KENYON COLLEGE

MISO Survey Results: Faculty

2006 and 2009

Report to the Faculty on the 2009 MISO Survey By Ron Griggs, VP for LBIS July 24th, 2009

2

1. Introduction The MISO survey is a web-based quantitative survey designed to measure how faculty, students, and staff view library and computing services in higher education, especially in institutions where library and computing services have merged. MISO stands for Merged Information Services Organizations. The survey was developed at Bryn Mawr after the merger of their library and the information technology department in 2002. The first survey was in 2005 and has been given annually since then, though most organizations do not participate every year. Kenyon participated in 2006 and 2009. Participants are generally small liberal arts colleges, and have included schools such as Bates, Beloit, Bryn Mawr, Bucknell, Connecticut College, Earlham, Haverford, Lafayette, Middlebury, OWU, Rhodes, Sewanee, St. Lawrence, and Wheaton. With two years of participation for analysis, as well as comparison of Kenyon’s results with the national averages, I have some confidence in the results. In reviewing this year’s results, one particular comment struck me. One faculty wrote that he/she had participated in the surveys both years but had neither seen the survey results from the first survey nor had seen any subsequent changes, suggesting that his/her effort was wasted. The comment was stinging, but very much to the point. In this report, you will see the results of both surveys along with considerable commentary on our interpretation of the results. In addition, I will describe the specific efforts made in response to the 2006 survey to determine if they were successful. I will also review aspects of the 2009 survey and our planning for 2009/2010 in response. 2. Participation The 2009 rate of survey participation for Kenyon faculty was 51.4% (127/247), which is lower than the 2009 national average of 54.8% and lower than Kenyon’s participation in 2006 (56.3%). Two factors may account for this. First, we invited adjunct and emeriti faculty to participate in the survey in 2009, increasing the pool of invitees from 213 to 247. So we actually received more completed surveys in 2009 (127 vs. 120 in 2006), though the response rate was lower. Second, it must be stated that lack of feedback to the faculty from the2006 survey could have reduced participation in 2009. Kenyon National Ave. High Low 2006 56.3% (120/213) 50.6% 68.5% 34.8% 2009 51.4% (127/247) 54.8% 74.2% 38.6%

3

Kenyon has elected to participate in the MISO survey every three years, to limit the impact on the faculty, staff, and students who complete the survey and to give LBIS time to review and respond to the results. Kenyon will participate again in the spring of 2012. 3. Notes on scores and comparisons The core of the survey—faculty ratings of the importance of and satisfaction with LBIS services—is reported on a 4 point scale, similar to a grade. In theory, a score of 2.00 or below is an indication of widespread dissatisfaction among the faculty. Reviewing the scores from other schools, however, the lowest satisfaction scores are around 2.50, which suggests that—as a general rule—scores below 3.00 should be of concern. Certain services are rated higher or lower across all schools, so reviewing Kenyon’s ratings is always done with a national average as a comparison point. 4. Satisfaction Chart 1 shows faculty ratings of satisfaction with LBIS services for 2006 and 2009, along with the national averages in the same categories. The chart indicates when faculty satisfaction has improved or declined from 2006 to 2009. It also indicates whether faculty satisfaction at Kenyon is higher, the same, or lower than the national average. The services and scores are sorted from least to most satisfaction by the faculty for 2006. Below is a detailed commentary on the specific services, including our analysis, actions that we had taken since 2006, and actions that we intend to take in 2009/2010.

Video conferencing. Video conferencing was the lowest rated LBIS service in both 2006 and 2009. The rating improved from 2006 to 2009, but remained below the national average. Video conferencing is generally rated very low nationally—Kenyon is just lower than most. It is also perhaps the least used service: the raw survey results suggested that only five faculty members ever used videoconferencing in 2008/2009. After 2006, the video conferencing room was relocated to the library partly to address this issue, assuming that the previous locations for videoconferencing—Ascension and the KAC—were not convenient for faculty. Videoconferencing technology is still complex and not very reliable, and so to a certain extent we interpret the low score as dissatisfaction with the state of the technology and the lack of a dedicated staff member to operate the videoconferencing equipment for faculty. Another idea is that the faculty’s relative dissatisfaction is not so much with the videoconferencing room, but with the lack of other offerings, such as support for desktop videoconferencing.

Course Management System. The Course Management System rating showed considerable improvement from 2006 to 2009, though still relatively low and below the national average. In 2006, the CMS was Segue, an open source system developed at Middlebury. In 2006, faculty use and faculty’s sense of the importance

4

of the service were also very low. In 2007, LBIS began the process to migrate to Moodle, another CMS that garnered the highest rating in usability is a faculty survey conducted by NITLE. In 2009, faculty use is up significantly (from 1.78 to 2.39 on a 5 point scale); faculty’s sense of the importance of the service is also up significantly (from 1.90 to 2.38 on a 4 point scale.) In general, then, all indicators are up for the Moodle CMS, though we believe that faculty require additional training and support in 2009/2010.

Support for your specialized computing needs. The 3rd lowest rated area in

2006, again this improved somewhat from 2006 to 2009, though it is still a bit below the national average. We could not find any pattern among the various institutions, other than a slight positive correlation with the size of the school (i.e. the larger the school, the higher the satisfaction score.) After 2006, we attempted to be more accommodating for faculty who asked for unusual computing equipment or configurations. If that contributed to the increase, it had a small effect. Our best interpretation today is that faculty would like dedicated LBIS staff time for programming and other technical services that they are unwilling or unable to provide for themselves. This is very unlikely without new positions, something not foreseeable in the near future. One possible action is to more actively help faculty find external opportunities and resources to satisfy specialized needs.

