library compliance strategy for regional accreditation standards

This article was downloaded by: [Baskent Universitesi]On: 21 December 2014, At: 11:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

College & UndergraduateLibrariesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcul20

Library Compliance Strategyfor Regional AccreditationStandardsSharon Morrison Mlis a & William Neal Nelson BA,MA, MLS, PhD ba Southeastern Oklahoma State University , Durant,OK, 74701, USAb Augusta State University , 2500 Walton Way,Augusta, GA, 30904, USAPublished online: 22 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Sharon Morrison Mlis & William Neal Nelson BA, MA, MLS, PhD(2007) Library Compliance Strategy for Regional Accreditation Standards, College &Undergraduate Libraries, 14:2, 45-63, DOI: 10.1300/J106v14n02_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J106v14n02_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcul20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J106v14n02_04

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J106v14n02_04

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Library Compliance Strategyfor Regional Accreditation Standards:

Using ACRL Higher Education Standardswith the North Central Association,

Higher Learning Commission

Sharon MorrisonWilliam Neal Nelson

ABSTRACT. The 2005 standards published by the Higher LearningCommission of the North Central Association are intentionally general,placing less emphasis on quantifiable and arbitrary inputs and more em-phasis on institutional effectiveness and assessment of student learning.

Sharon Morrison, MLS, is Library Director, Southeastern Oklahoma State Univer-sity, Durant, OK 74701 (address e-mail to: [email protected]).

William Neal Nelson, BA, MA, MLS, PhD, is Professor and Library Director,Augusta State University, 2500 Walton Way, Augusta, GA 30904 (address e-mail to:[email protected]).

College & Undergraduate Libraries, Vol. 14(2) 2007Available online at http://cul.haworthpress.com

© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J106v14n02_04 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The non-prescriptive nature of the new standards makes it difficult forlibrarians to determine an appropriate compliance strategy. The authorsadvocate use of the 2004 ACRL Standards for Libraries in HigherEducation for assessment of an academic library to provide the com-prehensive evaluation required to demonstrate compliance with theNorth Central Association standards. A comprehensive listing of theNorth Central provisions affecting libraries and other material are pro-vided to assist in such an evaluation. doi:10.1300/J106v14n02_04 [Articlecopies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website:<http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rightsreserved.]

KEYWORDS. Academic libraries, accreditation, ACRL, assessment,evaluation, Higher Learning Commission, North Central Association,outcomes assessment, planning, standards

Accreditation is defined as an action that provides assurance to thepublic, in particular to prospective students, that an institution has beenfound to meet the agency’s clearly stated requirements and criteria andthat there are reasonable grounds for believing that it will continue tomeet them. Schools and colleges, both regional and national, undergoa process of institutional accreditation which is administered by sixregional accrediting associations. The regional associations act independ-ently; however, they cooperate extensively and acknowledge one an-other’s accreditation. An institutional accrediting agency evaluates anentire educational institution in terms of its mission and the agency’s stan-dards or criteria. Since it accredits the institution as a whole, it assesses theformal educational activities as well as governance and administration, fi-nancial stability, admissions and student services, institutional resources,student learning, institutional effectiveness, and relationships with internaland external constituencies (North Central Association, Higher LearningCommission, Institutional Accreditation: An Overview 2003).

HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION

The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA)accredits educational institutions in a large geographic area which

46 COLLEGE & UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

includes the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois,Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, NewMexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia,Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The Higher Learning Commission (HLC)accredits higher education institutions in the region and creates stan-dards which apply to all institutions of higher learning.

In 2003, the HLC published the third edition of the Handbook of Ac-creditation, containing the new Criteria for Accreditation, which be-came effective on January 1, 2005. Although the 1997 criteria werebroad and contained relatively few examples of evidence, the revisedcriteria contain interpretative text and examples that allow for a fullerunderstanding of each criterion. The new qualitative descriptions orguidelines provide for increased flexibility and a wider range of uses.The new criteria are mission and integrity; preparing for the future;student learning and effective teaching; acquisition, discovery, and ap-plication of knowledge; and engagement and service. Each criterionconsists of three elements: Criterion Statement, Core Components, andExamples of Evidence. They are defined as follows:

1. Criterion Statement. These statements define attributes necessaryfor accreditation.

2. Core Component. A Core Component is an element that requires apartnership between the Commission and the institution; each onemust be identified, addressed and reviewed. The Commission iden-tifies core components of each criterion. The institution thoroughlyevaluates and addresses each core component as it presents reason-able and representative evidence of meeting a criterion.

