Competency N
N. evaluate programs and services on specified criteria
Introduction
Evaluation is a tricky business to be in. Without it, the worth of something is unknown; with it, it can be a whole can of worms. Evaluation happens at every stage of a project and it is something that never quits. The following paragraphs will address my competency in evaluating programs and services.
Dictionary.com (n.d) states that the meaning of evaluate is to 1) determine or set the value or amount of; appraise; 2) to judge or determine the significance, worth, or quality of. Based on this definition, I understand competency N to mean that I have the knowledge and understanding to evaluate programs, books, strategic plans, and other things based on specified criteria. It is important to note that by using this term I mean guidelines or benchmarks laid out ahead of time. I should be able to understand the context in which the program was done in order to evaluate it; I should also be able to know how to gather data and understand said data in order evaluate any program; I should be able to explain to anybody what data was used, and finally explain what the specified criteria were that I used to evaluate the program (Haycock and Sheldon, 2008).
Since evaluation is subjective, establishing assessment criteria is extremely important. “The first thing, that I would need to know is, what were the goals? Along with that, one of the most important things for me as a librarian or archivist evaluating is “did the program meet the goals that it set out accomplish” (Haycock and Sheldon, 2008, pp. 181). It is also important for me as a professional to be able to evaluate programs because in today’s economy, programs get cut if they are not making their goals and so, by being able to do a comprehensive and complete evaluation, it is possible decide which programs stay and which go.
The understanding and need of knowledge to do proper evaluations is not only important to me as a professional but to the profession as a whole. Haycock and Sheldon (2008) write that “evaluation is important because it also forces librarians, community members, governing board members, and others’ attention on specific assessment criteria” (p. 182). Not knowing the evaluation process can affect how a community member sees a library or archive. Thus it is not only important for librarians or archivists to understand the process or be able to do it but it is important for them to write criterion and evaluation procedures in a way so that anybody can understand them. By doing this, it allows for a community to be involved and possible give in put in what programs they feel are important for them.
As a professional, I would not evaluate programs on a one-time basis. Having an evaluation done changes the program. Goals of the program are refined and/or changed, programs are scrapped entirely. Understanding this as well as the overall knowledge of evaluation allows me as a professional to be engaged in my work and to try to make a better community area. Without evaluation, the profession of librarians, archivists, and information professionals would have a hard time knowing what works and what does not.
For this competency I have chosen three pieces of evidence that show that I am capable of evaluating such things as items needed in an online environment. In these three pieces of evidence I have chosen, they all relate to online items, specifically websites. I chose them due to the fact that more and more, our profession is turning to a digital age. Having a well-designed and functioning website is absolutely vital.
Evidence
The first piece of evidence that I am presenting is a marketing critique that I did for LIBR 246 Web 2.0. For this assignment we chose a library that had a presence in 2.0 technologies and not just a website. The professor gave us a specific set of criteria to critique them:
- “What is the library doing to market themselves online?
- What are they doing right in their marketing efforts? Where are they falling short?
- What do you think of their branding efforts? Have they built a strong and consistent brand online?
- If the library hired you as a social media marketing consultant, what would you suggest to them? (Farkas, 2011).”
I chose to critique the Smithsonian Institution’s Libraries. In looking at them, one of things that I focused on was how effective was their dealings in 2.0 technologies. When I looked at the Smithsonian Libraries and their 2.0 technologies, I felt they were doing a decent job, however, I felt they could do more. Since this time, I have noticed an increase in presence on Twitter, but their other 2.0 technologies seem to be falling flat. This piece of evidence proves that I am competent in the area of evaluating services and programs because this assignment has made me look deeply into an existing program and evaluate it using a specific set of selected criteria.
The second piece I chose to submit for evidence is an assignment I wrote for LIBR 256 Archives and Manuscripts. This assignment was to evaluate an archival institution’s website, focusing on access. For this assignment I was given the Dolph Briscoe Center for American History archives at The University of Texas at Austin. I chose this assignment because a functional website is extremely important in today’s archival field. It is the gateway for patrons to finding archival information at a particular institution. Therefore, having a well-organized website, with finding aids, digital collections, and contact information is vital. When I completed this assignment, I had been working at an archive for several months and I was very used to how our website and finding aids looked. This institution, while very prestigious, in my mind, lacks a good portal, specifically their finding aids. Cox (2007) wrote that finding aides should allow researchers to quickly gather information so that if they cannot find what they need they can move on. This piece of evidenced proves for competency N that I can use evaluation as a method for determining what makes usable finding aid which are vital in the archival profession.
