Despite changes in technology and a tremendous increase in departmental websites over the past decade, 550 instructors placed course material on Reserves in the University of Waterloo Library last year. Many faculty members rely on Reserves to make material available to their students; however, for several years now, questions about the long-term viability of the Reserves service have been posed. The User Services Assessment Group’s survey of faculty perspectives on Reserves provides an assessment of the present and future value of the Library’s Reserves service.
The survey goals were to
All 1,220 UW faculty were invited to participate in a web-based survey. The survey went live on October 31, 2002 and closed on November 22, 2002. Responses from all sources equalled 10%. Of the respondents, 80% indicated that they have used Reserves before and 20% have not. The respondents represent a good cross-section of the departments on campus. A paper version of the survey is available in Appendix A; faculty distribution by Faculty in Appendix B; and by department, Appendix C.
Responses and comments demonstrate clearly that the reserves services, both paper and electronic, are valued by a significant percentage of faculty and that both services should continue for the foreseeable future. The demand for paper reserves has continued throughout the years of development of the web. However, survey results, together with experience, and with examples from other universities, indicate that electronic reserves service fills a real need, and that with more development in one or two key areas the service would grow rapidly. The key areas are copyright clearances (and potential related costs) and, to a lesser degree, effective promotion of the service. Rapid growth will mean an improvement of service to students, efficiencies of staff labour, and an increased profile for the Library.
Faculty indicate an overwhelming satisfaction with our current service; however the data from the survey reveals that the Library could be doing more.
Goal 1:
1.1 Review current practises regarding communication of copyright issues with
faculty, and develop text to explain sensitive areas of copyright, such as potential
related costs
1.2 Reduce the stated processing time from 1 week to 3 business days
1.3 Retain course materials in the Library, if scheduled for Reserves again
within the year
1.4 Retain course listings in TRELLIS for one year when not in use (suppressed
from public viewing)
1.5 Investigate the feasibility of making usage statistics directly available
to instructors
1.6 Assist faculty members with the integration of electronic course reserves
materials into their websites
1.7 Investigate the feasibility of streamlining the method of authenticating
users for restricted reserves materials, for example, by using class lists and
UWDir authentication
Goal 2:
2.1 Work with liaison librarians to increase awareness of Reserves services
during the orientation of new faculty to the Library
Goal 3:
3.1 Continue to support a paper reserves service in the Library
3.2 Move to electronic reserves in a much more proactive way
3.3 Develop guidelines for paying copyright clearance fees
3.4 Proceed with offering a production-level copyright clearance service for
electronic reserves funded by the Library beyond the current pilot project
In conclusion, this survey proved to be a valuable experience that provided useful information. We suggest therefore that another such survey be conducted in five years to assess changing patterns, such that these results can serve as a benchmark. In addition, we fully support the University’s commitment to working closely with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) and Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) to lobby for and advocate changes to the Copyright Act that would facilitate permissions for electronic materials in order to support the teaching and research goals of the University of Waterloo. Note: this survey was conducted prior to license re-negotiations in 2003.
The User Services Assessment Group is charged with developing methods for measuring how well our services are meeting the needs of our clients, and then conducting activities to gather these measurements. The Group consults with the Library’s Community Needs Assessment Committee (CNAC) and other library staff as appropriate. Current membership of the group is:
In January 2002, Amy Ferster and Al Smith facilitated brainstorming exercises with interested full-time and casual User Services staff to generate a list of areas that could be improved upon. After analysing the list, the Assessment Group decided to focus on Reserves, specifically to assess faculty perceptions of the service as the best indicator of the future of Reserves. The following four questions were particularly significant:
Current Status of Library Reserves
The Library’s Reserves service is a mixture of paper and electronic
materials. The majority of course reserves are paper only and a few are electronic
only – the rest are a combination of the two. Currently, 10% of the
total courses on Reserves have an electronic reserve component. Although the
paper reserves constitute most of what instructors are using, students make
heavy use of the electronic reserve resources. For example, usage statistics
of paper reserves (325 courses) for the Fall Term 2002 totalled 22,369, and
usage statistics for electronic reserves (31 courses) totalled 23,813 downloads.