3. Examples of Evidence. These represent illustrative examples ofthe specific types of evidence that an institution might present inaddressing a core component (NCA, HLC, Handbook of Accredi-tation, 3rd ed. 2003, 35).

Criterion One is the cornerstone of accreditation, serving as the foun-dation for the four other criteria. This criterion addresses mission andintegrity, focusing on the institution itself, its mission, and the strategicplanning needed to achieve the stated goals and objectives. CriterionTwo covers preparations for the future by providing the institution withthe tools needed to review and evaluate the existing program and makenecessary changes. Although Criteria Three, Four, and Five are presentedseparately, they relate to an institution’s traditional roles–teaching, re-

Sharon Morrison and William Neal Nelson 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

search, and service. Whereas Criterion One calls for an institution to de-tail how it defines its constituencies and the service it provides,Criterion Five calls for the institution to demonstrate evidence that it hasfulfilled its mission.

The criteria contain no specific provisions, either quantitative orqualitative, for academic libraries. However, the five criteria are suffi-ciently expansive to create a culture of assessment so that one can exam-ine and analyze all aspects of the library. The five criteria, with theircore components and examples of evidence, enable an academic libraryto identify key elements that are specifically applicable to librariesin higher education and construct a blueprint for building a library pro-gram.

The Standards provide the framework, or blueprint, for the library tobuild and improve activities and programs. Implementing strategicplanning and assessment components with quantitative and qualitativemeasures provides the library with a broad and flexible range of uses.Empirical data gathered from a variety of instruments can be utilized toexamine and analyze all library operations. Library policy and decision-making process begins from this set of collected data.

ACRL STANDARDS FOR LIBRARIESIN HIGHER EDUCATION

The Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of theAmerican Library Association, promulgates professional standards foracademic libraries. Since 1959, it has published several editions of type-of-library standards for university libraries, college libraries, and com-munity and junior college libraries. The 2000 edition of the Standardsfor College Libraries was notable as the first set of ACRL standards toincorporate outcomes assessment.

With the 2000 edition of the Standards for College Libraries, ACRLdeparted from the trend of establishing prescriptive standards. Althoughsome standards about quality and quantity were retained from the ear-lier edition, and some necessary input and output measures were in-cluded, the main emphasis of the revised college standards was to assistlibraries in establishing individual goals within the context of their owninstitutional goals. In 2004, ACRL published the Standards for Librariesin Higher Education, which closely followed the Standards for CollegeLibraries but can be applied to college, university, and community and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

junior college libraries as well. The standards include basic statistical“inputs” used for traditional aspects of assessment, as well as outcomesassessment, and they provide methods to analyze library outcomes andoperations. In addition, questions are included to provide guidance for theprovision of library services. The standards address 12 different aspectsof academic libraries: planning, assessment, outcomes assessment, ser-vices, instruction, resources, access, staff, facilities, communicationand cooperation, administration, and budget. The standards introduceand describe the use of suggested points of comparison and the use ofoutcomes assessment. They provide qualitative measures to assess usersatisfaction and service quality as well as quantitative measures (inputsand outputs) for internal trend analysis and comparison with peers(Malone and Nelson 2006). A number of academic libraries have suc-cessfully applied the standards, and several have made all or part oftheir assessment publicly available on the Web (ALA, ACRL, CLS,2005, Webpage).

KEY ELEMENTS FOR ACADEMIC LIBRARIESIN THE NORTH CENTRAL STANDARDS

An analysis of Criteria for Accreditation identified the followingspecific elements of the standards that are directly applicable to librariesin higher education. They are listed according to the criterion wherethey appear.

