Using strategic assessment to demonstrate impact: a case study at the HKUST learning commons

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe how the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) Library collected a rich set of assessment data for its Learning Commons (LC), and how it analyzed, summarized and presented the data to drive improvement as well as to demonstrate impact. Design/methodology/approach – The assessment targeted at exploring users’ perception of and experience in using the LCs. It employed multiple channels to collect data. It comprised of three student focus groups, and two questionnaire surveys for students and service partners, respectively. They were planned strategically, with clear objectives and a phase-by-phase design, so that the instruments can be fine-tuned based on the findings and experience of the previous one. Findings – The assessment collected a good amount of qualitative and quantitative data. It showed that the LCs had become a very important part of students’ campus life. Students’ experience reported through the focus groups and survey helped the Library to make a number of improvement in services and facilities. The result was tactfully presented to senior university administrators as a proof of the Library's impact. Practical implications – The case study showed how an assessment, when strategically planned, can generate findings that help libraries to demonstrate their capability and impact on students’ academic life. The methods applied in this case study can also be used by other functional areas. Originality/value – The assessment went beyond quantitative measures, it tapped into students’ experience. The paper illustrates how HKUST Library analyzed and presented the data to achieve results and changes. Other libraries may find this process helpful for future assessment planning.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.