collection management – Learning through the Library

Spring cleaning your shelves.

Last chance reads & Literary weeds.

If you’ve ever heard the term “weeding” in the context of school libraries and pictured yourself in gumboots pulling dandelions from the fiction section—don’t worry, you’re not alone. But while it might sound like a gardening chore, weeding in libraries is a vital part of collection development. Think of it as removing the junk so the flowers can stand out—because every great library deserves to blossom.

Weeding, or deselection, is the process of removing outdated, damaged, irrelevant, or unused resources from the collection. It’s not about discarding books for the sake of it; it’s about curating a vibrant, purposeful collection that supports student learning, teacher needs, and curriculum goals. A well-weeded collection is easier to navigate, more appealing to browse, and more likely to be used. It’s the difference between a cluttered storeroom and a well-organised learning hub.

Here in our library, we’re about to begin a weeding process ahead of our fiction stocktake. From a logistical perspective, it gives us a chance to winnow what is not being effectively utilised and what is not supporting the ethos of our library. It also gives us the perfect opportunity to refresh the shelves and make space for stories that truly resonate with our readers. We’ll be using our Collection Development and Management Policy to guide our decisions, focusing on books that are outdated, physically unattractive (yes, those yellowed pages and cracked spines count!), or simply no longer meeting the needs of our school community. If it hasn’t been borrowed in years, doesn’t reflect current values, or makes students wrinkle their noses, it’s probably time to say goodbye.

However, I will add that I have an inner Book Dragon and that one is loathe to get rid of books. Therefore, just to make sure, we are going to give these books one last hurrah, we’re setting up a “Last Chance Borrow” display. This is a fun and engaging way to spotlight forgotten titles that might still have a spark of interest left in them. Students and staff will have the chance to browse and borrow these books before they’re officially retired. Who knows—maybe a hidden gem will find a new fan! It’s also a great opportunity to start conversations about what makes a book worth keeping and how our reading tastes evolve over time.

Our process of weeding is made easier by having a very clear policy and process. Our LMS, Oliver, provides us with a list of titles that have not been borrowed in recent times. This list, combined with our policy, helps us set clear parameters and ensures that our choices are thoughtful and consistent. We’re not just tossing out books—we’re making room for new voices, fresh ideas, and engaging reads that support literacy and learning. Weeding also helps us maintain a collection that’s inclusive, relevant, and aligned with our school’s educational goals.

Of course, weeding can be emotional. Saying goodbye to old favourites isn’t easy. But remember: a library isn’t a museum. It’s a living, breathing space for discovery and growth. And just like a garden, it needs regular tending. So grab your metaphorical secateurs, consult your policy, and let those literary flowers bloom. Your students—and your shelves—will thank you.

Reflection – Reviewing Digital Literature for a High School Library.

Reviewing Digital Literature for a High School Library.

A teacher librarian (TL) is tasked with ensuring the collection development and management policy (CDMP) suits the needs of the curriculum and the school community (Johnson, 2018).

Whilst the curation of the physical collection is well established, the rapidly evolving nature of digital resources makes the selection of digital literature (DL) more challenging. This complexity arises from the variety of emerging DL trends and their integration into the library management system (LMS) (Johnson, 2018, p.128; Hughes-Hassell & Mancall, 2005).

There has been much controversy regarding the efficacy of digital literature (DL) in education. Jeon (2012) suggests that DL has lower rates of comprehension in comparison to print, but Ross et al., (2017) believes that there is no notable difference between print, screen and tablet. The discrepancy is based upon the role digitisation plays in comprehension. Keen (2016) believes that digitisation increases engagement, improves learning outcomes and addresses the behavioural, cognitive and developmental needs of teenagers. Whereas Mitchell (2011) points out that not all digital texts are superior to print texts, and that DL needs to be evaluated against a set criteria to ensure that the enhancements promote the learning of literacy and language.

A printed text requires:

 a single literacy to gain access to the information.