Criterion One: Mission and Integrity

The organization has adopted statements of mission, vision, values,goals, and organizational priorities that together clearly and broadlydefine the organization’s mission. The organization regularly eval-uates and, when appropriate, revises the mission documents. Thegoals of the administrative and academic sub-units of the organi-zation are congruent with the organization’s mission. Peoplewithin the governance and administrative structures are committedto the mission and appropriately qualified to carry out their de-fined responsibilities. The organization’s planning and budgetingpriorities flow from and support the mission. (HCL Policy Book,January 2006, 10-12)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

This criterion focuses attention on the institution, emphasizing theprocess of defining and shaping operations, setting priorities, and deci-sion making. The core components of this criterion, which can bebroadly interpreted to include the library, require the institution to for-mulate and formally adopt statements that provide structure and assignpriority to decision making. The institution must be willing to adhere to,regularly review, and revise the mission documents as necessary. Thesedocuments contain the goals for which the institution is willing to beheld accountable (NCA, HLC, Handbook of Accreditation 2003, Crite-rion 1:1A). Information must be disseminated to all constituents so thatan atmosphere of understanding and support for the mission is preva-lent. All subunits must be congruent with the institution’s mission.(Criterion1:1C) The institution must have structures through which de-cisions are made and responsibilities assigned with accountability forend results established. Existing shared governance and administrativestructures must enhance the institution’s capacity to fulfill its mission(Criterion 1:1D).

Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future

The organization’s allocation of resources and its processes forevaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mis-sion, improve the quality of its education, and respond to futurechallenges and opportunities. The organization’s resource basesupports its educational programs and its plans for maintainingand strengthening their quality in the future. The organization’s re-sources are adequate for achievement of the educational quality itclaims to provide. The organization intentionally develops its hu-man resources to meet future changes. The organization’s historyof financial resource development and investment documents aforward-looking concern for ensuring educational quality (e.g., in-vestments in faculty development, technology, learning supportservices, new or renovated facilities).

The organization’s ongoing evaluation and assessment processesprovide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness that clear-ly informs strategies for continuous improvement. The organi-zation demonstrates that its evaluation processes provide evidencethat its performance meets its stated expectations for institu-tional effectiveness. The organization maintains effective systems


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

for collecting, analyzing, and using organizational information.Appropriate data and feedback loops are available and usedthroughout the organization to support continuous improvement.

Periodic reviews of academic and administrative sub-units contrib-ute to improvement of the organization. The organization providesadequate support for its evaluation and assessment processes. Alllevels of planning align with the organization’s mission, therebyenhancing its capacity to fulfill its mission. Planning processeslink with budgeting processes (HCL Policy Book, January 2006,12-14).

Criterion Two addresses performance and the planning process. Theresource base includes human resources as well as financial and physi-cal assets. Core Component 2:2B identifies what the institution doeswell, and it contains strategies to continue that excellence, even as it fo-cuses on improving programs that do not meet the standards the institu-tion has set for itself. Core Component 2:2C provides reliable evidenceof institutional effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continu-ous improvement. Whether continuing or new, all programs should beconsistent with the mission statement of the institution. Core Compo-nent 2:2D requires that all planning processes be linked with the budget-ing process. Although operational planning and strategic planning arenot designed to achieve the same goals, they run the risk of allowing ar-eas to function at cross purposes if tangible links do not exist. All plan-ning must be grounded in the institution’s mission documents.

Criterion Three: Student Learningand Effective Teaching

The organization provides evidence of student learning and teach-ing effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educationalmission. The organization’s goals for student learning outcomesare clearly stated for each educational program and make effectiveassessment possible. Assessment of student learning includes mul-tiple direct and indirect measures of student learning. Faculty andadministrators routinely review the effectiveness and uses of theorganization’s program to assess student learning.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The organization supports faculty in keeping abreast of the re-search on teaching and learning, and technological advances thatcan positively affect student learning and the delivery of instruc-tion. The organization creates effective learning environments.The organization employs, when appropriate, new technologiesthat enhance effective learning environments for students.

The organization’s learning resources support student learningand effective teaching. The organization ensures access to the re-sources (e.g., research laboratories, libraries, performance spaces,clinical practice sites) necessary to support learning and teaching.The organization evaluates the use of its learning resources to en-hance student learning and effective teaching. The organizationsupports students, staff, and faculty in using technology effec-tively. The organization regularly assesses the effectiveness of itslearning resources to support learning and teaching. The organizationprovides effective staffing and support for its learning resources(HCL Policy Book, January 2006, 14-16).

