Post 4: Performance Indicators for Principles 1 through 4

What follows below are the first four Principles with their related Performance Indicators. These are intended to be expectations — standards — which apply to all types of higher education libraries.  Nonetheless, each library must respond to its unique user population and institutional environment.

The 2011 Standards assume that each library will identify and select Performance Indicators that are congruent with its institution’s mission and contribute to institutional effectiveness.  A library may decide to create additional Performance Indicators that apply to its specific library type.  For example, a research library may want to add a Performance Indicator around open access, while a Performance Indicator concerning GED support might be appropriate for a community college.

Text: Principles 1 -4 (PDF)

Are there Performance Indicators, generally applicable to all types of higher education libraries, which should be added to what’s above? Is the relationship between the Principles and the Performance Indicators clear and intuitive?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Post 4: Performance Indicators for Principles 1 through 4

  1. Tim Richards says:

    I have used theses standards in the past to provide the context for an external program review and they were most helpful. Please understanmd that my comments originate from the perspective of one who sees ge reat value in the standards.

    1.2 Perhaps I’m stupid, or just obstinate — I don’t know what “map outcomes” means. This, IMHO, is jargon — do you mean “link”? According to this indicator, libraries are to “map outcomes” to “departmental and student affairs outcomes.” Do you mean that the outcomes that we develop support, and are consistent with, the outcomes that other components of the institution identify as being important? What departments? Student Affairs? Really? College and University student affairs programs undoubtedly strive to achieve many outcomes. My understanding of the role of academic libraries (I’ve been doing this for over 30 years) is to focus on academic, learning outcomes. I don’t find this useful guidance.

    1.4 This statement, in my opinion, is utterly useless — “convincing” to whom? I would find no value in this. I wouldn’t know how to measure my success at doing this. If you keep it, at least have the subject and verb in agreement. (i.e., add an “s” to demonstrate”)

    1.6 I am certainly in agreement that the library can have an influence on student retention. However, I think it is a stretch to include student retention in our standards. I would argue that student retention is a product or component of academic success. I urge you to strike “student retention” from this indicator.

    2.1 I think that including “and resist all efforts to censor library resources” is gratuitous. If we uphold the principles of intellectual freedom, are we not obligated to resist censorship?

    3. Educational Role: I admit to being curmudgeonly on this matter –I am actually a stong advocate of teaching students to be intelligent, critical con users of knowledge and information resources. I find the inclusion of “Information literate” in line 2 to be unnecessary — aren’t learners who can discover, access, and use information effectively for academic success, research, and lifelong learning information literate? I urge you to strike this term from the paragraph.