Despite the fact that a direct comparison between the two usage counts cannot
be made due to other variables, the usage numbers indicate the popularity
of electronic reserves for students (see Appendix D).
Survey Methodology
The Assessment Group determined that a web-based survey was the most appropriate
assessment tool for this project and approached Jack Cooper of UW’s
Information Systems & Technology department about using DragonWeb Survey
software. Jack agreed to assist with the project and provided invaluable assistance
with the development of the survey, technical support during the collection
phase, and with statistical support afterwards. Ethics clearance was obtained
through the University's Office of Research Ethics. Paper versions of
the survey were pretested by faculty members from the Psychology and Sociology
departments, and prototypes of the web-survey were pretested by the Group
and all interested library staff. Liaison librarians were informed, involved, and updated throughout the process.
Faculty were invited to participate via an email message that was sent using the DragonWeb Survey software to departmental email aliases and contacts obtained from liaison librarians. This email message contained a link to the web survey. In addition, departmental secretaries were mailed paper copies of the survey to be handed out to faculty who requested them (see Appendix A). The survey was announced in the Daily Bulletin on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 and in news@your library (v. 2, no. 8, October 31, 2002). As a reminder, paper copies of the cover letter were mailed to faculty ten days after the email invitation via a mailing list produced by Human Resources. The survey went live on October 31, 2002 and closed on November 22, 2002.
According to numbers provided by Human Resources, the survey sample was 1,220 faculty. The survey did not target teaching assistant/post-doctoral users of Reserves. Responses from all sources (web, paper, and pre-test) totalled 122, or exactly 10%: 114 faculty members responded to the web-based survey, while eight paper surveys were returned (including three pretests). Of the respondents, 80% indicated that they had used Reserves before (97) and 20% had not (25). In general the respondents represent a good cross-section of the departments on campus (see Appendix C). Approximately 20% of faculty who currently use Reserves responded to the survey.
Of the 97 respondents that have used Reserves, 44 placed material at the Davis Library, 44 at the Dana Porter Library, 6 at the University Map & Design Library (UMD), and 5 at Optometry Learning Resource Centre (OLRC). Two respondents used more than one library location.
Analysis
The data was entered into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)
and frequencies obtained for multiple-choice questions. A variety of cross-tabulations
(comparisons of responses to two different questions) were also produced,
to see if any new insights could be deduced.
In order to determine the representativeness of responses, comparisons were made of:
The survey included three areas where respondents could provide comments. The Group analysed the comments in order to categorize them, or to determine if the comment simply duplicated what the responder had already indicated in one of the multiple choice questions, or, where appropriate, to determine if they provided feedback that did not apply to the stated goals of the survey.
Goal 1: Identify satisfaction level of current
faculty users of Reserves
An overwhelming number of faculty who had used Reserves were satisfied overall
with the service they received (97.9%). However, 50% of respondents did not indicate that “no change is required.” Comments and data received
ranged from suggestions for improving specific aspects of the service, to a broad-level
querying of the role of electronic reserves.
On the question of copyright regulations, interestingly, only 14.4% of users state that information about copyright issues should be clearer. However, some of the most passionate comments were about copyright issues, indicating that more work could be done in this area to improve communication of issues, and to make some refinements to library procedures. For example: some faculty are irritated by the need for staff to review material before it can be added to an existing reserves folder. As this issue is educational in nature, it suggests the Library could do more work to establish a collaborative relationship with faculty on copyright issues. Another example: until recently the Library recalled books in order to assess how much material a faculty member had copied from the book, before the Library would put the copy on Reserves. The Library now checks the bibliographic record in TRELLIS, and no longer recalls the item.
In addition to the other observations about copyright, there was a clear desire that the University (via AUCC and CARL) negotiate more aggressively with Access Copyright on issues such as allowing copies from a copy, and on anthologies. [Note: AUCC and CARL negotiate with Access Copyright on behalf of the University of Waterloo.]
24.7% of Reserves users indicated that the stated 1 week processing time should be reduced. Since material is generally processed within 2 or 3 days of being on hand, this percentage may indicate a need to change the stated processing time to reflect actual turnaround.
Several comments were received on other aspects of Reserves service, such as:
Despite the infrequency of expressions of concern, most of these issues are easily addressed and would provide definite improvements in service.
