the PLOs for grade 10 science, and set them to a task of finding resources to match the curriculum. I gave them no direction other than to use the key words they could pick up from the PLOs or their memory of science 10.
 * Chart 3 Direct Key Word Seach hits:**

Considering that the data base tells us we have 670 possible hits, and from 30-202 possible hits per Dewey section, I was astounded by how few books they could find in the data base.

I then had them use the Sears List of Subject Headings to find possible topic headings they might have missed, and their results were no better. Next I had them go to the science teachers and ask them to give them key words to search for each PLO, which did not improve their hits.

As a last resort, I had the students go to the 500 section and find books that had the PLO subjects. They used the indexes of the books, and pulled them off the shelves by hand. Sure enough, they could find books with the content. At this point they were shocked.


 * Chart 3: Key word search. **
 * ** //Processes of Science// ** ||  ||
 * || A1 demonstrate safe procedures ||
 * || A2 perform experiments using the scientific method ||
 * || A3 represent and interpret information in graphic form ||
 * || A4 demonstrate scientific literacy ||
 * || A5 demonstrate ethical, responsible, cooperative behaviour ||
 * || A6 describe the relationship between scientific principles and technology ||
 * || A7 demonstrate competence in the use of technologies specific to investigative procedures and research ||
 * Using key terms from the PLOs students were able to find only one book to meet these outcomes. ||
 * ** //Life Science: Sustainability of Ecosystems// ** ||  ||
 * || B1 explain the interaction of abiotic and biotic factors within an ecosystem ||
 * || B2 assess the potential impacts of bioaccumulation ||
 * || B3 explain various ways in which natural populations are altered or kept in equilibrium ||
 * Using key terms from the PLOs students were able to find : Ecosystem - 7, Bioaccumulation - 0, Natural Population, Abiotic - 0, Biotic - 0, Equilibrium - 0. ||
 * // **Physical Science: Chemical Reactions and Radioactivity** // ||  ||
 * || C1 differentiate between atoms, ions, and molecules using knowledge of their structure and components ||
 * || C2 classify substances as acids, bases, or salts, based on their characteristics, name, and formula ||
 * || C3 distinguish between organic and inorganic compounds ||
 * || C4 analyse chemical reactions, including reference to conservation of mass and rate of reaction ||
 * || C5 explain radioactivity using modern atomic theory ||
 * Using key terms from the PLOs students were able to find the following numbers of books: Atoms 6, Ions 1, Molecules – 1, Acids – 0, Bases – 0, Salts – 1, Characteristics - 43, Formula - 5, Name - 47, Organic - 7, Inorganic - 3, Compounds - 4, Chemical reactions – 1, Conservation – 33, Mass – 50, Rate – 1, Reaction - 7, Radioactivity – 3, Atomic Theory – 0. ||
 * // **Physical Science: Motion** // ||  ||
 * || C6 explain the relationship of displacement and time interval to velocity or objects in uniform motion ||
 * || C7 demonstrate the relationship between velocity, time interval, and acceleration ||
 * Using key terms from the PLOs students were able to find the following numbers of books: Displacement – 0, Time interval – 0, Velocity – 0, Objects – 8, Uniform motion – 0, Motion – 31, Demonstrate – 6, Relationships - 69, Acceleration – 2, PH Scale – 0, Hydrogen Ions – 0. ||
 * // **Earth and Space Science: Energy Transfer in Natural Systems** // ||  ||
 * || D1 explain the characteristics and sources of thermal energy ||
 * || D2 explain the effects of thermal energy within the atmosphere ||
 * || D3 evaluate possible causes of climate change and its impact on natural systems ||
 * Using key terms from the PLOs students were able to find the following numbers of books: Atmosphere – 3, thermal – 0, thermal energy -0, Climate change – 7, ||
 * // **Earth and Space Science: Plate Tectonics** // ||  ||
 * || D4 analyse the processes and features associated with plate tectonics ||
 * || D5 demonstrate knowledge of evidence that supports plate tectonic theory ||
 * Using key terms from the PLOs students were able to find the following numbers of books: Plate tectonic – 3, Plate tectonic theory – 1. ||

While it may be beyond the scope of this investigation and report, I think that in the long run it is important for the MARC records to reflect when new purchases match the IRP's, and that we cataloge with key words that link to the PLOs. In the L4U system I can set up a picture search. I see now that this option is an important one to learn to create, as if students or teachers are looking for books they need to be able to find them easily.

As a result of this analysis I wondered if we have any **fiction books** that support the science curriculum: There are 86 Science Fiction books. This begs the question: Which ones actually correlate with the curriculum, as there seems to be no way to find out (at the moment), ie a search for environmental sustainability does not produce any hits in NON FIC never mind FIC!!