Your input into computing decisions that affect you. This relatively low rated

service improved very slightly from 2006 to 2009, and is essentially at the national average. Apparently faculty everywhere are not especially satisfied that they have input into computing decisions that affect them. LBIS has worked hard in the past two years to improve the connections with the CPC and the CPC Technology subcommittee, primarily to address this issue. Interestingly, a survey of LBIS staff would almost certainly generate the same results: so many computing decisions are forced on us, especially software upgrades, that we have little choice except in the timing. Vendors, security issues, and support agreements all drive computing changes and leave almost no opportunity for real decision making.

Your input into library decisions that affect you. This relatively low rated

service improved significantly from 2006 to 2009, though it is still slightly below the national average. We intend to review the subject area collection development plans in 2009/2010 to ensure that all faculty are aware of and have input into the library resources purchasing process.

E-mail SPAM filtering. Faculty satisfaction for this service improved significantly

for this service, but—interestingly—the national average improved even more, so Kenyon’s rating is below the national average. Students, on the other hand, have a declining satisfaction for this service. By objective measures, more spam is blocked and a higher percentage of spam is blocked now than before. However, the volume of spam is such that even if this is true, the amount a spam getting through is still higher. Consider the scenario: if 80% of 100 spam messages a day are blocked,

5

then you receive 20 each day. If later, 95% of 1000 spam messages a day are blocked, then you receive 50 each day. The spam filtering is improving, but your experience is not. This is clearly an area that requires more focus in 2009/2010.

Support for your innovative ideas. Faculty satisfaction improved significantly

(from 3.02 to 3.21) to move from slightly below the national average in 2006 to slightly above the national average in 2009. Honestly, we cannot identify specific actions that LBIS took regarding this, but we are pleased with the result.

Instructional technology support. Faculty satisfaction improved significantly (from 3.20 to 3.34) but remains slightly below the national average. In the fall of 2008, LBIS created a team dedicated to supporting classrooms and computer classrooms, which included hiring a new staff member dedicated to classroom technology and to support for special events (Tim Neviska). Feedback from faculty in 2008/2009 indicated that Tim’s work was of high quality, though it appears that more work must be done to improve support to faculty.

Helpline. Faculty satisfaction improved significantly (from 3.22 to 3.39) to move

from below the national average to reach the national average. In 2008/2009, our new Helpline Manager, Brandon Warga, focused on improving the professional demeanor of the Helpline staff, improving the response time to problems in conjunction with the Desktop Support Team, and keeping people up to date with the status of their problem. These efforts are likely to have helped to increase faculty satisfaction somewhat. We anticipate that an effort in 2009/2010 to improve the Helpline staff’s ability to solve common problems on their own will further increase faculty satisfaction.

Technology instruction for academic courses. Faculty satisfaction improved

somewhat (from 3.24 to 3.36) to move from below the national average to reach the national average.

Support for technology in classrooms. Faculty satisfaction improved significantly (from 3.26 to 3.43) at Kenyon, mirroring a significant change in the national average (from 3.27 to 3.39). I interpret this to mean that all schools have recognized the need to do a better job in this (see comments under “Instructional Technology Support” for specific actions at Kenyon, to which I would add that Kenyon placed the classroom technology on a regular replacement cycle and worked to standardize equipment as much as possible.) Another point is that classroom technology has continued to mature, so that it is inherently easier to use than formerly.

Access to online resources from off-campus. Faculty satisfaction declined for this service at Kenyon, contrary to the national trend. Clearly this is a big problem to address in 2009/2010. The technology used in 2008/2009 is the same that was available in 2005/2006, but we believe that faculty expectations for this service have increased while the service has not gotten better. Balancing easy faculty

6

access with good computer security in an era where hacking attacks are more sophisticated, regulations to protect data privacy are more stringent, and the expectation of all constituencies is 100% perfect security is quite a challenge. Nevertheless, faculty should expect to see improved off-campus access to resources in 2009/2010, as it is one our top priorities.

Overall computing service. Nationally, faculty’s overall satisfaction with

computing services remained about the same from 2006 to 2009. In contrast, Kenyon faculty satisfaction increased significantly (from 3.29 to 3.46) to climb above the national average. The top score ever recorded in the MISO survey in this category is 3.74 (Colby-Sawyer in 2007) and the average of the top 10 scores ever is 3.63. I would like to set the goal of reaching 3.63 in this category for the 2012 survey.

Desktop computer replacement. Faculty satisfaction with desktop computer

replacement has not changed from 2006 to 2009 and mirrors the national average. Although, Kenyon’s numbers seem slightly higher than the national average (3.30 to 3.25), it is not statistically significant.

Online course reserves. Faculty satisfaction improved dramatically (from 3.33 to

3.63) at Kenyon, bringing Kenyon up to the national average (3.62) in this category. In 2008/2009, Meghan Frazer, our new Digital Resource Librarian, regularized the workflow, improved the copyright clearance process, and has worked hard to provide regular and timely communication with faculty. We had identified this as an area of concern last summer and we believe that the specific steps we’ve taken have improved this service.

Performance of wireless access on campus. Faculty satisfaction improved

dramatically (from 3.34 to 3.64) at Kenyon, and in 2006 it was already significantly higher than the national average. In 2006, the national average was 2.97; in 2009 it was 2.98. Our 2009 score is the highest ever recorded in this category in the five year history of the MISO survey. The next highest was 3.60 for Sewanee in 2006. Anyone reading this can guess that we are proud of this, especially because—relatively speaking—Kenyon has not invested in wireless in the dollar amounts than many of our peers have. Many schools have identified this as a top priority for 2009/2010 and we should expect them to catch up to Kenyon over the next few years. Still, it is good to be #1, even if temporarily! We plan to experiment with the next generation of wireless (802.11n) in the library in 2009/2010, with a goal of developing a plan to roll it out gradually over the campus as part of the normal technology replacement process.