One faculty member raised a central question, "what is electronic reserves?" Reserve materials available electronically do not require the same control over high demand material that is required by physical materials. In addition, the content of material mounted electronically by the Library is often the same in nature as the materials that faculty mount on their course websites. This overlap has caused some faculty and staff to wonder about the role of the Library in providing such a service. However, it is clear that not all departments can or should become experts in scanning, mounting, and obtaining copyright clearance. Survey results, together with the experience gained over the past two years of service, affirm that the Library is providing a valuable service.
Also, recent articles in the Journal of Access Services[1] , and in EDUCAUSE review[2] , emphasize the role that libraries can and should play in collaborating with faculty to develop much more integrated course websites. The Library should accept that it often performs work that is done in other departments, and the definition of the service should change, becoming more adaptable according to the needs of faculty. For example, for those faculty that prefer to manage their own course website, library Reserves offers a scanning and copyright service that serves up course materials for easy integration into course websites. (Extending this principle, the Library could further adapt to the decentralizing nature of the web by offering customized bundles of electronic library services for integration into course websites). At the same time, all electronic materials can be made available centrally through the library database(s), for those faculty that prefer to refer their students to the Library for their research.
40% of respondents indicated they want lecture notes and other material available electronically to be restricted to students in their class. The Library is already individually password-protecting pdf files upon request, which necessitates that the faculty member give out the passwords and that students enter a password for every protected reading they need. Other scenarios are possible that would streamline this process for faculty and students, and should be investigated as resources allow.
Recommendations:
1.1 Review current practises regarding communication of copyright issues with
faculty, and develop text to explain sensitive areas of copyright, such as potential
related costs
1.2 Reduce the stated processing time from 1 week to 3 business days
1.3 Retain course materials in the Library if scheduled for Reserves again within
the year
1.4 Retain course listings in TRELLIS for one year when not in use (suppressed
from public viewing)
1.5 Investigate the feasibility of making usage statistics directly available
to instructors
1.6 Assist faculty members with the integration of electronic course reserves
materials into their websites
1.7 Investigate the feasibility of streamlining the method of authenticating users
for restricted Reserves materials, for example, by using class lists and UWDir
authentication
Goal 2: Obtain more information about non-users
and what alternatives are being used
94% of those who took the survey indicated either a current, past or future
interest in using Reserves. In other words, our survey has not come close to
tapping the population that has no interest in Reserves. Although it is easy
to speculate on why non-users did not respond, it is disappointing not to have
some data on their reasons for not needing or using Reserves.
Nevertheless, some findings are possible from the 25 faculty who did respond and have not used Reserves.
72% of non-users indicated that they plan to use Reserves in some form in the future:
One non-user was a new faculty member who indicated not yet having had a chance to use Reserves. A recent library orientation session for new faculty at the University of Guelph resulted in a higher number of questions about Reserves, and especially electronic reserves, than any other subject. This latter point confirms that interest in Reserves is ongoing, and, when considered with the increasing numbers of new faculty coming into Waterloo over the next decade, indicates that a sustained demand for the Reserves service seems most likely.
If the Library obtained copyright clearance, 48% of non-user respondents would use electronic reserves; another 48% of this group of respondents answered “perhaps” to this question.
From the group that have used Reserves in the past year, two instructors responded that they have also been using Blackboard software for their courses. In these cases there continues to be an interest in electronic Reserves. In one case the instructor answered “perhaps” to making electronic reserves a part of a course website, presumably within Blackboard, and in the other case the answer was “yes.”
Of the respondents who have never used Reserves, more people answered "perhaps" to the question of making e-reserves a component of their website than indicated that they were even planning to have a website.
Recommendations:
2.1 Work with liaison librarians to increase awareness of Reserves services
during the orientation of new faculty to the Library
Goal 3: Gather information about the future
of Reserves in the electronic age
For some time library staff
have questioned whether there is still value to paper reserves for course notes
and assignment solutions, as increasingly information becomes available in digital
format. Responses to this survey indicate a significant need for the Library
to continue to offer traditional paper reserves. Of the 97 faculty respondents
who have used Reserves, when responding to a question about a "move to
electronic format only," 47 preferred to continue with paper reserves as
well. An additional 8 people preferred to continue with paper only; representing
a total of 57% of current or recent users who would be adversely affected by
a move to digital only.