However, DL needs the reader to be:

```
masterful with multiliteracies,
```
```
 competent with computation and 
```

dexterous with devices (Rettberg, 2012).

These skill requirements indicate that poor traditional literacy will translate to poor digital literacy because technology virtuosity and digital aptitude are not intuitive (Moore & Cahill, 2016, p.5; Brown & Czerniewicz, 2011). This necessity of explicit instruction has thoroughly debunked the myth of the digital native.

ACARA (2018) has included DL in the Australian Curriculum in an effort to address the multimodal and multiliteracy needs of the 21st century. The embedding of DL allows students to use these new technologies to connect to the curriculum, develop multiliteracies and competencies, which are essential for active citizenship in a digital society (MCEETYA, 2008; Cullen; 2015). Importantly, DL acknowledges students’ learning needs, the shift in the reading paradigm as well as the presence of participatory culture in modern society (O’Connell, Bates & Mitchell, 2015; Moore & Cahill, 2016, p.6).

There are several pedagogical implications of utilising DL in teaching practice. Visual ergonomics and information overload have significant impacts on the reader (Mangen, Walgermo & Bronnick., 2013). Print texts have strong visual permanence which aids comprehension, but in nonlinear hypertext narratives such as After 6/4, the inability to ‘flip back’ is a hindrance. However, both Schreuder’s digital novel and the Bible app provide linearity and a sequential storyline which facilitates text comprehension for low ability and literacy students (Gonzales, 2016; Botzakis, 2018).

Information overload is an issue in After 6/4 and Land of the Magic Flute. The multimodality of these resources require readers to critically evaluate the images, text and audio simultaneously, and this can overwhelm some students. But in Schreuder’s digital graphic novel, the arias give the reader time to process the multimodal information, whereas in After 6/4, the format enables the reader to navigate at their own pace.

Peggy_Marco / PixabayFrom a pedagogical perspective, app based learning such as the YouVersion Bible app are ideal for teenagers in a Catholic High school as it promotes engagement, increases motivation, provides access to online communities, allows for text anonymity and acknowledges the importance of a personal devices to a teenager’s social capital (Cullen, 2015; Vidales-Bolanos & Sadaba-Chalezquer, 2017; Yokota & Teale, 2014; Dickenson, 2014; Hashim & Vongkulluksn, 2018). This app also satisfies the requirement of enhancing the learning of language, and the supplementary videos assist in decoding and comprehension for EAL/D and learning needs students (Gonzales, 2016).

The major hurdle to implementing this app across the school is that it is an app. My school has a strong mobile phone policy due to persistent disciplinary issues (Selwyn, 2019). The current criteria does not permit its inclusion even though this app meets the educational, behavioural and behavioural needs of the students, as well as addressing the content requirements. This exclusion of this resource should question the validity of the CDMP and its selection criteria in this digital age (Johnson, 2018).

The reality is that teachers are very confused about young people and their literary preferences. Dickenson (2014) and Earp (2017) both agree that teens favour print, whereas Twenge et al., (2019) suggests that the internet and interactive media are the preferred medium due to the prevalence of participatory culture. But this preference does not always translate to successful classroom practice. Whilst students may have a strong inclination for DL, not all formats aid the learning of literacy and language. It would be poor professional practice to promote DL that impedes learning, just like its poor practice to exclude excellent resources due to an impediment in the CDMP.

But then… I did just that.

Sometimes our practice is as only good as the policies that frame it.

References:

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2018). Literacy. In Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/literacy/introduction/introduction

Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x

Dickenson, D. (2014). Children and reading: Literature review. Australia Council 2014. Retrieved from https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uploads/files/research/children-and-reading-literatur-5432557e418db.pdf.

Earp, J. (2017). Infographic – Teen reading habits. Teacher Magazine. Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/infographic-teen-reading-habits

Botzakis, S. (2018). Comics in the classroom: Using graphic novels for content learning. In D. Wooten, B. Cullinan, L. Liang & R. Allington (Eds). Children’s literature in the reading program: Engaging young readers in the 21st century, (5th ed., pp. 140-152). Retrieved from Proquest Ebook Central.