Status information on computing problems. Faculty satisfaction improved significantly (from 3.38 to 3.52) to move above the national average in this category. (See the comments on the “Helpline” category above, where this became an important Helpline goal in 2008/2009.) We expect to improve this further in

7

2009/2010 to include some method to enable faculty to check on the status of any problem or task independently.

Technology in meeting spaces-classrooms. Faculty satisfaction may have

improved slightly from 2006 to 2009—the difference is not very significant by statistical tests—and has been significantly above the national average in both 2006 and 2009. Kenyon generally has more classroom and spaces outfitted for technology than our peers—practically every classroom, for example—and we attribute this relatively high satisfaction to reliability and wide availability of classroom technology. In 2007/2008, we developed a schedule to ensure that the technology in classrooms would be refreshed on a regular basis, which should ensure faculty satisfaction. Also, we began a program in the spring of 2008 to solicit feedback from faculty for each classroom that is a candidate for upgrading.

Availability of wireless access on campus. Faculty satisfaction improved

dramatically (from 3.40 to 3.71) at Kenyon, and in 2006 it was already significantly higher than the national average. In 2006, the national average was 2.94; in 2009 it was 3.19. Kenyon’s 2009 score is the highest for the 2009 survey and the 3rd highest ever recorded in the MISO survey—Sewanee in 2006 score 3.77 and the University of Richmond scored 3.74 in 2008. Once again, we are proud of this and will continue to find and identify spots with poor or no coverage on campus.

Library research instruction for academic courses. Faculty satisfaction with library research instruction has not changed from 2006 to 2009. While score is reasonably high (as are most library services in contrast to computing services) the faculty satisfaction for this score is lower than the national average. Also troubling was a multi-year downward trend in the number of library research instruction sessions provided by the Kenyon library staff. Identifying this area as a concern, we freed time for librarians to emphasize and solicit research instruction with faculty. This effort reversed the trend in 2008/2009, in which we saw a mild increase in research instruction sessions, especially in the 2nd semester. We also asked our librarians to attend workshops with faculty to improve their own teaching and to gain a better understanding of faculty teaching issues. This will continue to be an emphasis in 2009/2010.

Computing information on the LBIS Web site. Faculty satisfaction with the computing information on the LBIS web site improved a little bit (from 3.49 to 3.56) at Kenyon, and is significantly higher than the national average, which fell from 2006 to 2009. Kenyon’s 3.56 score was the highest in 2009. The MISO survey has helped us identify other highly rated institution web sites, from which we can learn to improve our site further in 2009/2010.

Network stability. Faculty satisfaction with the campus network stability improved a little bit (from 3.51 to 3.57) at Kenyon from 2006 to 2009. Nationally, faculty satisfaction with network stability dropped significantly (from 3.40 to 3.16)

8

in the same period. While this does reflect positively on LBIS, I think it also reflects higher expectations and a lower tolerance for any kind of failure. I believe that LBIS is somewhat ahead of other liberal arts colleges in developing a redundant network (though we are far behind research universities.) It suggests that LBIS must continue to build fault tolerance into the network, so that any single equipment failure will not affect college activities.

Network speed. Similar to “network stability,” Kenyon faculty satisfaction with the campus network speed remained the same (3.53 in 2006, 3.50 in 2009) in a context where nationally, faculty satisfaction with network speed dropped significantly (from 3.36 to 3.16). Again, this reflects positively on LBIS. The national trend shows clearly that faculty have expectations of higher and higher network speeds. This trend is even more pronounced with students. While an intelligent network architecture can enhance network speed, network speed is primarily affected by how much money your institution is willing or able to spend.

Library information on the LBIS Web site. Faculty satisfaction with the library information on the LBIS web site may have improved a little bit (from 3.62 to 3.68) from 2006 to 2009, but the improvement is not statistically significant. Nationally, faculty satisfaction decreased slightly (from 3.69 to 3.61) in the same period, but again the change is not significant. In 2009/2010, we aim to improve the instructions for accessing library resources from off campus.

E-mail services. Faculty satisfaction declined for e-mail services at Kenyon, mirroring the national trend. Faculty satisfaction at Kenyon is still higher than the national average, though. The impact of Gmail as a free service from Google is seen here, as basic services are compared to Gmail. This year, LBIS will be evaluating Google Apps for Education, which includes e-mail, as an option for Kenyon.

Virus protection. Kenyon faculty satisfaction with virus protection stayed

essentially the same in 2009, at the same level as the national average, which also didn’t change from 2006 to 2009. A fundamental shift in the primary vector for viruses—through website downloads, some of which are invisible—will make traditional anti-virus software much less effective. The best protections today against these new attacks are behavioral, so LBIS will need to develop an educational program to help the campus community surf more safely.

Overall library service. Faculty satisfaction with the overall library may improved

slightly (from 3.65 to 3.69) from 2006 to 2009. Nationally in the same period, faculty satisfaction decreased slightly (from 3.74 to 3.71), placing LBIS at the national average. This is a category with a great deal of uniformity—throughout the history of the MISO survey, all scores have been between 3.50 and 3.89 with the exception of one outlier—suggesting that faculty in general are satisfied with the libraries on their campuses. When all scores are ranked, however, Kenyon’s are in

9

the 71st percentile—clearly in the lower half. I would like to set the goal of reaching the 50th percentile in this category for the 2012 survey.