Criterion Three shifts focus from planning the institutional structureto an emphasis on student learning and effective teaching. Teaching andstudent learning are powerfully intertwined; however, teaching does notautomatically lead to student learning. Effective teaching is measuredby the learning achieved by students. Criterion Three emphasizes theneed to show that results of learning and teaching are directly related tothe educational mission of the institution.

The institution’s goals for student learning outcomes are clearlystated for each educational program and make effective assessment pos-sible (Criterion 3:3A). The challenge is to create a culture of assessmentwhere the institution is accountable to itself and to its constituencies.The institution needs to be clear about what it intends students to knowand do, and to find ways to determine whether, as a result of the educa-tion provided, students actually know and can demonstrate the requiredcompetencies.

The teaching component of this criterion shifts from delivering infor-mation to supporting students in creating knowledge gleaned from mul-tiple sources. The institution encourages and supports efforts to respondto diverse learning needs (Criterion 3:3B). To support and encouragediverse learning needs, a multiple learning environment must be pro-vided. Student learning is effective through interaction among other stu-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

dents as well as interaction among faculty. Learning environments,electronic as well as face to face, are variables that affect studentlearning (Criterion 3:3C). Multiple learning environments can be de-scribed as those in which traditional as well as nontraditional instructiontakes place. Examples include face to face, either individually or in aclassroom setting, which could include a hands-on component; instruc-tion delivered via IETV or the Internet; hybrid classes which haveface-to-face and on-line components; and virtual reference.

Traditionally, accreditation focused on library resources. Quantita-tive measures such as staff members, square footage of facilities,and book inventories were tallied and used to justify library programs.Criterion 3:3D shifts emphasis to all resources needed to support learn-ing. Ownership is no longer the test for accreditation. Instead, accredita-tion is measured by the institution’s understanding of what resourcesare needed for effective learning and teaching, and its creative ways oflinking faculty and students to the resources so that they will be used.

Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery,and Application of Knowledge

The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, admin-istration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry,creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistentwith its mission. The organization supports professional develop-ment opportunities and makes them available to all of its adminis-trators, faculty, and staff. The organization supports creation anduse of scholarship by students in keeping with its mission. The or-ganization’s academic and student support programs contribute tothe development of student skills and attitudes fundamen-tal to responsible use of knowledge (HCL Policy Book, January2006, 10-12).

Criterion Four relates to lifelong learning. The library, in its academicsupport role, teaches the skill set necessary to become an independentlearner and library user. One educational mission of the library is to sup-port the curriculum; however, it is also necessary to foster and emphasizethe acquisition of knowledge rather than simply the knowledge itself.

Knowledge acquisition includes comprehension, application, andsynthesis, rather than simply gathering information. Critical thinking


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

skills are fostered and supported by inquiry, creativity, practice, and so-cial responsibility in ways consistent with the mission of the institution.Professional development opportunities are made available for facultyand staff (Criterion 4:4A). While Criterion Three addresses the re-sources needed to be successful and independent, Criterion 4:4B em-phasizes the skills and attitudes an educated person should possess tofunction as an effective lifelong learner. Evidence of how educationalpathways are created, structured, and supported, and the use of scholar-ship by students as they relate to the mission of the institution areaddressed in Criterion 4:4C. The institution needs to be responsible inhow it treats the creation and application of knowledge, and it shouldprovide academic and student support programs that contribute to thedevelopment of student skills and attitudes fundamental to the responsi-ble use of knowledge (Criterion 4:4D).

Criterion Five: Engagement and Service

The organization’s structures and processes enable effective connec-tions with its communities. The organization’s resources–physical,financial, and human–support effective programs of engagementand service. The organization’s evaluation of services involvesthe constituencies served. The organization’s facilities are avail-able to and used by the community (HCL Policy Book, January2006, 19-20).

This criterion identifies its constituencies and considers which ser-vices are to be valued and beneficial to all. The institution must see howits work intersects with the lives of individuals on and off campus andwith local, national, and global organizations. An effective college oruniversity is able to define its primary constituents and communitiesand serve them through the institution’s resources (Criterion 5:5B). Cri-terion 5:5D calls for the evaluation or measure of the usefulness and ef-fectiveness of services in relation to the value assigned by external andinternal constituencies.