Cullen, M. (2015, December 21). How is interactive media changing the way children learn. In EducationTechnology. Retrieved from https://educationtechnologysolutions.com.au/2015/12/how-is-interactive-media-changing-the-way-children-learn/

Gonzalez, J. (2016, October 9). Graphic novels in the classroom: A teacher roundtable. Cult of Pedagogy. Retrieved from https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/teaching-graphic-novels/

Hashim, A & VongKulluskn, V. (2018). E reader apps and reading engagement: A descriptive case study. Computers and Education, 125, pp.358-375. Retrieved from https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-and-education

Hughes-Hassell, S., & Mancall, J. C. (2005). Collection management for youth : Responding to the needs of learners. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Jabr, F. (2013). The reading brain in the digital age: The science of paper versus screens. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/

Jeon, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 390-408. doi: 10.1108/02640471211241663

Johnson, P. (2018). Chapter 4 – Developing Collections. Fundamentals of Collection Development 4th Edition. ALA Editions. Chicago. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Books.

Keen, N. (2016). Stopping the slide: improving reading rates in the middle school. Connections, 99. Retrieved from https://www.scisdata.com/connections/issue-99/stopping-the-slide-improving-reading-rates-in-the-middle-school/

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Bronnick, K.A. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68.doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002

Mantei, J., Kipscombe, K., & Kervin, L. (2018). Literature in a digital environment (Ch. 13). In L. McDonald (Ed.), A literature companion for teachers. Marrickville, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA).

MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Curriculum Corporation. Australia. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf

Mitchell, P. (2011). Resourcing 21st century online Australian Curriculum: the role of school libraries. FYI: The Journal for School Information Professionals 15(2). Retrieved from CSU Library.

Moore, J., & Cahill, M. (2016). Audiobooks; Legitimate ‘reading’ material for adolescents? Research Journal of the American Association of School Librarians. Retrieved from www.ala.org/aasl/slr/volume19/moore-cah

Moorefield-Lang, H., & Gavigan, K. (2012). These aren’t your father’s: the new world of digital graphic novels. Knowledge Quest, 40(3), 30-35. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=b349502e-3dd2-48d3-9d9a-6beed7db31cc%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=82563984&db=lih

O’Connell, J., Bales, J., Mitchell, P. (2015). [R]Evolution in reading cultures: 2020 vision for school libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 63(3), 194-208. DOI: 10.1080/00049670.2015.1048043

Rettberg, J.W. (2012). Electronic literature seen from a distance: the beginnings of a field. Retrieved from http://www.dichtung-digital.org/2012/41/walker-rettberg.ht

Ross, B., Pechenkina, E., Aeschliman, C., & Chase, A. (2017). Print versus digital texts: understanding the experimental research and challenging the dichotomies. Research in Learning Technology 25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1976. Retrieved from https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1976/pdf_1

Selwyn, N. (2019). Banning mobile phones in schools: Beneficial or risky? SBS News. Retrieved from https://www.sbs.com.au/news/banning-mobile-phones-in-schools-beneficial-or-risky-here-s-what-the-evidence-says

Teen Reading In a Digital Era. (2017). Report at a glance – Teen Reading in a digital era. Murdoch University & Deakin University. Retrieved from https://teenreadingdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/teen-reading-folio-report_email.pdf

Twenge, J., Martin, G., & Spitzberg, B. (2019). Trends in U.S. adolescents’ media use, 1976-2016: the rise of media, the decline of tv, and the (near) demise of print. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 8(4). p.329-345. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/ppm-ppm0000203.pdf

Vidales-Bolanos, M., & Sadaba-Chalezquer, C. (2017). Connected Teens: Measuring the Impact of Mobile Phones on Social Relationships through Social Capital. Media Education Research Journal 53(25). Retrieved by https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1171085.pdf

Yokota, J., & Teale, W. (2014). Picture books and the digital world. The Reading Teacher 67(8), pp.577-585. DOI: 10.1002/trtr.1262

“It is in the DNA” – Assessment 2 – Part B

School libraries (SL) are more than books on shelves. To a fledgling teacher librarian (TL), libraries often imagine warehouses, where books awaits death and then reincarnation at Lifeline. The reality is different; collections are not inert. SL are dynamic; they constantly evolve to suit the needs of their community.