A higher number of faculty put books on paper reserves than journal articles (about 50% compared to 30%) and comments indicated that some advocates for keeping paper reserves feel it is necessary primarily for books. However, as the number who use paper reserves for articles and for other material is still significant, for the moment there is a compelling reason to continue with this aspect of the service also. At the same time, experience from other universities indicates that libraries who take a more pro-active approach to mounting course notes and assignment solutions electronically are successful in their efforts, and that the majority of faculty members are pleased with the change.
Strong support also exists for electronic reserves: 46% of respondents who have used Reserves state that internet-connectivity is important for Reserves; 38% state that 24 hour electronic access is important for students; 31% state that e-reserves would solve many problems associated with paper reserves. 64% of those who have never used Reserves plan to use electronic reserves in the future.
These numbers by themselves indicate a significant demand for the service into the future. When answers to questions about copyright are considered, the demand is higher. The survey reveals that 49% of respondents who have used Reserves would make use of e-reserves if the Library were to obtain copyright clearance. An additional 43% answered “perhaps” to this question. Every increase in use of the service not only represents improved access for students, it also represents decreased demand for staff to perform the repetitive tasks of retrieving and re-filing paper reserves, thus freeing staff for other services.
The survey also shows that 22% of people who have used Reserves have concerns about the additional time that copyright clearance would take. Obtaining copyright clearances will always require some time, however this number does seem to mean that a reasonable turnaround time will not be an issue for most faculty. Over the past two years User Services staff have developed expertise in acquiring copyright permissions and have implemented procedures to fast-track requests [see sample spreadsheet in Appendix E]. The majority of permissions that are granted are received within two weeks from the time that staff place the request.
When asked who should pay any fees associated with obtaining copyright permission to mount material electronically, of respondents who have used the Library:
52% indicated the Library should pay
21% said the students should pay
16% said the department should pay
11% did not answer this question.
Interestingly, a statistically significant difference exists between faculty who have used Porter Reserves versus faculty who have used Davis – Davis faculty are more willing to have the department pay. Also, newer users of Reserves are much more willing to have the department pay than those faculty who have not used Reserves for a year or longer. Having a department pay, however, creates added work and inefficiency, as the Library would need to track the payments and bill the department. For this reason, and because the majority support the notion of the Library as payer, the recommendation of our Group is that the Library should pay these fees within limits.
Four comments questioned whether the Library planned to put full-text books on Reserves. In retrospect, the question that elicited these comments (see Appendix A, question 7) was incomplete and confusing.
Nevertheless a few respondents would welcome the Library obtaining access to electronic full-text. In a similar vein, a question was asked if the Library would mount an interactive CD-ROM on our web-server as part of electronic reserves.
Several comments made it clear that some faculty have moved beyond the need for the Library to mount material on the web because of course websites that they have already developed. In spite of these comments, 50% of respondents who have used Reserves, and who have or are planning to have a course website, said they would make e-reserves a component of their website, and the other 50% answered “perhaps” to this question (we cannot be sure these two groups are mutually exclusive, but by the nature of the questions they must be close to being so). About 50% of the faculty that have/are planning to have a website use Reserves for books or chapters, whereas about 27% use the Library’s Reserves service for articles (there could be overlap here - some of the same faculty using Reserves for both books and articles). This statistic corroborates the notion that for many faculty that have websites, Reserves is valuable primarily for library or faculty-owned books.
Recommendations:
3.1 Continue to support a paper reserves service in the Library
3.2 Move to electronic reserves in a much more proactive way
3.3 Develop guidelines for paying copyright clearance fees (i.e., perhaps a
ceiling per course based on students)
3.4 Proceed with offering a production-level copyright clearance service for
electronic reserves funded by the Library
Library Reserves Faculty Survey
The University of Waterloo Library is conducting a survey to assess our Library Reserves service. We are interested in how well our current service is meeting the needs of faculty. We are also seeking to understand better the future of paper and electronic reserves. Please complete this survey even if you do not use the Reserves service - your input will help in our assessment.
Your Home Department:
When was the last time you placed course material on Reserve in the Library?