Interlibrary Loan. Kenyon faculty satisfaction with interlibrary loan stayed essentially the same in 2009 (3.68), below the national average, which also didn’t change from 2006 to 2009 (3.80). LBIS has paid a lot of attention to ILL in the last 18 months. In the spring of 2008, we identified many problems with the ILL software, called Clio, including errors that would result in dropped requests. After going through a difficult software upgrade in the fall of 2008 to “Clio Advanced,” we found no improvement at all. You could say we were not a-mused. A study comparing May-October of 2007 to May-October of 2008 showed that we were able to reduce the average time to delivery from 10.87 to 6.94 days, even while going through troubles with Clio. In the summer of 2009, the ILL service will migrate to a different software package, ILLiad, which is used by many of our peer institutions and promises more functionality and more reliable service.

Library Reference services. A very highly rated service overall, nevertheless

faculty satisfaction with reference services dropped slightly from 2006 to 2009 (3.80 to 3.71) and is slightly lower than the national average, which also dropped from 2006 to 2009 (3.86 to 3.79). More significant is the tremendous drop in use of Kenyon reference services in the past five years, from xxxx in 200x/200x to xxxx in 2008/2009. The MISO survey results show a drop in use for both faculty and students nationwide. The following table shows faculty and student scores summarizing how often they use reference (on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 = never, 2 = 1-2 times per semester, 3 = 1-3 times per month, 4 = 1-3 times per week, 5 = more than 3 times per week.):

2006 2007 2008 2009

Faculty National Ave. 2.33 2.22 2.08 2.07 Kenyon 2.28 - - 2.02

Student National Ave. 2.40 2.15 2.11 2.21 Kenyon 2.31 - - 2.25

The vast improvement in online tools enables people to find the answers to many basic reference questions. We also perceive a change in culture among students, who are less willing to ask a person for help when online tools are available, even if they get suboptimal results. In 2009/2010, LBIS will relocate the reference desk to a position immediately in front of the entrance to raise its profile, establish a program to improve reference librarian’s familiarity with library resources, and advertise reference services more aggressively. It is foolish to believe that these changes will return reference traffic to the level of the pre-Internet days. However, the value of the in-depth reference consultation, especially in the undergraduate context, is that it not only answers the immediate question but leaves the student with more skills and a more sophisticated understanding of research and scholarship. It calls to mind the old story that if you give a man a fish, you feed him

10

for a day, but if you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. The best reference consultation can do both.

Borrowing materials from the library. This is the LBIS service with the highest

satisfaction rating from faculty. Satisfaction improved slightly from 2006 to 2009 (from 3.82 to 3.87), just above the national average of 3.80.

Online Library catalog. Faculty satisfaction with the online catalog remained high (3.85 in 2006, 3.81 in 2009) and remained above the national average (3.69 in 2006, 3.64 in 2009).

Library Circulation services. Faculty satisfaction with library circulation services

remains extremely high, as is true nationally.

5. Importance Chart 2 shows, on a 4 point scale, faculty rating of the importance of LBIS services for both 2006 and 2009, along with the national averages for the same years. It indicates how faculty ratings have changed from 2006 to 2009 and how they compare to the national averages. Some general patterns are clear. Faculty view library services as more important than computing services in 2006 and 2009, which is also true nationally. However, the trend is for library services to decline in importance and computing services to increase in importance. Kenyon’s faculty tend place a greater importance on library services and what you might characterize as individual computing services than the national average. On the other hand, Kenyon faculty place lower importance on curricular technology services (such as the course management system, instructional technology support, borrowing technology, technology instruction for courses.) The greatest increases in important to faculty from 2006 to 2009 are external access to resources, wireless, online course reserves, and the Moodle course management system. The largest decreases in importance were for the online library catalog, circulation, and interlibrary loan, though these are all still very important to faculty. 6. Frequency of Use Chart 3 shows, on 5 point scale, faculty reports on the frequency of their use of LBIS services. Similar to the faculty rating of importance, in general faculty use library services more frequently than technology services, though there is a trend of less use from 2006 to 2009. Of note here are the areas which faculty report more frequent overall use: off campus access to online resources, wireless, the Moodle CMS, and their library liaison. These are consistent with other measures in the survey. The increased contact with the library liaison is, in my opinion, a good trend. It may be an outcome of the removal of computer support responsibilities

11

from the library liaisons last summer; we had hoped it would give librarians more time to work with faculty. Also, the results suggest Kenyon faculty have more frequent contact with their library liaisons than faculty elsewhere. Although Kenyon faculty report less frequent use of library services, it should be noted how much more Kenyon faculty use the catalog, library databases, circulation, and interlibrary loan more than their peers at other institutions. The notable exception is reference services. Another interesting item in the table is the relative disparity in how often Kenyon faculty use the LBIS website (3.68) compared to faculty elsewhere (2.28). We have no explanation for this disparity, but the high use combined with the relatively high satisfaction and importance the LBIS website has for faculty means that the LBIS website is perhaps a more significant service than we believed; we have to adjust our priorities accordingly. Finally, the score for videoconferencing is so low, it should be explained further. One faculty member reports using it 1-3 times per week; four report using it 1-2 times per semester. All other faculty report never using it. 7. Services and resources The MISO survey included a series of questions about faculty use of technology, their perceived skills levels with technology, and their perception of how informed they are on library and technology issues. Chart 4 shows the percentage of faculty who use various technology tools for academic purposes. Chart 5 shows the percentage of faculty who would like to use these technology tools in the future. One interpretation of the data is that Kenyon faculty members have a wide variety of interests and teaching styles (at least one Kenyon faculty member is doing each thing on that list), but that there are no technologies on this list that everyone uses or desires to learn. The table reporting what technologies faculty would like to use—which should be an important input to the LBIS workshop schedule—has no item in which more than 18% of the faculty expressed a desire to use. Some of the highest interest is in Moodle, online quizzes, online course reserves, discussion boards, and classroom electronic polling. Note that online quizzes, online course reserve material, and discussion boards are all features that can be done within Moodle, though of course there are independent options for these as well.