What makes a SL so dynamic? Well, like any organism, it’s all in the DNA, or for SL, it’s in the Collection Development and Management Policy (CDMP). The CDMP is the DNA of a SL and contains strategic data for growth in today’s splurge and is flexibliity in tomorrow’s freeze. If the DNA of a SL is without clear direction and missing data, then its ability to thrive, or even survive is in jeopardy. Consequently, TL need to be aware of the duality of a CDMP that prepares the collection for today’s needs, and tomorrow’s growth.

A school CMDP exists primarily to address the curriculum, the teaching and learning needs of its community as well as provide well-being (IFLA, 2015; ASLA & VCTL, 2018). Therefore, the policy needs to clearly reflect those needs when framing the purpose, selection principles, acquisition and censorship procedures. Along with other maintenance endeavours such as deselection and collection evaluation; all whilst staying within budget, bolstering literacy and well-being. It is not a small task and definitely not for the faint hearted. But then TL are not faint hearted (Templeton, 2019a).

The development and management of a collection involves many facets.

Understanding the information evolution and its implications on education and wider society is crucial. TL need to be aware that previous resource acquisition has evolved now into information facilitation paradigm (Kelly, 2015). With publishers rapidly changing their delivery from print to digital formats (Templeton, 2019b), the repercussions on formats and licencing are momentous.
Online Subscriptions – Cheaper? or Not?
Being able to select resources using criteria to ensure the collection is balanced and addresses the needs of the community. (Templeton, 2019a)
Knowledge of how resources may be packaged for cost efficiency, and evaluating that against the value of each of those titles is a challenging task (Templeton, 2019c; Templeton, 2019d. (Module 2 – Online Access) (Module 2 – Bundling together)
Being able to manage collections thriftily is necessary when SL budgets are constantly squeezed (Softlink, 2018; Templeton, 2019e).
Shrinking Budgets
Information literacy is an essential aspect of future focused learners (MCEETYA, 2008). The CDMP policy needs to make provision for information literacy to ensure that students have the skills to access and utilise the collection. The inclusion of literacy programs only further strengthens a SL position within a school (Templeton, 2019l; Templeton, 2019f). .
Awareness of censorship and its role in SL (Templeton, 2019g).
Challenging the censors
Linking budget to student population is an effective manner to secure funds that suit the growth/decline of the school community (IFLA, 2015, p.6) versus being dependent on yearly fixed sums.

Besides building a collection, a CDMP contains procedures that maintains its value and its ability to service the needs of their community.

Measuring outputs and outcomes are useful in analysing the effectiveness and efficacy of a collection (Templeton, 2019h).
1. Being able to link the collection value to qualitative and quantitative data validates the collection and program (Templeton, 2019i). A recent study by Sutton et al., (2017) show that altmetrics are useful in the evaluation of collections. Power (2019) suggests that both qualitative and quantitative methods are used.
2. Linking educational outcomes to collections as evidence for continuing financial support for resources, especially digital subscriptions, is judicial. Journal subscriptions are very expensive and a TL would need to prove value if there is insufficient evidence to indicate positive outcomes (Jubb et al., 2017). Journal databases, like many other electronic resources, may be economical up front, but often require long term subscription.

Technology is rapidly changing and consequently now, the same information is available in multiple formats. TL need to be aware of this paradigm when committing to subscription resources as it is more than just a commitment for the current cohort of students (Anderson, 2008). It is a financial commitment for future generations.

A strong CDMP ensures that a library collection addresses the needs of their community, and the rewards are high resource outputs and user outcomes. What TLs all over the world do not want are libraries with numerous books that are not utilised or under utilised. Tsundoku is the affliction of purchasing resources that no one uses (Templeton, 2019j).

