Walters (2003) states that the lack of
comprehensive understanding of the library collections
and services cause undergraduate students an inability to give a valid
assessment of the service quality. The author argues that undergraduate
students are not expert users of library services and are unfamiliar with
different services from other libraries. This, along with a lack of
objectivity, confirms that most undergraduate students are not good LibQUAL+ survey
participants.
Walters (2003) states that many students “haven’t been exposed to significant variations in quality, their expectations are conditioned by the level of service they’re accustomed to the level of service provided by their own college libraries” (p.99). This denotes that these students do not have experience with different services and systems and, therefore, cannot distinguish between good and bad services. Walters (2003) found that students have no valid grounds for determining the quality of services if the library has no clear and detailed standards. Students may evaluate given services from a different perspective than librarians. For example, Mendelsohn (1997, as cited in Walters, 2003) states “If the student thinks the job of the library is to supply him with the information he needs to do his project, then he may not feel that he ever gets quality service” (p.100). At the same time, if librarians think that good service is helping students be self-reliant and providing them with all needed information, then libraries will continue to offer a set of services without getting an accurate feedback from their users.
Walters (2003) suggests that faculty members are significantly more useful than students in evaluating the services due to their high expectations with diverse types of services. However, the author found that objective indicators, such as reliability and promptness, have a positive impact on evaluating the services. Librarians can measure the impact by tracking the cases that ended with unavailable items, such as a book, electronic resource, or database. Also, calculating the time of information retrieval, loan processes, book re-shelving, and other services is another objective meter. Walters (2003) states that students play a big role in determining these influences, which helps librarians set standards for library services. However, the author states that “the evidence used to assess compliances with standards should be objective rather than subjective: real data rather than users’ perceptions” (p.101).
In my opinion, these suggestions are very effective because they will help service evaluators analyze true statistical data rather than analyzing users’ awareness and understanding of the services. As previously mentioned, students may give inaccurate evaluations due to their lack of understanding when determining whether a service is good or bad. However, the author concludes that “users survey provide valuable information about patrons’ perceptions, that information is no substitute for objective standards based on professional knowledge” (p.98).
Walters (2003) states that many students “haven’t been exposed to significant variations in quality, their expectations are conditioned by the level of service they’re accustomed to the level of service provided by their own college libraries” (p.99). This denotes that these students do not have experience with different services and systems and, therefore, cannot distinguish between good and bad services. Walters (2003) found that students have no valid grounds for determining the quality of services if the library has no clear and detailed standards. Students may evaluate given services from a different perspective than librarians. For example, Mendelsohn (1997, as cited in Walters, 2003) states “If the student thinks the job of the library is to supply him with the information he needs to do his project, then he may not feel that he ever gets quality service” (p.100). At the same time, if librarians think that good service is helping students be self-reliant and providing them with all needed information, then libraries will continue to offer a set of services without getting an accurate feedback from their users.
Walters (2003) suggests that faculty members are significantly more useful than students in evaluating the services due to their high expectations with diverse types of services. However, the author found that objective indicators, such as reliability and promptness, have a positive impact on evaluating the services. Librarians can measure the impact by tracking the cases that ended with unavailable items, such as a book, electronic resource, or database. Also, calculating the time of information retrieval, loan processes, book re-shelving, and other services is another objective meter. Walters (2003) states that students play a big role in determining these influences, which helps librarians set standards for library services. However, the author states that “the evidence used to assess compliances with standards should be objective rather than subjective: real data rather than users’ perceptions” (p.101).
In my opinion, these suggestions are very effective because they will help service evaluators analyze true statistical data rather than analyzing users’ awareness and understanding of the services. As previously mentioned, students may give inaccurate evaluations due to their lack of understanding when determining whether a service is good or bad. However, the author concludes that “users survey provide valuable information about patrons’ perceptions, that information is no substitute for objective standards based on professional knowledge” (p.98).
Walters,
William H. (2003). Expertise and evidence in the assessment of library service
quality. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 4(3): 98-102.
No comments:
Post a Comment