The third and final piece of evidence that I am submitting for this competency is a paper that I wrote for LIBR 280 History of Books and Manuscripts. For this assignment we had to critique three online exhibits that involved either book or library history. Each exhibit had to be evaluated on, among other things, how successful the exhibit to promote the ideas of the institution, the intellectual content, and finally how well it reached its intended audience. The best of three exhibits I chose was the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) exhibit on Nazi book burning. Of the three, not only was it technically well designed, it was completely in line with the USHMM’s mission statement. The exhibit, which can be found at the USHMM, speaks directly to the part in the statement that reads “…to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of the Holocaust as well as their own responsibilities as a citizen of democracy” (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2010). The other two exhibits were not bad but in comparison to the USHMM exhibit, they paled.
Online exhibits are an emerging feature in archival and libraries and thus, understanding how they are created, what they are intended to do, and how to critique them was an important part of this assignment. As a result, this piece of evidence serves to prove that I know how to evaluate an online exhibit based on specified criteria.
Conclusion
My evidence presented here and my experiences have demonstrated that I can evaluate different areas of online programs and services. I have demonstrated I know how to and understand the importance of evaluating different marketing areas using web 2.0 technologies; that I know and understand how to evaluate one of the main research tools in the archival field, the finding aid; and finally I know and understand how to evaluate and critique online exhibits which can help attract patrons to an institution. With the tools I have learned through these assignments and experiences, I feel confident that I will be able to evaluate programs in both in my workplace and within the profession as a whole.
References:
Cox, R. (2007). Revisiting the archival finding aid. Journal of Archival Organization, 5(4), 5-32.
evaluate. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged [website]. Retrieved February 08, 2012, from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse
/evaluate.
Farkas, M. (2011, July). Marketing critique. LIBR 246: Web 2.0.
Haycock, K. and Sheldon, B. (2008). The portable MLIS: insights from the experts. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
United Sates Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2010). Mission Statement. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from United States Holocaust
memorial Museum: http://www.ushmm.org/museum/mission/.
Introduction
Evaluation is a tricky business to be in. Without it, the worth of something is unknown; with it, it can be a whole can of worms. Evaluation happens at every stage of a project and it is something that never quits. The following paragraphs will address my competency in evaluating programs and services.
Dictionary.com (n.d) states that the meaning of evaluate is to 1) determine or set the value or amount of; appraise; 2) to judge or determine the significance, worth, or quality of. Based on this definition, I understand competency N to mean that I have the knowledge and understanding to evaluate programs, books, strategic plans, and other things based on specified criteria. It is important to note that by using this term I mean guidelines or benchmarks laid out ahead of time. I should be able to understand the context in which the program was done in order to evaluate it; I should also be able to know how to gather data and understand said data in order evaluate any program; I should be able to explain to anybody what data was used, and finally explain what the specified criteria were that I used to evaluate the program (Haycock and Sheldon, 2008).
Since evaluation is subjective, establishing assessment criteria is extremely important. “The first thing, that I would need to know is, what were the goals? Along with that, one of the most important things for me as a librarian or archivist evaluating is “did the program meet the goals that it set out accomplish” (Haycock and Sheldon, 2008, pp. 181). It is also important for me as a professional to be able to evaluate programs because in today’s economy, programs get cut if they are not making their goals and so, by being able to do a comprehensive and complete evaluation, it is possible decide which programs stay and which go.
The understanding and need of knowledge to do proper evaluations is not only important to me as a professional but to the profession as a whole. Haycock and Sheldon (2008) write that “evaluation is important because it also forces librarians, community members, governing board members, and others’ attention on specific assessment criteria” (p. 182). Not knowing the evaluation process can affect how a community member sees a library or archive. Thus it is not only important for librarians or archivists to understand the process or be able to do it but it is important for them to write criterion and evaluation procedures in a way so that anybody can understand them. By doing this, it allows for a community to be involved and possible give in put in what programs they feel are important for them.
As a professional, I would not evaluate programs on a one-time basis. Having an evaluation done changes the program. Goals of the program are refined and/or changed, programs are scrapped entirely. Understanding this as well as the overall knowledge of evaluation allows me as a professional to be engaged in my work and to try to make a better community area. Without evaluation, the profession of librarians, archivists, and information professionals would have a hard time knowing what works and what does not.