A COMPLIANCE STRATEGY

The five North Central Association criteria are intentionally generalso that decision-making judgments focus on the particulars of each in-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

stitution, rather than trying to make it fit a pre-established mold. Thewidely different institutions require criteria that are broad enough to en-compass diversity and support innovation, but clear enough to ensureacceptable quality. Neither do the five criteria serve as checklists, norare they exhaustive. Rather, they are broad descriptions of the kind ofconcerns and issues to be considered when making a holistic evaluation.Therefore, for the academic library to document compliance, librariansmust consider the nonprescriptive nature of the standards.

A recommended compliance strategy is to use a nationally approvedstandard for a thorough review of the academic library. The ACRL stan-dards provide a comprehensive outline to methodically examine andanalyze all library operations, services, and outcomes in the contextof accreditation. The expectation is that these standards embrace keyprinciples that will continue to be espoused by regional accreditingassociations as critical elements or core requirements that provide afoundation upon which a library documents its effectiveness (ACRLStandards for Libraries in Higher Education 2004). A similar strategywas proposed earlier for the new higher education standards of theSouthern Association (Nelson 2004) and the Middle States Commission(Malone and Nelson 2006).

This set of standards can be used as the basis to draw conclusionsregarding the adequacy, sufficiency, and appropriateness of librarycollections, services, and facilities (Malone and Nelson 2006). Data col-lected from a comprehensive analysis of the academic library can beused to provide evidence to draw conclusions which can then demon-strate to the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Associa-tion that the conclusions drawn are within the accepted norms of theprofession.

Although the specific provisions of the ACRL Standards have changed,there have been six consistent themes: educational mission, collectionsand resources, organization and access, service and instruction, facilities,and faculty status. The standards differ from earlier ones primarily in thelibrary’s contribution to institutional effectiveness, student learning out-comes, and suggested points of comparison for peer and longitudinalcomparison. Outcomes assessment is widely accepted among both re-gional accrediting bodies as well as the more specialized accrediting bod-ies. By using this national standard, an academic library possesses theinformation required by all the groups that accredit a particular institu-tion, and it can simply reformat the data to meet the various requirements.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The use of the Standards for Libraries in Higher Education elevatesthe level of collaboration and peer comparison among groups and insti-tutions because all entities collect the same basic information. After onelibrary in a group of peers collects and analyzes the data, it is then avail-able for all other members of the peer group. The task of collecting andaggregating the data could be shared among institutions by rotating thecollection chore. As an aid to readers, we present the following casestudy.

One library applied the ACRL standards to demonstrate compli-ance with the NCA requirements. Using the standards has affordedthe library greater focus for its assessment activities together with spe-cific direction for future planning. After an accreditation visit in fall2003, the library was charged with “developing processes or a processfor establishing goals and assessing progress that parallels the exist-ing assessment plan for student learning outcomes.” The library hadtraditionally used general survey assessment tools for its daily opera-tions. At this point, a decision was made to shift the focus from simpletabulation of the library inputs and outputs to a plan that would includethe user’s perspective and student learner outcomes.

Since the library had never conducted a detailed self-study, it was de-termined that this was the time to begin. The study was administeredfrom a two-pronged approach, with the library conducting a review ofthe actions taken prior to the Higher Learning Commission accredita-tion visit and then developing a future strategy to incorporate the stan-dards into a revised assessment plan. This self-study became the focalpoint for assessment.

The library began by using peer comparison, as identified in theACRL standards, to measure the library’s strength and weakness againsta peer group. With this peer data, the library was able to compare its per-sonnel expenditures, material expenditures (both print and electronic),expenditures for books by student FTE, size of collection, and services.Using the ACRL standards data, the library learned a number of signifi-cant facts. For example, data from the comparison group of universitiesindicated that the subject library ranked fifth in percentage of total ma-terials expenditures for books; however, the library ranked thirteenth inpercentage of total materials expenditures for serials. Based on this in-formation, it was decided to reallocate funding to increase journal sub-scriptions, print and electronic, and decrease book allotments.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Prior to this self-study, there had been no formal means to measurestudent learner outcomes. Therefore, the library initiated an Informa-tion Literacy Quiz which was administered to incoming freshmen en-rolled in all College Success/First Year Experience classes. Data fromthis measure was used to determine the focus for further instruction.For example, it was determined that an additional day of instructionwould be needed to cover electronic resources. Instruction on buildingeffective search strings was given the first day and the second daywould be for individual assistance and hands on experience. The Infor-mation Literacy Quiz was also used as a post-test measure for overallperformance.