The following chart is adapted from pages 29-33, and relates to just the 500 section of the collection. newspaper print or electronically ||  || 25+ resources to date ||  ||   || library database) ||  || Access to networks and computers is excellent || and is not catalogued in the library. List is non-existent. ||   ||   || The standards for school libraries also made me sad. Considering how hard we work, and how much effort has gone into improving this section, to see that we are below standard in so many areas is distressing. Sadly, while these types of charts can illuminate weaknesses, they cannot however provide the cash to bring the system up to standard. These standard make me wonder if anyone really has libraries this well funded and stocked!
 * Chart 4: Achieving Information Literacy: Standards for School Library Programs in Canada.**
 * **Resource** || **Below Standard** || **Acceptable** || **Exemplary** ||
 * Periodicals || We have one science magazine each month, and no access to databases/indexes ||  ||   ||
 * Newspapers || No news database || At least one of local, provincial and national
 * Non-Print || No non-print resource for science ||  ||   ||
 * Electronic Resources || Digital library is under construction and has
 * Computers || Access to data bases is non existent (except
 * Videos/DVD || None for science ||  ||   ||
 * Physical accessibility || Some science material is stored in their rooms
 * Curricular Support ||  || Materials support much of the curriculum ||   ||
 * Currency || Less than 50% are within the last 10 years ||  ||   ||
 * Collection Maintenance ||  || Most materials are complete and in good repair ||   ||
 * Library Catalogue ||  ||   || Automated, WAN and WWW. ||

__//**General impressions:**//__ I was moderately happy with the results of the quantitative review, but the high percentage of social studies (See TitleWave in notes) materials does not show up in this report as I am considering only science. From a whole library perspective, the huge quantity of socials materials in comparison to science curriculum support probably reflects previous librarian's interests, teacher use ie: medieval projects require more books, student interests ie World War Two books, and the fact that socials material does not become as out of date as science materials.

While on the surface it appears that we have materials to support the curriculum, I was shocked by the lack of searchability of the database, and shocked that bright students could not find the materials they might need to further their understandings of the course. Teenagers are most likely to just give up, rather than ask. They are more likely to assume we have nothing, than probe further into the system. It was also a bit concerning to note that we have no non-print resources for science.

**Qualitative Analysis**

__Science teacher thoughts:__ The three science teachers collaborated last year to pick and to review materials to supplement the science area of the collection. The teachers use the resources to supplement their lessons, and we take all the relevant materials to the classrooms during each unit. When pulling materials for their new semester units, I questioned them about a number of concerns I have: a. a huge quantity of animal books, many of which are older. b. a large number of marine science materials such as shell fish, beach life, etc, which are also aged. c. the astronomy section also has a lot of older books. The number one concern was that I not remove any more books from the collection. They like the idea of focusing on key word searches or creating lists that correlate with the learning outcomes. They would also like me to focus on finding more books that are easier to read, high picture content, and perhaps have web support features, like many Usborne Books do. While the actual data reports do not or cannot tell me the exact numbers, my estimate is that at least 50% of the books in this area were checked out 2-3 times last year to support classroom activities.

__Student thoughts:__ This physical area of the library is the hang out area at lunch time. I questioned these students in particular, since they often peruse this section while socializing. They enjoy the animal books, the books on earthquakes, and the general science books. Non of them had pulled out the easier reading material to glance through, but instead enjoyed the DK or Usborne books and the fact type books. Some students did question why I still had older books in this area, when it's quite obvious that I have cleaned out the shelves.

__Shelf Scanning:__ My first impression when I look at the 500 section is urgh. Even after ruthless weeding, the area still looks old and bedraggled. I have stickers on every book that is older than 1979, and there are still left on the shelves. I have small white circle stickers on easier to read material, and these are definitely the newer books. I was much happier with the usefulness of this section before I ran all the reports! I will have to reconcile the science teachers wishes to keep the books in circulation, with my desire to have the collection looking fresh and clean, and the importance of having material that aligns with the curriculum. Perhaps when I weed these items, I will place them for use permanently in the classrooms.

__Mix of resources:__ I was surprised to realize that we have no science related videos/dvds in our collection. When I asked the teachers, they have either purchased them via their budget and keep them in their classrooms, or they use resources from the DRC. Science videos are very expensive, and this expense has been passed over to other budgets. I am in the process of creating a digital library to support science 10, and the other course teachers have requested a similar project.

__Core Collections:__ I checked out a variety of sites listed by www.corecollections.net but was unable to find any of the materials that I "should" have. I did however find these sites a useful source of books/resources for future purchases.

