Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Copyright statement
Copyright David Consiglio, Pattie Orr, Carol Peddie, Patricia Schoknecht, Douglas West, and Andrew White, 2006.
This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the authors. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors.
Measuring for Soup: The MISO Survey
David ConsiglioPattie Orr
Carol PeddiePatricia SchoknechtDouglas West
Andrew White Educause - October, 2006
What is MISO?
Merged Information Services Organizations Survey“The Bryn Mawr Survey”
A web-based quantitative survey designed to measure use and effectiveness for students, faculty, and staff of the services and resources of merged library and computing units
Survey Timeline
V1.0 – developed by Bryn Mawr College Discussed at a CLIR meeting with CIOs of other
merged schools
V2.0 – developed by team of 5 schools Fall, 2005 (5 schools); Spring, 2006 (14 schools) Another cohort of schools in spring 2007
Longitudinal data will be the most powerful Many of the original schools to participate again in
Spring, 2008
Survey Participants
Developer schools
Middlebury College
Mills College
Mitchell College
Mt. Holyoke College
Rhodes College
The University of the South
University of Richmond
Wagner College (non-merged)
Wellesley College
Wheaton College (MA)
Barnard College
Bates College
Beloit College
Brandeis University
Bryn Mawr College
Bucknell College
Connecticut College
Dickinson College
Earlham College
Kenyon College
Survey Questions
Three instruments developed
Faculty
Staff
Students
Three question categories
Core
Optional
Local
Survey Logistics
Full population of faculty and staff
Sample 700 students (based on similar size populations)
Confidential but not anonymous
IRB approval required
Information Sharing Agreement required
Responses per Institution(25th-75th percentile)
Mean Rate (%)Faculty 137 56
(105-156) (50-64)
Staff 168 51 (116-205) (44-60)
Students 228 32 (162-270) (22-38)
What Tools Do People Use?
0 20 40 60 80 100
Discipline-specific s/wDigital audio
SlidesIn-class stud comp use
Portable drivesDigital video
Library research instrTech-enh stud present
Online course reservesDigital images
VideotapesTech-enhanced lectures
Burn CDsStudent library research
Physical course reservesCourse mgmt system
Faculty
Tools – Academic Purposes
Tools – Work Purposes
0 20 40 60 80 100
Digitalimages
Web pagedevelop
Burn CDs
Staff
Student Tools
0 20 40 60 80 100
Blogs
Videotapes
Burn DVDs
Portable media devices
Digital video
Digital audio
Digital images
Discussion boards
Instant messaging
Slides
Portable drives
Paper course packs
Burn CDs
In-class student computer use
Physical course reserves
Online course reserves
Library Research
CMS
Academic
Personal
Importance
How important are these services to you?1 = Not important
2 = Somewhat important
3 = Important
4 = Very important
X = Not applicable
Importance Faculty Students
StaffERP X X XAccess to online resources/off campus X X XComputing help desk X XLibrary website X XLibrary catalog X XLibrary databases X XLibrary circulation X XLibrary reference X XInterlibrary loan XTechnology in classrooms XSupport for technology in classrooms XInstructional technology support XOn-campus computer labs XWireless on campus XCourse management system XOnline course reserves X
Importance
Faculty Students StaffLibrary catalog 1 3Access online res/off-campus 2 3Library databases 3 4Library circulation 4Technology in classrooms 5On-campus computer labs 1ERP 2 2Wireless on campus 5Computing help desk 1
Satisfaction
How dissatisfied or satisfied are you with these services?1 = Dissatisfied
2 = Somewhat dissatisfied
3 = Somewhat satisfied
4 = Satisfied
X = Not applicable
Satisfaction
Faculty Students Staff
Service 54 64 54
% of variability in ratings of satisfaction that can be explained by the service being rated
Satisfaction Rank*[# of items]
Faculty Staff StudentsLibrary 9.2 [11] 9.0 [8] 8.6 [9]
Telephone 15.5 [2] 18.2 [2] 16.5 [3]
Computing 26.2 [16] 20.9 [16] 18.4 [8]
Network 27.9 [7] 25.6 [7] 23.4 [7]
Instructional 28.9 [5] 28.2 [2] 14.5 [2]
ERP 36.8 [3] 26.5 [3] 10.0 [1]
*Lower rank = higher satisfaction
How Informed Are You?1 = not inform, 2 = sw inform, 3 = inform, 4 = v. inform
Faculty Staff Students
Library service 2.76 2.24 2.55
Technol service 2.52 2.34 2.36
System downtime 2.80 2.29 2.94
Privacy 2.22 2.08 2.06
Virus/Spyware 2.25 2.29 2.18
Information 2.13 2.16 2.07security
Knowing Whom to Contact1 = disagree, 2 = sw disagree, 3 = sw agree, 4 = agree
Faculty Staff
Library needs 3.68 3.58 (3.63-3.76) (3.49-3.66)
Instructional 3.36 technology (3.25-3.48)
Desktop 3.34 3.48support (3.23-3.41) (3.43-3.61)
ERP needs 2.95 3.42(2.75-3.11) (3.27-3.55)
Input into Decisions1 = dissatis, 2 = sw dissatis, 3 = sw satis, 4 = satis
Faculty Staff Students
Library 3.18 3.31 3.05(3.05-3.29) (3.21-3.39) (2.97-3.15)
Computing 2.96 3.12 3.01(2.81-3.14) (2.97-3.26) (2.95-3.10)
Interest in Learning1 = not interest; 2 = sw interest; 3 = interest; 4 = v interest
Faculty Staff Students
Interest 1.86 2.04 2.14
# of items 20 20 18
Skill Level and Interest in Learning
Low
Low
High
High
Interest in Learning
Skill Level
Emergent/SpecializedAudio/VideoDatabaseGraphicsMath/StatisticsSpatial analysisWeb authoringClassrm technol
Common
EmailSearch enginesSpreadsheetWord processingBacking up data
Skill Level and Interest in Learning
Low
Low
High
High
Interest in Learning
Skill Level
Common
Powerpoint – Faculty/Students
Voicemail - Staff
Zero
Powerpoint – Staff
Voicemail – Faculty/Students
Skill Level and Interest in LearningERP, Online catalog, OS
Low
Low
High
High
Interest in Learning
Skill Level
Common - Students
Zero - Faculty
Specialized - Staff
Skill Level and Interest in Learning
Low
Low
High
High
Interest in Learning
Skill Level
Emergent/Specialized
CMS – Faculty/Staff
IM – FacultyLibrary DBs - Staff
Zero
CMS - Students
IM – Staff/StudentsLibrary DBs – Faculty/Students
Learning Methods and Skill LevelCorrelation Coefficients
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
One-on-One Workshop Online Tutorial Documentation Trial and Error
Faculty
Students
Staff
What does this survey say about merged computing and library organizations?
The surveyed schools are doing a good job of meeting the needs of their populations
The items that are important to faculty and students revolve around digital information access
Not as much as it could since we don’t yet have a comparable population of non-merged schools