12

Chart 6 describes how Kenyon faculty rate themselves as informed on library and technological issues, including privacy, copyright and fair use, information security. The most significant point to be understood from this section is that faculty at Kenyon and nationally perceive themselves as rather poorly informed on these issues. In the history of the MISO survey, there are few scores in any category above 3.0. The LBIS staff will need to address this in general; specifically, we have to inform faculty about how to get Banner service needs answered. We apparently do as good a job as anyone in informing faculty about system downtimes—Kenyon’s 2009 score is tied with Dickinson (2008) for the highest recorded in this category. Chart 7 reports how Kenyon faculty rate their skills with various technology and library services. In general, Kenyon faculty ratings are comparable to overall faculty ratings. Kenyon faculty rate their library skills significantly higher. Kenyon faculty rate their skill with the Moodle CMS significantly lower, which is understandable given Kenyon’s gradual adoption of Moodle. The very low rating for GIS skills was done before a GIS workshop for faculty in March 2009, though a single workshop is unlikely to make a great deal of impact. Chart 8 reports the level of interest that Kenyon faculty have with learning more about various technology and library services. One conclusion is that—for the topics covered by the survey—Kenyon faculty are less interested than faculty nationally in investing the time to learn more. They are also less interested than they were in 2006. Two exceptions to this trend are training for the Moodle CMS and for GIS software.

13

One problem with summary data like this is that—by averaging every faculty member’s interests—it tends to create a low to medium score for any topic. Faculty interests are too varied to make this approach useful. Instead, by looking at the raw data we can see that there are topics in which a large number of faculty (though in no case more than 42% of respondents) have an interest to know more:

Topic Interested Very Interested

Pctg

Moodle 34 14 41.7%

Backing up data 35 13 41.7%

Technology in meeting spaces/classrooms 34 9 37.4%

Library databases (e.g. LexisNexis, JSTOR) 29 11 34.8%

Graphics software (e.g. Photoshop, CorelDraw) 25 15 34.8%

Presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint) 27 12 33.9%

Web authoring software (e.g. Dreamweaver, Front Page) 26 12 33.0%

CONSORT library catalog 26 6 27.8%

Spreadsheet software (e.g. Excel) 27 5 27.8%

Audio/video editing software (e.g. iMovie, Premiere) 24 7 27.0%

Database software (e.g. Access, Filemaker) 22 6 24.3%

Your primary Operating System (e.g. Mac OS, Windows) 19 9 24.3%

Word processing software (e.g. Microsoft Word) 22 4 22.6%

Search engines (e.g. Google, Yahoo) 20 4 20.9%

Email 18 4 19.1%

Banner 18 4 19.1%

Math or statistics software (e.g. Mathematica, SPSS) 10 9 16.5%

Spatial analysis/GIS software (e.g. ArcView) 10 9 16.5%

Social software (e.g. Wiki, blog, podcasting, RSS) 11 5 13.9%

Instant Messaging 6 2 7.0%

Voicemail 5 2 6.1%

14

8. Action summary The following is a summary of action items for LBIS in 2009/2010 based on the faculty results for the MISO survey. This is not the comprehensive list of all LBIS objectives for 2009/2010.

- Offer training for Skype, a free desktop videoconferencing solution. Identify inexpensive cameras for computers that don’t have them.

- Offer training for the Moodle CMS, especially focusing on online quizzing, polling, discussion boards, and with Moodle as a site for electronic course reserve material.

- Help faculty research opportunities for funding and training for specialized computing needs.

- Review all departmental collection development policies in conjunction with the academic department.

- Improve spam filtering, which may include looking at mail client options as well as the institutional spam filter.

- Develop Helpline skills to solve a set of the most common problems. Improve the transparency of the trouble ticket process, such as a method for faculty to check on the status of a ticket independently. Improve website document for common problems.

- Implement new SSL VPN for the community, including training sessions, web documentation, and advertising. Develop documentation to articulate Kenyon’s efforts to balance between security and access.

- Implement the next generation wireless in the library. - Continue to solicit feedback on classroom technology. Offer training for

classroom technology targeted to faculty. - Teach more research instruction sessions; improve our teaching and provide

feedback to faculty on student learning outcomes. Identify the classes in each discipline where research instruction is most important, especially for majors.

- Continue to improve network reliability through fault tolerance and redundancy.

- Improve web documentation for access library resources, especially from off campus.

- Evaluate Google Apps for Education with the potential to switch student e-mail services to Gmail by 2010/11.

- Develop an education and advertising program to inform the campus about the dangers of viruses and malware, especially focusing on behavior.

- Implement the ILLiad interlibrary loan software. Provide feedback to faculty on ILL service performance, including time-to-delivery.

- Articulate to faculty why they should recommend reference services to their students.

- Offer training sessions to faculty for using Banner Self Service, document how faculty get help, and advertise this to the faculty.

15

9. Charts Chart 1

FACULTY: How dissatisfied or satisfied are you with the following resources and services? 2006 2009 2006 2009 Trend

National Comparison

National National Kenyon Kenyon

Video conferencing 3.23 3.18 2.71 2.85 Improving

Below

Course Management System 3.30 3.38 2.87 3.05 Improving

Below

Support for your specialized computing needs 3.06 3.13 2.88 2.99 Improving

Below

Your input into computing decisions that affect you 2.91 3.03 2.91 2.96 Improving?