An unused collection is an ineffective collection. It is very hard to justify a collection that has failed to prove their value their community. It is even harder to justify the presence of TL with a collection that is not relevant.

REFERENCES for BLOG

Anderson, R. (2008). Future proofing the library; Strategies for acquisitions, cataloguing and collection development. The Serials Librarian. 55 (4). doi:10.1080/03615260802399908

ASLA & VCTL (2018). A manual for developing policies and procedures in Australian school library resources centres 2nd Edition. ALIA. Retrieved from https://asla.org.au/resources/Documents/Website%20Documents/Policies/policies-procedures-manual_ed2.pdf

IFLA (2015). School library guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/school-libraries-resource-centers/publications/ifla-school-library-guidelines.pdf

Jantti, M., and Cox, B. (2013). Measuring the value of library resources and student academic performance through relational datasets. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. 8 (2), 163-171. {Conference Paper}

Jubb, M., Rowlands, I., and Nicholas, D. (2013). Values of libraries: Relationships between provisions, usage, and research outcomes. Evidence Based Library and Informative Practice. 8(2), 139-152 {Conference Paper}

Kelly, M. (2015). Collection development policies in public libraries in Australia: A qualitative content analysis. Public Library Quarterly. 34, 44-62

MCEETYA (2008) Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Curriculum Corporation. Australia. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf

Power, K (2019) Forum 5.1 – Methods of Collection Analysis. ETL503 Discussion Forum. CSU. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_42383_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_78886_1&forum_id=_147540_1&message_id=_2304873_1

Softlink (2018) Australia and New Zealand school library survey. Retrieved from https://www.softlinkint.com/downloads/2018_Softlink_Australian_and_New_Zealand_School_Library_Survey_Report.pdf

Sutton, S., Miles, R., and Konkiel, S., (2017) Is what’s “Trending” whats worth purchasing? Insights from a national study of collection development librarians. The Serials Librarian. Vol 72 (1-4) pp.134-143. DOI 10.1080/0361526X.2017.1297593

Templeton, T. (2019a) Benign or Malignant. Trish’s trek into bookspace. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/trish/2019/03/24/benign-or-malignant-how-do-you-diagnose/’

Templeton, T. (2019b) Shatzins files – publishers to perish. Forum 1.1. ETL 503 Discussion Forums. CSU. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_42383_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_78886_1&forum_id=_147529_1&message_id=_2152285_1

Templeton, T. (2019c) Online access. Forum 2.3. ETL 503 Discussion Forums. CSU. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_42383_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_78886_1&forum_id=_147533_1&message_id=_2185290_1

Templeton, T. (2019d) Bundling resources. Forum 2.3. ETL 503 Discussion Forums. CSU. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_42383_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_78886_1&forum_id=_147533_1&message_id=_2185169_1

Templeton, T. (2019e) Module 3 – Managing collections thriftily. Trish’s trek into bookspace. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/trish/2019/04/20/managing-collections-thriftily/

Templeton, T. (2019f) Module 5.3a– Information literacy. Trish’s trek into bookspace. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/trish/2019/05/21/module-5-3a-information-literacy/

Templeton, T. (2019g) Modules 2 & 6 0 13 reasons why – censorship and selection. Trish’s trek into bookspace. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/trish/2019/03/12/13-reasons-why-censorship-and-selection/

Templeton, T. (2019h) Forum 3.1. ETL 503 Discussion Forums. CSU. Retrieved from https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_42383_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&conf_id=_78886_1&forum_id=_147536_1&message_id=_2249448_1

Templeton, T. (2019i) Module 5.1 – Evaluating the collection.- Keeping it real. Trish’s trek into bookspace. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/trish/2019/04/29/evaluating-the-collection-keeping-it-real/

Templeton, T. (2019j) Module 1 – Library collections. Trish’s trek into bookspace. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/trish/2019/03/11/library-collections/

Templeton, T. (2019k) Module 1 – Curriculum + information + access = Superhero. Trish’s trek into bookspace. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/trish/2019/03/13/curriculum-information-access-superhero/

Templeton, T. (2019l) Reluctant readers – would fact be better than fiction? Trish’s trek into bookspace. Retrieved from https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/trish/2019/03/11/reluctant-readers-would-facts-be-better-than-fiction/

Module 5.1 – Evaluating the collection – Keeping it real!