Results revealed that students receiving a basic “one-shot” biblio-graphic session would need additional help formulating search stringsfor electronic resources. Therefore, the instruction was modified to fo-cus on the search process, not on the product.

The best strategy for compliance with the North Central AssociationCriteria for Accreditation is for the library to design and implement anassessment plan based on the ACRL Standards for Libraries in HigherEducation. Data generated or collected could then be presented in a for-mat compatible with institutional and North Central requirements. TheAppendix provides a chart, arranged by ACRL section, linking the twostandards documents to facilitate the application and use of the standardsfor this purpose.

SUMMARY

Regional accreditation is vital to institutional survival, and evalua-tion of the library is a key component. The 2005 standards of the HigherLearning Commission of the North Central Association provide accred-itation guidance for libraries in their jurisdiction. The NCA criteria areintentionally general to allow individual institutions latitude in provingtheir compliance. However, the nonprescriptive nature of the standardsmakes it difficult to prove library compliance with these regional stan-dards. A recommended compliance strategy is to use the nationally ap-proved 2004 library standards published by the Association of Collegeand Research Libraries for a thorough review of the library in order toprovide a basis on which to draw conclusions regarding the adequacy,sufficiency, and appropriateness of library collections.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

REFERENCES

American Library Association (ALA), Association of College and Research Libraries Di-vision (ACRL), College Libraries Section (CLS). 2005. Academic libraries using theStandards for College Libraries (2000 edition) and/or Standards for Libraries in HigherEducation (2004). http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/aboutacrl/acrlsections/collegelibraries/collpubs/Standards.pdf.

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). 2004. Standards for libraries inhigher education. http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standardslibraries.htm.

Malone, D. and W. N. Nelson. 2006. A library compliance strategy for regional accred-itation standards: Using ACRL higher education standards with the Middle StatesCommission. College & Undergraduate Libraries 13:89-105.

Nelson, W. N. 2004. SACS Standards 2004: A compliance strategy for academic librar-ies. The Southeastern Librarian 52:12-21. http://sela.jsu.edu/SoutheasternLibrarian/Fall2004.pdf.

Nelson, W. N., and R. W. Fernekes. 2002. Standards and assessment for academiclibraries: A workbook. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), Higher Learning Commission(HLC). 2003. Institutional accreditation: An overview. Chicago: Higher LearningCommission. http://www.ncahlc.org/download/2003Overview.pdf.

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), Higher Learning Com-mission (HLC). 2003. Handbook of accreditation, 3rd edition. Chicago: HigherLearning Commission. http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org/download/Handbook03.pdf.

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), Higher Learning Commission(HLC). 2006. Policy Book. Chicago: Higher Learning Commission. http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org/download/HLCPolicyBookJun06.pdf.

doi:10.1300/J106v14n02_04


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


APPENDIX

PROVISIONS IN THE NORTH CENTRAL STANDARDSAFFECTING ACADEMIC LIBRARIES, CATEGORIZED

BY ACRL STANDARDS SECTION

The North Central accreditation standards affecting academic libraries are ar-ranged in the chart by section of the ACRL standards to which they apply. Thischart provides a bidirectional cross reference between the two documents.The authors have also identified key assessment concepts for each of thecategories.

A Chart Providing Bidirectional Cross Reference Between the ACRLStandards and the North Central Association Standards

ACRL, Standardsfor Libraries inHigher Education(2004)

North Central Association of Colleges andSchools, The Higher Learning Commission

(HLC), Criteria for Accreditation

(HLC Policy Book, January 2006 edition)

Key Concepts

Planning The board has adopted statements ofmission, vision, values, goals, andorganizational priorities that togetherclearly and broadly define the organization’smission. Criterion One A [1], p. 10.The organization’s planning and budgetingpriorities flow from and support the mission.Criterion One C [3], p. 11.The goals of the administrative andacademic sub-units of the organization arecongruent with the organization’s mission.Criterion One C [4], p. 11.The organization’s internal constituenciesarticulate the mission in a consistent manner.Criterion One C [5], p. 11.All levels of planning align with the organization’smission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfillthat mission. Criterion Two D, p. 14.

