Presented at the CONUL Conference, July 2015, Athlone, Ireland by Monica Crump, NUI Galway. Abstract "This paper will present the evolution of a reading list service at NUI Galway. Up until 2010 academic staff were expected to ensure that the library had sufficient copies of the material they were recommending to their students. They were responsible for requesting the purchase of additional copies or the inclusion of material in the Desk Reserve (short loan) collection as they saw fit. In 2010, we identified that Desk Reserve material was being under-utilised relative to the significant amount of staff time required to manage it. At the same time student feedback indicated that the material they were asked to read was often not available in the library. Clearly academic staff were not doing a very good job at ensuring sufficient availability of reading list material. So we decided to introduce a Reading List Service. We asked academic staff to submit their reading lists to us and to provide information on class size, and we ourselves made judgements about how many copies of each book should be held to meet likely demand and whether some copies should be available for shorter loan periods. The evolution of the service since that time has been fraught with challenges and this paper will describe those: from the struggle to persuade academic staff to share with us what readings they are recommending, to the difficulties of releasing sufficient staff time to review the lists received and check them against our holdings. Student feedback however has gradually improved in terms of satisfaction with availability of prescribed readings. The service is now evolving further with the implementation of a Reading List Management System. This will significantly enhance the student experience of accessing readings, will make it easier for academic staff to create and edit their lists and will greatly facilitate our access to and analysis of reading lists. " Biography "Monica Crump is Head of Information Access and Learning Services at the National University of Ireland, Galway. In this role she combines responsibility for teaching and learning support, through the library’s subject support and academic writing centre teams, with acquisition and delivery of information resources, through the acquisitions, e-resources, cataloguing and ILL teams. In previous posts in NUI Galway, Monica has been Head of Bibliographic Services and Collection Management Librarian. Prior to that she had various library and non-library related posts, including researcher on EU Funded projects, web editor and project manager for a software development company. "

1. Monica Crump
NUI Galway
The Evolution of a
Reading List Service

2. • Desk Reserve Service
– Books placed in a defined, secured area
– Available for 3 hour or 24 hour loan
– Very high fines for late return
– Driven by academic staff requests
• Book Selection
– Books ordered based on requests from academic staff
– Number of copies determined by academic staff
– Limited input from subject librarians
The Traditional Service

3. • Analysis in 2009/10 showed almost half of desk reserve material
was NEVER borrowed!
• Highly staff-intensive
 0.75 FTE per annum spent moving material in and out of desk reserve
• Low student satisfaction
 32.7% dissatisfied with availability of reading list material
 Insufficient copies or NO copies of the material they needed
Why change was needed

4. Demise of Desk Reserve!
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/334/a/4/phoenix_final07_by_eedenartwork-d5mohzq.jpg
Birth of a new service!

5. • Academic Staff asked to submit their reading lists, and indicate:
– Which titles were core and background reading
– Which specific chapters students were to read
– Module Code and Class Size
• Our promise:
– Appropriate number of copies and loan status relative to class size
– Shorter loan periods (1-day and 3-day) on selected open access copies
– Purchase of an e-book version if available
– Scan of a single chapter or journal article for delivery via Blackboard
Reading List Service

6. A Success?
First 3 years of service:
• 7500 additional print books
purchased
• 350 e-books purchased
• 3500 items were given new
loan status
• 320 chapters or articles
scanned and delivered via
Blackboard
Improving student satisfaction:
6.4
6.45
6.5
6.55
6.6
6.65
6.7
6.75
6.8
6.85
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
UG Libqual Rating: “The printed library
materials I need for my work”

7. • We received reading lists from just 17% of the modules active in
2012/13
– Data on active modules difficult to obtain
– Some modules don’t have reading lists (e.g. thesis preparation, placements,
practical modules)
– But this still reflects a VERY LOW submission rate!
• Staff time involved in checking lists quite considerable
• Duplication of effort - if the same list is submitted year after year, it will
be checked multiple times
• Circulation statistics show steady decline in borrowing
– 39% less Loans in 2014/15 than in 2011/12
However!

8. • 47% believe reading lists are still important
• There is a clear divide in approach to prescribed readings; two
schools of thought emerging:
1. Students are more likely to read the content if it’s simply a
matter of clicking on a link, and more likely to read articles
than full books
VS
2. Students need to learn to search for information for
themselves
Qualitative Survey of Academic Staff

9. • 43% upload PDFs of articles or reports to Blackboard
• 25% upload scanned book chapters to Blackboard
• 20% provide links to web resources or YouTube videos
• 12% provide links to journal articles
• 3% provide links to e-books
1. Making Life Easier for Students

10. • 22% provide students with citations/references and expect them
to find the resources themselves
• 5% felt it was important to have students learn how to search
databases and find information for themselves, rather than
provide prescribed readings
• Desire expressed to avoid spoon-feeding students
2. Students should be able to search

11. • Reasons for not submitting lists to library:
– too busy or too heavy an admin load (15%)
– timing of requests for reading lists didn’t match when they worked
on reading lists (8%)
– lists weren’t finalised before the start of the Semester (5%)
– lists are subject to change (5%)
– easier to just put content on Blackboard (5%)
– content is already in the library (7%)
– easier to order the material, then library doesn’t need lists (5%)
Feedback on Reading List Service

12. • “one size fits all” approach doesn’t suit the variety of formats,
times of year, range of purposes and uses of reading lists
– E.g. reading lists created per topic and shared on lecture slides week by
week
• Too laborious to update lists and detail requirements
• Easier to buy book and scan chapter myself
Feedback on Reading List Service

13. • Accommodate the variety of needs and concerns expressed
• Improve workflow efficiency
• Reduce manual processes for library staff
• Reduce admin burden on academic staff
• Improve the student experience and satisfaction
Improving the Service – Goals:

14. The Solution?
Reading List Management System

15. • Integration with Blackboard
– Students get access to lists within Blackboard
– Including information on live library holdings and availability
– Including direct links to e-journal articles or e-books
– Academic staff only have to maintain one version of their list
• Integration with Library Catalogue
– Easy addition of references to lists for academic staff
– Easier checking against holdings for library staff
Benefits matching our Goals

16. • Alerts and Reports
– Library staff alerted to check updated or new lists
– No duplication of effort
– Updates can take place anytime throughout the Semester
• Integration with Book Vendors
– Direct order placement from within a list
• Easy inclusion of references to web content, YouTube, pdfs, etc.
• Ability to monitor student engagement with lists – views, click-
throughs, etc.
Benefits matching our Goals

17. • Success in Bid to NUI Galway Students Project Fund
• Procurement process complete and Talis Aspire selected
• Implementation now underway
• Difficulties getting data:
– Academic programme and module hierarchy
– Module owners
Progress to Date

18. • Pilot phase for Semester 1 2015/16
– Select early adopters (ca. 100 modules)
– Input 100 lists
– Early adopters encouraged to review and update their lists
– Lists exposed in relevant Blackboard module
– Showcasing, Demonstrations, Promotion
– New workflows for list analysis and follow up actions
Next Steps

19. • Wider rollout for Semester 2 2015/16
– Input of all lists received to date
– Academic staff encouraged to review and update their lists
– Lists exposed in relevant Blackboard module
– Advocacy, Liaison, Training
• Gather and report feedback from students and academic staff
• Wider advocacy to increase list availability beyond 17% for
2016/17
Further Rollout

20. • Clear communication of reading list requirements
• Workflow efficiency maximised
• Library holdings reflecting student needs
Final Destination