Same

Your input into library decisions that affect you 3.17 3.21 2.92 3.09 Improving

Below

E-mail SPAM filtering 3.01 3.34 2.94 3.13 Improving

Below

Support for your innovative ideas 3.09 3.16 3.02 3.21 Improving

Above

Instructional technology support 3.38 3.41 3.20 3.34 Improving

Below

Helpline 3.37 3.42 3.22 3.39 Improving

Same

Technology instruction for academic courses 3.31 3.38 3.24 3.36 Improving

Same

Support for technology in classrooms 3.27 3.39 3.26 3.43 Improving

Same

Access to online resources from off-campus 3.43 3.52 3.28 3.11 Declining

Below

Overall computing service 3.40 3.37 3.29 3.46 Improving

Above

Desktop computer replacement 3.26 3.25 3.33 3.30 Same

Same

Online course reserves 3.55 3.62 3.33 3.63 Improving

Same

Performance of wireless access on campus 2.97 2.98 3.34 3.64 Improving

Above

Status information on computing problems 3.43 3.34 3.38 3.52 Improving

Above

Technology in meeting spaces-classrooms 3.16 3.29 3.40 3.45 Improving?

Above

Availability of wireless access on campus 2.94 3.19 3.40 3.71 Improving

Above

Library research instruction for academic courses 3.64 3.59 3.41 3.42 Same

Below

Computing information on the LBIS Web site 3.37 3.28 3.49 3.56 Improving

Above

Network stability 3.40 3.16 3.51 3.57 Improving?

Above

Network speed 3.36 3.16 3.53 3.50 Same

Above

Library information on the LBIS Web site 3.69 3.61 3.62 3.68 Improving?

Above

E-mail services 3.51 3.36 3.63 3.49 Declining

Above

Virus protection 3.56 3.63 3.63 3.60 Same

Same

Overall library service 3.74 3.71 3.65 3.69 Improving?

Same

Interlibrary Loan 3.74 3.80 3.70 3.68 Same

Below

Library Reference services 3.86 3.79 3.80 3.71 Declining?

Below

Borrowing materials from the library 3.84 3.80 3.82 3.87 Improving?

Above

Online Library catalog 3.69 3.64 3.85 3.81 Same

Above

Library Circulation services 3.84 3.83 3.89 3.86 Same

Same

*Scores on a 4.0 scale

16

Chart 2

FACULTY: How important are these services to you? 2006 2009 2006 2009 Trend National

Comparison

National National Kenyon Kenyon

Online Library catalog 3.60 3.47 3.97 3.77 Decreasing Above

Library databases (e.g. LexisNexis, JSTOR) 3.49 3.47 3.76 3.69 Decreasing Above

Access to online resources from off-campus 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.69 Increasing Above

Library Circulation services 3.43 3.35 3.77 3.58 Decreasing Above

Interlibrary Loan 3.31 3.39 3.71 3.52 Decreasing Above

Technology in meeting spaces-classrooms 3.46 3.55 3.64 3.51 Decreasing Same

LBIS web site 2.88 2.75 3.47 3.46 Same Above

Library information on the LBIS Web site 3.28 3.30 3.42 3.39 Same Above

Support for technology in classrooms 3.29 3.32 3.42 3.31 Decreasing Same

Wireless access on campus 2.79 3.19 2.74 3.28 Increasing Above

Helpline 3.26 3.25 3.12 3.22 Increasing Same

Library Reference services 3.26 3.08 3.27 3.11 Decreasing Same

Online course reserves 3.04 2.81 2.79 2.99 Increasing Above

Instructional technology support 3.04 3.02 2.97 2.89 Decreasing Below

Computing information on the LBIS Web site 2.41 2.62 2.73 2.82 Increasing Above

Library research instruction for academic courses 2.71 2.67 2.75 2.70 Same Same

Course Management System 2.90 3.21 1.90 2.38 Increasing Below

Technology instruction for academic courses 2.57 2.66 2.43 2.26 Decreasing Below

Borrowing technology equipment (cameras, projectors) 2.38 2.32 2.19 2.10 Decreasing Below

Borrowing laptops 1.81 1.82 1.84 1.99 Increasing Above

Video conferencing 1.42 1.52 1.29 1.35 Increasing Below

*Scores on a 4.0 scale

17

Chart 3

FACULTY: Over the course of a semester, on average, how often do you use the following services? 2006 2009 2006 2009 Trend

National Comparison

National National Kenyon Kenyon

Online Library catalog 3.49 3.29 4.22 3.77 Decreasing Above

LBIS web site 2.85 2.28 3.83 3.68 Decreasing Above

Technology in meeting spaces-classrooms 3.50 3.68 3.74 3.58 Decreasing Below

Library databases (e.g. LexisNexis, JSTOR) 3.23 3.22 3.62 3.60 Same Above

Access to online resources from off-campus 3.44 3.38 3.45 3.66 Increasing Above

Library information on the LBIS Web site 3.21 3.25 3.29 3.12 Decreasing Below

Library Circulation services 2.77 2.63 3.17 2.93 Decreasing Above

Interlibrary Loan 2.20 2.27 2.50 2.34 Decreasing Above

Library Reference services 2.26 2.07 2.28 2.02 Decreasing Same

Helpline 2.26 2.28 2.16 2.16 Same Below

Library liaison 1.91 1.80 2.16 2.59 Increasing Above

Computing information on the LBIS Web site 1.85 1.91 2.14 2.17 Same Above

Support for technology in classrooms 2.08 2.02 2.08 1.91 Decreasing Below

Wireless access on campus 2.20 2.96 2.04 2.92 Increasing Same

Course Management System 3.18 3.56 1.78 2.39 Increasing Below

Instructional technology support 1.91 1.85 1.75 1.73 Same Below

Borrowing technology equipment (cameras, projectors) 1.53 1.46 1.31 1.30 Same Below

Borrowing laptops 1.22 1.21 1.22 1.33 Increasing Above

Video conferencing 1.09 1.10 1.02 1.06 Same Same

*Scores on a 5.0 scale

(1 = never, 2 = 1-2 times per semester, 3 = 1-3 times per month, 4 = 1-3 times per week, 5 = more than 3 times per week.)