__Budget:__ The allocation of the library budget is not influenced by anyone other than my choices. I do not have to account for how I spent my budget. In fact, I don't think the principal wants to know, other than that it has been spent early in the year. I am also the person who applies for library grants and spends the money. When I received the library grant for Science books, the science teachers were involved in the selection process. I also have them approve books I purchase/order prior to processing, so we can return ones they do not think appropriate for content, difficulty etc. While the budget is limited to $3500 a year, I am usually able to get donations to supplement this amount.

__//**Strengths**//__ -Unlike most secondary school libraries, this collection has a group of easier reading material that correlates directly to the curriculum. -There are a large enough number of books available, and most are in decent shape. -We have an in process digital library to support the curriculum, not yet catalogued. -Science teachers are willing to help select materials -Science teachers are actively using the materials and bringing them in unit sets to their classrooms as reference material for students.

__//**Weaknesses**//__

-This process has identified a lack of ability to really search for items that correlate to the curriculum -It has shown that students must rely on perusing the shelves for books that "might" be on topic. -There is a complete lack of audiovisual materials and non-print resources -The collection may reflect a lack of value and importance placed on supporting the science curriculum in the past -The collection reflects that few science library research projects take place in comparison to other curriculum areas.

//__**Recommendations:**__// There are a number of problems that need to be sorted out immediately.

First: MARC records need to be aligned with the curriculum to make searching and finding appropriate books easy. At this point, this is almost impossible. I will have to get the DRC staff to investigate why the majority of books do not turn up in the searches. DRC looked into the problem, and it turns out that when the library was automated the subjects for the books were not filled in. It is shocking that no one at the time realized that without subjects students would not be able to find the books. One can only shake her head in dismay.The solution is to pull the books on each subject, scan each book and do a global subject add. This task seems reasonably manageable and worthwhile, but overwhelming when one considers the 8600 other items that might not hae subject listings!

I wonder if the database issues are related to the issues TitleWave had with my data export, and I would like to sort this problem out sooner than later. The benefit of my system aligning with TitleWave is that they have a great source of books, easy selection methods, links to reviews, etc.

Second, the collection needs to be renewed to include newer materials, and a wider variety of materials, which when catalogued can focus on meeting curriculum directly. I spoke to the DRC staff, and she suggested that when the new books come in, I put a sticky on the book with any "must have" subjects, picking them to correlate with the curriculum.

Third, my library helpers can look through the list of Science Fiction novels to find novels that are related to the curricular areas.

An ongoing goal will be to continue the digital library development, which will be used by teachers and students in classrooms and at home.

As time permits, the creation of picture searches will aid teachers and students to find materials more readily.

As the collection becomes more user friendly and more relevant to what is happening in classrooms, then teachers and students should use the resources more often.

__//**Reflection**//__: Collection evaluation of the resources available in my library has been one of the most frustrating experiences of my 18 months in the library. Having upgraded the L4U system in October, at a cost of over $3500, I am entitled to one year's help desk service. Since the manual I have no longer applies, I have been in contact with the help desk frequently to do this project. Frustratingly, they have a 24 hour response window, but in all but one case, I was not in the library (due to teaching blocks) when they returned my call. While, according to them, L4U does produce the reports I require, the process is onerous and complex (and I'm fairly intelligent and skilled with computers). I am shocked that they have not created a more user friendly way to create reports. In fact, the lack of ease with which this process has taken place is enough for me to lobby for our district to change programs. Our District Resource Center staff said yesterday that I am probably the only one in the district who is making time to do reports or look into my data base.

Now the Data Base: In frustration, I logged into TitleWave (the competitor) and uploaded my data (after help exporting the file from the DRC staff rather than the help desk at L4U). TitleWave created some great reports and charts, really what I was looking for, BUT I noticed that 8.5% of my data did not upload, and a significant portion of these are NonFic. I finally got to speak to a person yesterday, only to discover that 8.5% of my marc records have been affected by the upgrade in the L4U system, and for some reason the CUTTER field has been deleted in the record. As you can imagine, I got a headache.

With recognition, that my marc records may not be producing accurate data, but the tech staff have not had time to figure out what happened to 800+ when they updated the system, my report may or may not be as accurate as it will be when they fix the problem. As a perfectionist, I find this incredibly tormenting, more so that my data base is not accurate vs. this assignment may not be accurate.

Amazingly, the day after I wrote this reflection, TitleWave phoned to say they had worked on my data and had created a new report for me to use. (That is customer service!) Now, the data in the report above is accurate to 99.83%. I was happy they had done this for me, as the new reports changed the outlook in the area. There were at least 250 books missing from the 500s, so the new report changed quantity, age, etc.

[|Arizona State Archives] suggests that a project such as this will give staff a "better understanding of the collection;" this has been the case for me. It will provide guidance in improvement for this part of the collection.

Feb 20

Raw Data for this report