Evidence Summary
Ongoing and Multifaceted Assessment of Academic Library Professional
Development Programs Enhances Their Efficacy
A Review of:
Harker, K. R., O'Toole, E., & Sassen, C.
(2018). Assessing an academic library professional development program. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 18(1),
199-223. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2018.0010
Reviewed by:
Rachel Elizabeth Scott
Integrated Library Systems Librarian
University Libraries
University of Memphis
Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America
Email: rescott3@memphis.edu
Received: 23 Feb. 2018 Accepted: 24 Apr. 2018
2018 Scott.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To analyze various measures of need, participation,
satisfaction, and impact of an academic library professional development
program.
Design – Multi-modal; surveys, curriculum vitae (CV)
analysis, and attendance statistics.
Setting – Academic library in the United States.
Subjects – Library faculty of all ranks.
Methods – Assessment of the Career Development Program began
with an interest survey conducted at the beginning of the fiscal year in which
participants ranked their interest in professional development topics.
Attendance statistics were collected at all program sessions and participants
were emailed post-event surveys comprised of three Likert-scale questions and
an open-ended question. Participants in the peer-review service were emailed a
survey with two Likert-scale questions and an open-ended question. All programs
and surveys were voluntary.
An “activities survey”
attempted to document counts of scholarly publications and presentations
according to geographic scope, format, and peer-review. However, due to low
response rates, the activities survey was replaced after two years with an
analysis of library faculty member CVs on a publicly-accessible university
website. The final assessment was a narrative annual report that drew on and
summarized all of the previously conducted assessments.
Main Results – Multi-modal assessment of the professional
development program improved its relevance and quality while also documenting
its impact.
Conclusion – Continuous and multi-faceted assessment of
professional development programs not only leads to improved efficacy, but also
provides accountability and details the value of the program to stakeholders.
Professional development programs promote scholarly productivity, which has
implications for the career satisfaction of academic librarians. Further
research should investigate the validity of professional development program
assessment instruments and identify which assessment methods are most effective
for evaluating professional development programs and measuring the impact of
this programming on scholarship.
Commentary
The study opens by
acknowledging the increasing demands for faculty librarians to publish and
their lack of preparation to do so. These findings—as well as the proposed
solution of professional development programs—are well documented in the
literature. Vilz and Poremski (2015) surveyed
academic librarians regarding their perceptions of and satisfaction with
support for tenure requirements and found that librarians were moderately
satisfied with support mechanisms that varied considerably. Sullivan et al.
(2013) published one of several case studies detailing how an academic library’s
professional development program was established or expanded and assessed. The
study at hand is unique in its variety of interventions and the agility of the
assessment.
The Koufogiannakis, Booth, and Brettle
ReLIANT critical appraisal tool (2006) provides a
useful framework for investigating the study design, the educational context,
results, and relevance. All of these will be briefly considered in the
subsequent paragraphs.
The objective and need
for the study were clearly stated, however the exact number of participants was
not. The data reported was collected over several years; accordingly, the
authors did not identify the exact number of subjects or describe them.
Instead, “sample” data was provided from an unspecified year. A variety of
research methodologies were employed in the study and the entirety of the
surveys employed were provided in the article’s appendices. Assessment
instruments were not validated and the authors identified that as an area for
future research.
The academic library
setting was similar to large, public academic libraries throughout the United
States. The program content was determined in part by participant ranking of
their professional development needs. The learning objectives and the amount of
instructional contact time for individual programs were not specified. The
reported data supported the author's conclusions. “Sample” results are clearly
presented in tables and were positive in respect to the intervention, though
not significantly so.
The reproducibility of
the study as presented is impaired by the small and shifting population and
multifaceted methodology. Nonetheless, several aspects of the study could be
employed to enhance professional development programming in similar settings.
The authors succeeded in opening “a discussion on the value of continuous
assessment using multiple measures” (p. 211). Their model of multi-modal,
iterative, and responsive professional development program assessment offers a
substantial and practical contribution to the academic library literature.
References
Koufogiannakis, D., Booth, A., & Brettle,
A. (2006). ReLIANT: Reader’s guide to the literature
on interventions addressing the need for education and training. Library & Information Research, 30(94), 44-51. Retrieved from http://www.lirgjournal.org.uk/lir/ojs/index.php/lir/index
Sullivan,
D., Leong, J., Yee, A., Giddens, D., & Phillips, R. (2013). Getting published: Group
support for academic librarians. Library
Management, 34(8/9), 690-704. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-03-2013-0026
Vilz, A. J., & Poremski, M. D.
(2015). Perceptions of support systems for tenure-track librarians. College & Undergraduate Libraries,
22(2), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2014.924845