18

Chart 4

FACULTY: Which of the following do you use for academic purposes? 2006 2009 2006 2009 Trend

National Comparison

National National Kenyon Kenyon

Animations 16.9% 19.0% 25.4% 25.6% Same Above

Blogs 6.6% 14.1% 6.1% 6.0% Same Below

Burn CDs 51.3% 43.1% 53.5% 47.0% Decreasing Above

Burn DVDs 25.1% 26.1% 24.6% 23.9% Same Below

Classroom electronic polling 4.3% 7.2% 4.4% 0.9% Decreasing Below

Moodle (or other CMS) 64.2% 75.5% 25.4% 42.7% Increasing Below

Course reserves – Online 43.6% 37.4% 47.4% 41.0% Decreasing Above

Course reserves - Physical (e.g. books, videos) 50.2% 50.3% 58.8% 59.8% Same Above

Digital audio 25.1% 32.2% 32.5% 29.9% Decreasing Below

Digital images 43.8% 45.8% 48.3% 51.3% Increasing Above

Digital video 35.8% 44.8% 37.7% 40.2% Increasing Below

Discipline-specific software 25.7% 31.3% 32.5% 35.0% Increasing Above

Discussion boards 17.7% 14.9% 14.9% 9.4% Decreasing Below

DVDs 8.6% 64.0% 57.3% Below

In-class student computer use 34.3% 40.3% 38.6% 45.3% Increasing Above

Instant messaging/Chat 3.1% 5.1% 1.8% 3.4% Increasing Below

Library research instruction 42.0% 40.1% 43.0% 39.3% Decreasing Same

Online quizzes 11.0% 12.8% 10.5% 15.4% Increasing Above

Paper course packs 23.6% 12.1% 23.7% 12.0% Decreasing Same

Podcasting 1.5% 5.0% 4.4% 1.7% Decreasing Below

Portable drives (e.g. USB drives, Jump drives) 40.0% 59.3% 35.1% 67.5% Increasing Above

Portable media devices (e.g. iPods) 8.0% 13.9% 7.0% 14.5% Increasing Same

RSS feeds 1.2% 6.6% 0.9% 4.3% Increasing Below

Simulations 12.6% 12.3% 18.4% 13.7% Decreasing Above

Slides 29.1% 24.2% 35.1% 29.9% Decreasing Above

Smart phone/PDA (e.g. Treo, Blackberry, iPhone) 0.5% 6.2% 0.0% 2.6% Increasing Below

Student electronic portfolios 5.9% 8.2% 4.4% 2.6% Decreasing Below

Student library research 55.6% 58.9% 59.7% 65.0% Increasing Above

Student Web page development 9.4% 7.7% 10.5% 12.0% Increasing Above

Survey tools 7.6% 9.3% 10.5% 6.8% Decreasing Below

Technology-enhanced lectures 51.1% 55.9% 57.0% 59.0% Increasing Above

Technology-enhanced student presentations 42.4% 50.9% 43.0% 53.0% Increasing Above

Technology instruction 18.7% 22.1% 14.9% 23.1% Increasing Same

Text messaging 0.2% 3.9% 0.0% 2.6% Increasing Below

Video conferencing 3.3% 3.9% 1.8% 2.6% Increasing Below

Video recording 1.4% 13.7% 0.0% 12.0% Increasing Below

Videotapes 51.2% 34.8% 43.9% 33.3% Decreasing Below

Wikis 4.1% 9.5% 2.6% 8.5% Increasing Below

*percentage of faculty responding to survey

19

Chart 5

FACULTY: Of the items you do not use, which would you like to use in the future for academic purposes? 2009 2009

National Comparison

National Kenyon

Animations 4.2% 7.8% Above

Blogs 6.6% 8.6% Above

Burn CDs 2.9% 2.6% Same

Burn DVDs 5.1% 1.7% Below

Classroom electronic polling 9.7% 12.1% Above

Moodle (or other CMS) 5.3% 17.2% Above

Course reserves - Online 8.4% 13.8% Above

Course reserves - Physical (e.g. books, videos) 2.1% 5.2% Above

Digital audio 4.3% 2.6% Below

Digital images 5.3% 9.5% Above

Digital video 6.2% 6.0% Same

Discipline-specific software 4.3% 2.6% Below

Discussion boards 5.9% 12.9% Above

DVDs 3.0% 4.3% Above

In-class student computer use 4.8% 3.4% Below

Instant messaging/Chat 2.0% 1.7% Same

Library research instruction 3.9% 8.6% Above

Online quizzes 7.8% 18.1% Above

Paper course packs 2.7% 4.3% Above

Podcasting 9.5% 6.0% Below

Portable drives (e.g. USB drives, Jump drives) 2.9% 2.6% Same

Portable media devices (e.g. iPods) 4.0% 4.3% Same

RSS feeds 3.0% 0.9% Below

Simulations 4.0% 4.3% Same

Slides 2.0% 6.0% Above

Smart phone/PDA (e.g. Treo, Blackberry, iPhone) 2.5% 5.2% Above

Student electronic portfolios 4.9% 12.1% Above

Student library research 3.9% 6.0% Above

Student Web page development 6.1% 10.3% Above

Survey tools 5.9% 6.0% Same

Technology-enhanced lectures 5.9% 8.6% Above

Technology-enhanced student presentations 4.3% 7.8% Above

Technology instruction 2.8% 4.3% Above

Text messaging 1.4% 0.9% Below

Video conferencing 5.7% 5.2% Same

Video recording 3.0% 4.3% Above

Videotapes 1.2% 3.4% Above

Wikis 6.4% 9.5% Above

20

Chart 6

FACULTY: How informed do you feel you are about the following? 2006 2009 2006 2009 Trend