The library shouldhave a missionstatement and goalsto serve as aframework for itsactivities. Themission and goalsshould be compatibleand consistent withthose developed bythe institution.(ACRL)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


APPENDIX (continued)





Key Concepts

Assessment The organization regularly evaluates and,when appropriate, revises the missiondocuments. Criterion One A [5], p. 10.The organization maintains effectivesystems for collecting, analyzing,and using organizational information.Criterion Two C [2], p. 14.Periodic reviews of academic andadministrative sub-units contribute toimprovement of the organization.Criterion Two C [4], p. 14.The organization provides adequatesupport for its evaluation and assessmentprocesses. Criterion Two C [5], p. 14.The organization’s goals for studentlearning outcomes are clearly stated foreach educational program and makeeffective assessment possible. CriterionThree A, p. 14.The organization integrates into itsassessment of student learning the datareported for purposes of externalaccountability (e.g., graduation rates,passage rates on licensing exams,placement rates, transfer rates). CriterionThree A [5], p. 15.

The choice ofclientele to besurveyed andquestions to beasked should bemade by theadministration andthe staff of the librarywith the assistance ofan appropriateadvisory committee.(ACRL)Evaluationinstruments shouldbe consistent with thefocus and mission ofthe library. A processshould be in place forreview and revision oflibrary policies andprocedures.

OutcomesAssessment

The organization’s allocation of resourcesand its processes for evaluation and planningdemonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mission,improve the quality of its education, andrespond to future challenges and opportunities.Criterion Two, p. 12.The organization’s ongoing evaluation andassessment processes provide reliableevidence of institutional effectiveness thatclearly informs strategies for continuousimprovement. Criterion Two C, p. 13.The organization demonstrates that itsevaluation processes provide evidence that itsperformance meets its stated expectations forinstitutional effectiveness. Criterion Two C [1],p. 14.Appropriate data and feedback loops areavailable and used throughout the organizationto support continuous improvement. CriterionTwo C [3], p. 14.

The student learningoutcomesassessment willmeasure howlibrary goals andobjectives areachieved. It willidentify performancemeasures, such asproficiencies, thatindicate how well thelibrary is doing.(ACRL)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014






Key Concepts

Services The organization’s history of financial resourcedevelopment and investment documents aforward-looking concern for ensuringeducational quality (e.g., investments in facultydevelopment, technology, learning supportservices, new or renovated facilities).Criterion Two B [5], p. 13.The organization employs, when appropriate,new technologies that enhance effectivelearning environments for students.Criterion Three C [5], p. 16.The organization supports students, staff,and faculty in using technology effectively.Criterion Three D [4], p. 16.The organization provides effective staffingand support for its learning resources.

Criterion Three D [5], p. 16.The organization’s evaluation of servicesinvolves the constituencies served.Criterion Five D [1], p. 20.

The library shouldestablish, promote,maintain andevaluate a range ofquality services thatsupport theinstitution’s missionand goals. (ACRL)Both qualitative andquantitativemeasures have a rolein this assessment.

Instruction The organization provides evidence ofstudent learning and teaching effectivenessthat demonstrates it is fulfilling its educationalmission. Criterion Three, p. 14.Assessment of student learning includesmultiple direct and indirect measures ofstudent learning.Criterion Three A [3], p. 15.The organization supports faculty in keepingabreast of the research on teaching andlearning, and of technological advances thatcan positively affect student learning and thedelivery of instruction.Criterion Three B [6], p. 15.The organization demonstrates that acquisitionof a breadth of knowledge and skills and theexercise of intellectual inquiry are integralto its educational programs.Criterion Four B, p. 17.The organization supports creation anduse of scholarship by students in keepingwith its mission. Criterion Four C [5],p. 18.The organization’s academic andstudent support programs contribute tothe development of student skills andattitudes fundamental to responsible use ofknowledge. Criterion Four D [1], p. 18.

The library shouldprovide informationand instruction tousers through avariety of referenceand user educationservices.Librarians shouldcollaborate withfaculty to incorporateinformation literacyskills (critical thinking,intellectual property,copyright andplagiarism) into thecurriculum. (ACRL)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


APPENDIX (continued)





Key Concepts

Resources The organization’s resources are adequate forachievement of the educational quality it claimsto provide. Criterion Two B [1], p. 13.The organization’s learning resources supportstudent learning and effective teaching.Criterion Three D, p. 16.The organization ensures access to theresources (e.g., research laboratories, libraries,performance spaces, clinical practice sites)necessary to support learning and teaching.Criterion Three D [1], p. 16.The organization regularly assesses theeffectiveness of its learning resources tosupport learning and teaching. CriterionThree D [3], p. 16.