Reserve locations used: (Please check all that apply)
Other Reserve Location:
What kind of material do you currently place on Reserve? (Please check all that apply)
Overall, were you satisfied with the service you received from Library Staff?
What improvements would you like to see? (Please check all that apply)
Other improvements:
Library experience indicates that the use of material increases when it is placed on electronic reserves. If the Library were to move to electronic format only when copyright permits, what would be your response? (Please check all that apply)
Other:
If the Library were to obtain permission to mount copyrighted material, would you make use of electronic reserves?
Who, in your opinion, should pay any associated copyright fees?
Do you currently, or are you planning to, have a course website?
Would electronic reserves be a component of your website?
Additional Comments:
Thank you for completing the Library Reserves Faculty Survey.
A summary of the results will be posted on the library website.
Please answer questions 12 through 17 if you answered "Never" to question 2:
What type of material do you currently use in your course outline? (Please check all that apply)
The Library recently introduced electronic reserves in addition to paper reserves. Which of the library's reserve services do you anticipate using in the future?
Library experience indicates that the students are very receptive to using electronic reserves. If the Library were to obtain permission to mount copyrighted material, would you make use of electronic reserves?
Who, in your opinion, should pay any associated copyright fees?
Do you currently, or are you planning to, have a course website?
Would electronic reserves be a component of your website?
Additional comments:
Thank you for completing the Library Reserves Faculty Survey.
A summary of the results will be posted on the library website.
| Reserve Usage Statistics 2002 |
||
Term |
Paper Use |
Electronic use |
|---|---|---|
Winter 2002 |
25,749 |
21,471 |
Spring 2002 |
10,459 |
21,085 |
Fall 2002 |
22,449 |
23,817 |
Note: despite the fact that a direct comparison between the two usage counts cannot be made due to other variables, the usage numbers indicate the popularity of electronic reserves for students.
Copyright Requests Tracking Spreadsheet |
||||||
| Request | Course | Material | Status | Completed | Comment | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002-05-01 |
PSYCH |
Baumeister et al. Self-presentational motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personality v.57 no.3 p.547-579 Blackwell |
|
G 2002.05.01 |
$0.00 |
|
2002-05-01 |
PSYCH |
Ross, M, A. Wilson: It feels like yesterday … Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. V. 85 # 5 May 2002 p. 7920803 |
incomplete |
G 2002.05.07 |
Received positive responses from authors but nothing from APA as of 05.06 |
|
2002-05-03 |
PSYCH |
Baumeister, R (ed) Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard New York, NY : Plenum Press, 1989 Chpt 4 B. Blaine & J Crocker: Self-esteem and self-serving biases in reactions to positive and negative events p.55-86 |
G 2002.05.04 |
$156.70 |
||
2002-05-02 |
PSYCH |
Baumeister, R (ed) Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard New York, NY : Plenum Press, 1989 Chpt 8.de la Ronde, C. & W.B. Swann: Caught in the cross-fire … p.147-161 |
G 2002.05.04 |
$156.70 |
||
2003-01-22 |
OPT |
Osborn & Zantos, Corneal desiccation staining with thin high water content contact lenses: CLAO Journal v.14 no.2 April 1988 |
G Letter dated 03-01-28 received 2003-02-06 |
For Winter 2003 |
$48.80 |
|
2003-02-20 |
BIOL |
Cohen, P "The Bodyguard" New Scientist. V.175 No. 2360 2002 pp28-33 |
Status requested Feb.20/03 and Mar.03/03 from Publisher: No response from Publisher. Request transferred to Access Copyright on March 20/03 |
G 2003-04-04 |
For Fall Term 2003 -Permission Granted from Access Copyright but $3108.00 too much to pay |
$0.00 |
Cost: |
$362.20 |
|||||
[1] James McCloskey, “Electronic Reserves in Support of Online Learning Communities: Report on a Pilot Project at Widener University." Journal of Access Services, 1 (2002).
[2] David Cohen, "Course-Management Software: Where's the Library?" EDUCAUSE review, May/June 2002.
User Services Assessment Group
libUSAC@library.uwaterloo.ca
| March 1, 2006 |
University of Waterloo Library
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
519 888 4883
contact us | give us feedback | privacy statement | © 2011
University of Waterloo