National Comparison

National National Kenyon Kenyon

Available technology services 2.50 2.51 2.50 2.47 Same Same

Available library services 2.73 2.69 2.75 2.70 Same Same

Privacy issues related to technology 2.20 2.27 2.23 2.13 Decreasing Below

Current issues regarding computer viruses and spyware 2.24 2.18 2.40 2.14 Decreasing Same

Current issues regarding information security 2.12 2.13 2.28 2.13 Decreasing Same

Data backup solutions 2.07 1.99 2.03 Same

Copyright and "Fair use" 2.35 2.42 2.35 Same

Who to contact for your desktop computing needs 2.91 2.87 2.86 Same

Who to contact for your ERP (Banner) needs 2.63 2.20 1.77 Below

Who to contact for your instructional technology needs 2.78 2.66 2.60 Same

Who to contact for your library needs 2.98 2.98 3.01 Same

Scheduled system downtime 2.77 2.82 3.12 3.22 Increasing Above

*Scores on a 4.0 scale. Blank entries in 2006 Kenyon column mean we didn’t ask these questions in the 2006 survey.

21

Chart 7

FACULTY: How would you describe your skill level with the following? 2006 2009 2006 2009 Trend

National Comparison

National National Kenyon Kenyon

Social software (e.g. Wiki, blog, RSS) 1.58 1.74 1.71 Same

Email 3.88 3.91 3.81 3.94 Increasing Same

Word processing software (e.g. Microsoft Word) 3.89 3.92 3.81 3.88 Same Same

Online library catalog 3.49 3.30 3.78 3.73 Same Above

Search engines (e.g. Google, Yahoo) 3.80 3.83 3.74 3.85 Increasing Same

Library databases (e.g. LexisNexis, JSTOR) 3.30 3.27 3.48 3.60 Increasing Above

Your primary Operating System (e.g. Mac OS, Windows) 3.29 3.24 3.41 3.22 Decreasing Same

Backing up data 2.94 2.83 3.28 2.97 Decreasing Above

Technology in meeting spaces/classrooms 3.12 3.15 3.21 3.14 Same Same

Voicemail 3.33 3.47 3.20 3.33 Increasing Below

Spreadsheet software (e.g. Excel) 3.01 3.18 2.96 3.00 Same Below

Presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint) 2.85 3.17 2.91 3.04 Increasing Below

Graphics software (e.g. Photoshop, CorelDraw) 2.12 2.15 2.10 2.19 Increasing Same

Math or statistics software (e.g. Mathematica, SPSS) 1.93 1.92 2.04 1.97 Same Same

Web authoring software (e.g. Dreamweaver, Front Page) 1.80 1.77 1.99 1.84 Decreasing Same

Course management system 2.82 2.93 1.84 2.15 Increasing Below

Database software (e.g. Access, Filemaker) 1.90 1.91 1.80 1.74 Same Below

Instant Messaging 1.95 2.34 1.62 1.91 Increasing Below

Audio/video editing software (e.g. iMovie) 1.51 1.59 1.51 1.52 Same Same

Spatial analysis/GIS software (e.g. ArcView, Remote Sensing) 1.27 1.26 1.33 1.16 Decreasing Below

*Scores on a 5.0 scale

22

Chart 8

FACULTY: How interested are you in learning more about the following? 2006 2009 2006 2009 Trend

National Comparison

National National Kenyon Kenyon

Email 1.84 1.77 1.88 1.68 Decreasing Below

Instant Messaging 1.51 1.48 1.42 1.28 Decreasing Below

Voicemail 1.53 1.48 1.44 1.39 Same Below

ERP 2.00 1.88 1.90 1.74 Decreasing Below

Course management system 2.30 2.43 2.09 2.28 Increasing Below

Technology in meeting spaces/classrooms 2.30 2.24 2.29 2.16 Decreasing Same

Search engines (e.g. Google, Yahoo) 1.93 1.85 1.98 1.79 Decreasing Same

Online library catalog 1.98 1.86 2.05 1.90 Decreasing Same

Library databases (e.g. LexisNexis, JSTOR) 2.24 2.11 2.29 2.13 Decreasing Same

Word processing software (e.g. Microsoft Word) 1.84 1.85 1.89 1.79 Decreasing Same

Spreadsheet software (e.g. Excel) 1.89 1.95 1.91 1.91 Same Same

Database software (e.g. Access, Filemaker) 1.75 1.69 1.85 1.80 Same Above

Presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint) 2.17 2.09 2.19 2.10 Decreasing Same

Web authoring software (e.g. Dreamweaver, Front Page) 2.12 2.03 2.39 2.03 Decreasing Same

Graphics software (e.g. Photoshop, CorelDraw) 2.16 2.15 2.14 2.05 Decreasing Below

Audio/video editing software (e.g. iMovie) 1.96 1.98 1.98 1.83 Decreasing Same

Math or statistics software (e.g. Mathematica, SPSS) 1.62 1.59 1.79 1.56 Decreasing Same

Spatial analysis/GIS software (e.g. ArcView, Remote Sensing) 1.49 1.52 1.48 1.54 Increasing Same

Social software (e.g. Wiki, blog, RSS) 1.83 1.87 1.61 Below

Your primary Operating System (e.g. Mac OS, Windows) 2.03 1.97 2.16 1.96 Decreasing Same

Backing up data 2.38 2.41 2.36 2.33 Same Same

*Scores on a 4.0 scale