The library shouldprovide varied,authoritative andup-to-date resourcesthat support itsmission and theneeds of its users.(ACRL)Resources need tobe evaluated bothquantitatively andqualitatively.

Access The organization ensures access to theresources (e.g., research laboratories, libraries,performance spaces, clinical practice sites)necessary to support learning and teaching.Criterion Three D [1], p. 16.The organization evaluates the use of itslearning resources to enhance studentlearning and effective teaching. CriterionThree D [2], p. 16.

Library resourcesshould be provided ina timely and orderlyfashion using nationalbibliographicstandards. (ACRL)Distance learningprograms should besupported byequivalent means.

Staff The organization uses its human resourceseffectively. Criterion Two B [3], p. 13.The organization intentionally develops its humanresources to meet future changes. CriterionTwo B [4], p. 13.The organization supports professionaldevelopment designed to facilitate teachingsuited to varied learning environments.Criterion Three B [2], p. 15.Faculty members actively participate inprofessional organizations relevant to thedisciplines they teach.Criterion Three B [7], p. 16.The organization provides effective staffing andsupport for its learning resources. CriterionThree D [5], p. 16.The organization promotes a life of learning for itsfaculty, administration, staff, and students byfostering and supporting inquiry, creativity,practice, and social responsibility in waysconsistent with its mission. Criterion Four, p. 17.The organization supports professionaldevelopment opportunities and makes themavailable to all of its administrators, faculty, andstaff. Criterion Four A [3], p. 17.

“The staff should besufficient in size andquality to meet theprogrammatic andservice needs of itsprimary users. Alllibrary professionalsshould beresponsible for andparticipate inprofessionalactivities.” (ACRL)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014






Key Concepts

Facilities The organization’s history of financial resourcedevelopment and investment documents aforward-looking concern for ensuringeducational quality (e.g., investments in facultydevelopment, technology, learning supportservices, new or renovated facilities). CriterionTwo B [5], p. 13.The organization creates effective learningenvironments. Criterion Three C, p. 16.The organization’s resources–physical,financial, and human–support effectiveprograms of engagement and service. CriterionFive B [4], p. 19.The organization’s facilities are available to andused by the community.Criterion Five D [5], p. 20.

“The library shouldprovide secure andadequate space,conducive to studyand research. Thelibrary’s equipmentshould be adequateand functional.”(ACRL)

Communicationand Cooperation

Effective communication facilitates governanceprocesses and activities.Criterion One D [6], p. 12.The organization’s systems and structures enablepartnerships and innovations that enhancestudent learning and strengthen teachingeffectiveness. Criterion Three D [6], p. 16.The organization’s structures and processesenable effective connections with itscommunities. Criterion Five B [1], p. 19.

The library staffshould workcollaboratively andcooperatively withother departments oncampus. (ACRL)

Administration The distribution of responsibilities as defined ingovernance structures, processes, and activitiesis understood and is implemented throughdelegated authority. Criterion One D [3], p. 11.People within the governance andadministrative structures are committed to themission and appropriately qualified to carry outtheir defined responsibilities.Criterion One D [4], p. 12.Faculty and administrators routinely review theeffectiveness and uses of the organization’sprogram to assess student learning. CriterionThree A [8], p. 15.

The library should beadministered in amanner that permitsand encourages themost effective use ofavailable libraryresources. (ACRL)

Budget The organization’s planning and budgetingpriorities flow from and support the mission.Criterion One C [3], p. 11.The organization’s resource base supports itseducational programs and its plans formaintaining and strengthening their quality inthe future. Criterion Two B, p. 13.The organization’s resources are adequate forachievement of the educational quality it claimsto provide. Criterion Two B [1], p. 13.Planning processes link with budgetingprocesses. Criterion Two D [2], p. 14.

The librarydirector/dean shouldprepare, justify,and administer alibrary budgetthat is appropriateto the library’sobjectives. (ACRL)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bas

kent

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

11:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

library compliance strategy for regional accreditation standards

Documents