Library collection evaluation is essential to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of its community. Johnson (2014) suggests that evaluation measures the utility and effectiveness of the resources within the library. This means that the data collated assists ensuring the value of the collection is maintained as well as assisting in collection developmental decision making in order to future proof the collection. The evaluation assesses that the collection remains balanced and inclusive; meets the needs of the students; reflects changes in technology and that it continues to be of value to learners (Nat. Lib of NZ, n.d.). TLs use the results of the evaluation to determine which shortfalls need to be remedied. These remedies could be as simple as increasing the number of resources, to a systematic change in the selection policies in order to adapt to the changing needs of the school (Nat. Lib. of NZ, n.d.). Irrespective of the remedies suggested, the result is a collection that suits the needs of the community, which is the primary purpose of a library.

One of the reasons that collections require evaluation is that libraries are no longer ‘just in case’ providers of information. In the past, when public monies were freely given to libraries, many collections held resources ‘just in case’ they were required (Grigg, 2012). But this trend has changed. The most pressing problem facing libraries is finances with many generally struggling to maintain their funds and resourcing. Therefore the halcyon days of endless monies are over, and with it, free range purchasing, which means that there needs to be an accountability of what is in the library and how it suits the community it services.

There are many ways collection evaluation can be accomplished using outputs and outcomes. Johnson (2014) separates them into user/use based vs collection based and qualitative vs quantitative based. These methods include usage statistics of resources, formats, age and condition of materials, breadth and depth of resources as well as language style (Johnson, 2014). Arizona State Library (2015) is similar in its terminology such as collection centred and client centred as well as qualitative and quantitative measures. Ideally, evaluation should be spread between the subsections in order to get a holistic view of the collection. On the other hand, Grigg (2012) suggests that usage data, overlap analysis, survey instruments, benchmarking, focus groups and a balanced scorecard method are methods of evaluating collections. Both examples cite usage statistics as method of evaluation which indicates that it is an excellent source of evaluative data.

Usage data identify which resources are used most frequently and which are not and are easily collected using the library information management system. Often described as output measures, this data is essential for digital resources, such as databases and subscription services, which often are very expensive. Resources that are insufficiently used within a school context need to reassessed as to their value to that community. There is no point holding onto resources that are simply not used sufficiently (Hart, 2003).

There are hurdles to successfully completing a collection evaluation. The primary one is time. This is a process that requires a significant amount of time. Unfortunately, the second most common thing teacher librarians complain about is lack of time. Timing becomes more of an issue when specialist collections need to be evaluated, as subject specific teachers are often required to collaborate on the usefulness of the collection. Ways to speed up the evaluation process include; ensuring that the collection is mapped to the curriculum; surveying the staff and students to determine needs and wants; and lastly; relevant reports are generated from the management system to gauge usage (Nat Lib. NZ, n.d.). All of these parameters provide a TL with what resources are required by the community of learners and thus anything additional is superfluous. These processes, whilst time consuming and require a strong commitment by staff, have significant benefits. These benefits include ensuring that the collection continues to meet the needs of the community and future proofing the collection. Additionally, one could argue that failing to allocate time and resourcing to regularly evaluate the collection could result in its value diminishing. All staff and students, as stakeholders, are affected if the collection loses its value, reliability, currency and appeal.