For this competency I have chosen three pieces of evidence that show that I am capable of evaluating such things as items needed in an online environment. In these three pieces of evidence I have chosen, they all relate to online items, specifically websites. I chose them due to the fact that more and more, our profession is turning to a digital age. Having a well-designed and functioning website is absolutely vital.
Evidence
The first piece of evidence that I am presenting is a marketing critique that I did for LIBR 246 Web 2.0. For this assignment we chose a library that had a presence in 2.0 technologies and not just a website. The professor gave us a specific set of criteria to critique them:
- “What is the library doing to market themselves online?
- What are they doing right in their marketing efforts? Where are they falling short?
- What do you think of their branding efforts? Have they built a strong and consistent brand online?
- If the library hired you as a social media marketing consultant, what would you suggest to them? (Farkas, 2011).”
I chose to critique the Smithsonian Institution’s Libraries. In looking at them, one of things that I focused on was how effective was their dealings in 2.0 technologies. When I looked at the Smithsonian Libraries and their 2.0 technologies, I felt they were doing a decent job, however, I felt they could do more. Since this time, I have noticed an increase in presence on Twitter, but their other 2.0 technologies seem to be falling flat. This piece of evidence proves that I am competent in the area of evaluating services and programs because this assignment has made me look deeply into an existing program and evaluate it using a specific set of selected criteria.
The second piece I chose to submit for evidence is an assignment I wrote for LIBR 256 Archives and Manuscripts. This assignment was to evaluate an archival institution’s website, focusing on access. For this assignment I was given the Dolph Briscoe Center for American History archives at The University of Texas at Austin. I chose this assignment because a functional website is extremely important in today’s archival field. It is the gateway for patrons to finding archival information at a particular institution. Therefore, having a well-organized website, with finding aids, digital collections, and contact information is vital. When I completed this assignment, I had been working at an archive for several months and I was very used to how our website and finding aids looked. This institution, while very prestigious, in my mind, lacks a good portal, specifically their finding aids. Cox (2007) wrote that finding aides should allow researchers to quickly gather information so that if they cannot find what they need they can move on. This piece of evidenced proves for competency N that I can use evaluation as a method for determining what makes usable finding aid which are vital in the archival profession.
The third and final piece of evidence that I am submitting for this competency is a paper that I wrote for LIBR 280 History of Books and Manuscripts. For this assignment we had to critique three online exhibits that involved either book or library history. Each exhibit had to be evaluated on, among other things, how successful the exhibit to promote the ideas of the institution, the intellectual content, and finally how well it reached its intended audience. The best of three exhibits I chose was the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) exhibit on Nazi book burning. Of the three, not only was it technically well designed, it was completely in line with the USHMM’s mission statement. The exhibit, which can be found at the USHMM, speaks directly to the part in the statement that reads “…to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of the Holocaust as well as their own responsibilities as a citizen of democracy” (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2010). The other two exhibits were not bad but in comparison to the USHMM exhibit, they paled.
Online exhibits are an emerging feature in archival and libraries and thus, understanding how they are created, what they are intended to do, and how to critique them was an important part of this assignment. As a result, this piece of evidence serves to prove that I know how to evaluate an online exhibit based on specified criteria.
Conclusion
My evidence presented here and my experiences have demonstrated that I can evaluate different areas of online programs and services. I have demonstrated I know how to and understand the importance of evaluating different marketing areas using web 2.0 technologies; that I know and understand how to evaluate one of the main research tools in the archival field, the finding aid; and finally I know and understand how to evaluate and critique online exhibits which can help attract patrons to an institution. With the tools I have learned through these assignments and experiences, I feel confident that I will be able to evaluate programs in both in my workplace and within the profession as a whole.
References:
Cox, R. (2007). Revisiting the archival finding aid. Journal of Archival Organization, 5(4), 5-32.
evaluate. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged [website]. Retrieved February 08, 2012, from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse
/evaluate.
Farkas, M. (2011, July). Marketing critique. LIBR 246: Web 2.0.
Haycock, K. and Sheldon, B. (2008). The portable MLIS: insights from the experts. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
United Sates Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2010). Mission Statement. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from United States Holocaust
memorial Museum: http://www.ushmm.org/museum/mission/.
burck_katrina_marketing_critique_for_libr_246.docx | |
File Size: | 18 kb |
File Type: | docx |
burch_katrina_-_website_anaylsis_for_libr_256.docx | |
File Size: | 17 kb |
File Type: | docx |
burch_katrina_online_exhibit_critique_for_libr_280.doc | |
File Size: | 735 kb |
File Type: | doc |