A method employed by many TLs in evaluating their collection, is to complete sections in short bursts. National Library of NZ (n.d.) suggests that collection analysis is priortised when a new unit of work is created and or commenced. Completing an assessment of the collection at this time ensures that the resources are judiciously buttressing the learning outcomes of the unit. This evaluation can assist in the creation of Lib guides for teachers to help with their teaching and learning activities and to promote the value of the collection to the community. In short, collection evaluation is a necessary part of library resource management and needs to be an ongoing process with a framework and fixed goals. Without regular assessment, there will be little evidence to ensure that the resources match the curriculum and needs of the community.

References

Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. (2015). Collection Assessment & Mapping. Retrieved from https://www.azlibrary.gov/libdev/continuing-education/cdt/collection-assessment-mapping

Grigg, K. (2012). Assessment and evaluation of e-book collections. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Building and managing e-book collections (pp. 127-137). Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=1158439

Hart, A. (2003). Collection analysis: powerful ways to collect, analyze, and present your data. In C. Andronik (Ed.), School Library Management (5th ed., pp. 88-91) Worthington, Ohio: Linworth (on e-reserve)

Johnson, P. (2014). Fundamentals of collection development and management [American Library Association version]. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/lib/csuau/reader.action?docID=1711419&ppg=312

Lamb, A. & Johnson, L. (2014). Library media program: collection mapping. The school library media specialist. Retrieved from http://eduscapes.com/sms/program/mapping.html

National Library of NZ (n.d.) Assessing your school library collection. Retrieved from https://natlib.govt.nz/schools/school-libraries/collections-and-resources/assessing-your-school-library-collection?search%5Bpath%5D=items&search%5Btext%5D=assessing+your+school+library+collection

Module 3.1 – Outcomes vs Outputs

Budgetary concerns plague most libraries. Nearly two thirds of school libraries are funded inadequately and teacher librarians are often forced to decide between resources as to their value to the collection and the community (Softlink, 2017). With monies being so tightly constrained, resources, especially expensive digital resources need to prove their value to school in order to retain their subscriptions. Teacher librarians can use a variety of indicators to illustrate the value of their collection and output measures are frequently used to determine the value of a resource and service.

Matthews (2015) defines output measures as the “degree to which a library’s resources and services are being utilised… the more the resources and services are being used the better” (p.211). Borrowing rates, subscription rates, database statistics are all measurements of how often a resource and service is borrowed and or utilised. An under-used resource is not achieving its highest potential and thus other services should be prioritised instead of it. Whilst easily quantifiable, these statistics point out how frequently a resource and service is accessed. It does not highlight though if the information in the resource was used and converted into knowledge. It also does not highlight if the resource had a positive affect. A great example of resources that have low rates but high affect would be print magazines. At my school library we have a print subscription to a few magazines that we send to the teachers lounge, once they are no longer required in the library. These magazines, according to the data, are never loaned before they are moved on, but the positive affect they have in the staff lounge is immense. We rarely find those magazines in their entirety. Quite often there will be recipes and or idea pages snipped out of them. They then migrate to the art room where they end up as collage material for students. The output data would say that these magazines have little value to the school community but the truth is very different.

Matthews (2015) points out that outcome measures are more significant and should have a higher value as they indicate how the user’s life was changed as a result of the resource and or service. The value lies in that the focus is the user/customer and not the resource itself. Outcomes include attitudes, values, inspiration, knowledge, understanding as well as enjoyment and creativity. Some long term outcomes are difficult to measure and categorise as they often happen years after the student has graduated. An example of short term outcome measurement are assessments that evaluate a user’s knowledge and skills. Whereas a long term outcome measurement could be a person’s social status, lifestyle and income. Both examples show how the measurements are transient from learning to a social and economic change. In other words, outcomes are placed on a continuum and whilst harder to measure, have a greater value in their result.

Matthews, J., (2015) Assessing outcomes and value: it’s all a matter of perspective. Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 16 Issue: 3, pp.211-233, https://doi.org/10.1108/ PMM-10-2015-0034 Permanent link to this

Softlink. (2017). 2017 Australian and New Zealand school library survey. Retrieved from https://www.softlinkint.com/downloads/2017_Softlink_Australian_and_New_Zealand_School_Library_Survey_Report.pdf