Access Services in the 21st Century

A Symposium hosted by the
Princeton University Library

---

Evaluation

Symposium participants were asked to provide feedback on the day's events. Summary data is provided below. A total of 43 responses were received at the end of the day.

1. On a scale of 1 to 5 indicate how useful each of the following aspects of today's program was:
Scale: 1 - Not at All; 2 - To a Small Extent; 3 - To a Moderate Extent; 4 - To a Great Extent; 5 - To a Very Great Extent; N/A - Not Applicable

A. General Session - Keynote Speaker

Average Score: 4.3

B. Panel Discussion on Assessment

Average Score: 3.8

C. Breakout Groups

C.1 Not checked out/Not on Shelf (Stacks Issues)

7 responses
Average Score: 4.4

C.2 Assessment in Libraries

6 responses
Average Score: 3.1

C.3 Student employees/Student supervision

7 responses
Average Score: 3.5

C.4 Combined Service Points

21 responses
Average Score: 4.1

D. Opportunity to meet and network with colleagues

Average Score: 4.3

E. Opportunity to learn practices at other institutions that may be transferable

Average Score: 4.3

F. Facilities and Logistics

Average Score: 4.3

2. Do you think it worthwhile for this group to convene again to discuss common Access Services issues?

__Yes (43 responses) __No __Don‘t Know

3. If you answered "Yes" to Question 2 above, would your institution be interested in hosting the next Symposium?

Information collected for planning purposes

4. If you answered "Yes" or "Don’t Know" to Question 3 above, please indicate your institution and a contact person below.

Information collected for planning purposes.

5. In your opinion, what worked well at today's program?

• Solid overall program and keynote, panel and discussion group topics. Lunch was a good opportunity to meet/talk with new people.
• Networking best, too bad day not longer. Best would be two days, maybe every two years.
• The entire program was great. Princeton did a great job putting everything together.
• Keynote speaker inspired discussions all day long. Panel was good but presentations left little time for discussion – always good to hear what others are doing. Best Iviest yet.
• We managed to cover a lot of relevant material in a short time.
• Everything! I thought the program was focused enough in the a.m. (panel discussion), and there were good choices for break-out sessions.
• This was a very well organized day – very little went even somewhat awry.
• Everything
• Four breakout sessions was a good number. Topics were very timely. Lunch in-house was good as time traveling to restaurant was saved. No fee for symposium!
• Networking and lunch session.
• The breakout sessions. Trevor was awesome and very helpful!
• Very well-organized – break-out sessions had enough time.
• The morning panel session worked fairly well. The break-out session worked well…great way to share ideas and talk through ideas.
• Small size of conference. Single-day conference. No registration fee.
• Good keynote speaker. Liked the idea of a panel.
• Very well-organized! Great job, Trevor. Good array of breakout session choices.
• A good listening/learning experience.
• I liked the joint lunch as it gave us a chance to meet with others in the same areas. I think it also saved time.
• The keynote speaker and breakout session on combined service points that I participated in. The wrap-up session was excellent.
• Very beneficial and informative- speaker and various breakouts
• Very interesting discovering what and how other institutions are doing. Gleaned much information and sparked ideas for use in my institution.
• Facilities were great and easy to find and navigate.
• Time and length of sessions. Main lecture hall / location and environment.
• The keynote speech was excellent. The lunch was a valuable networking tool and the break-out sessions were valuable as well.
• This was a rare, flawless program. Fantastic hosts!
• Communicating with others from the various colleges or universities and their outlook on their jobs within Access Services Departments.
• Bob Krall’s speech. Breakout sessions.
• Extremely well-planned. Great speaker. Excellent use of time.
• Keynote speaker – really thought-provoking. Panel was o.k. but not quite jelled.
• I really liked the discussion group. It gave me a chance to hear what other institutions are doing. And answer questions in a smaller group.
• Enjoyed the panel. Appreciated the Access focus. Really liked communal lunch opportunity. Good idea to report back on groups I could not attend.
• General session all morning and wrap-up to share breakout discussion outcomes.
• I thought the keynote speaker synthesized access problems to Ivy and libraries very well: 1. Charging for services. 2. What can we do to meet needs of patrons/customers. 3. “Get it” button to integrate different needs into central mechanism ILL, in process, recalls, missing, etc. I would love to speak about these trends next year.

6. In your opinion, what would you have improved about today's program?

• Social hour the night before.
• Ensuring speakers avoid dry presentations, even significant portions that are dry or hesitatingly presented.
• Expanding the program – maybe to two days. Duplicating the breakout sessions (as in 2004).
• Seating for breakout sessions made it somewhat difficult for discussion. “Students” is always on the agenda for breakouts – perhaps rotating some of the topics as students will always be a topic. Water available with coffee/tea. Wish there was more time but understand that one day makes it easier to attend/sponsor.
• I really like having the panel presentation, but I missed being able to attend more than one break-out. I’m not sure how to adequately balance this in one day.
• Some and/or better signs at the entrances to the buildings where the meeting and lunch occurred. Some signs on buildings which weren’t the right building. Wrap-up session.
• Opportunity to attend two of the sessions.
• Ability to attend two break-out sessions (of four). *Revised- After hearing the summaries, I am okay that the posted notes/article will supply the info. I need. What about an opportunity for those that arrive the night before to meet? There is no fee for this symposium and that could fund it.
• Opportunity for more conversation between participants on session topics.
• Water and juice for participants
• Would have been nice to open discussion during panel session….stricter time limit for presentation. Making symposium 1.5 days…have a more lengthy “social” gathering, ie. Dinner night before in a reserved location…maybe pre-dinner tour host libraries….
• Break-out room layout was not comfortable or appropriate for group discussion.
• First speaker on panel had interesting content but upon delivery should have a second breakout opportunity in afternoon and skip summarizing the breakout groups at the end. Better to publish notes. Can’t really summarize well on such short notice after sessions. Writing up notes can more accurately reflect session.
• If there’s a panel discussion next year, I volunteer to be badass time enforcer. Or for any part of it, I can be the enforcer.
• Better to have 2 days every 2 years? Too much travel for just one short day.
• I liked the idea of a panel discussion, only thought the topic of assessment was a little too detailed and I felt lost at certain times. I did enjoy Sue’s portion since it was easier to follow. I’d also like to see more of a breakdown in the list of participants as to stack people, Circ. people, etc. with every one using the broad term Access Services, it is hard to tell who is doing your job at another institution.
• Water, juice, soda should have been provided.
• A few more breakout sessions on perhaps a shorter time frame (e.g. 1 hour session) to allow attendance at more or other sessions of interest.
• The ability to attend more than one breakout. I would have preferred that rather than the panel group in the morning.
• Seating in breakout rooms. Directions to lunch location. More water bottles at breaks. Breakout topics should not be repeated from year to year. Please allow for new/different topics next year.
• A greater variety of breakout sessions, or perhaps theme or subject tables (circulation, stacks, ILL, etc.) at lunch.
• I would like to have gone to more than one break-out session. Perhaps two opportunities to attend break-out sessions. Poster(?) sessions instead of panels, to get more information.
• More time for discussion/questions following panel discussion.
• More time to attend more than one session.
• Better assembly areas for breakout discussions. Classrooms don’t cut it! Panel discussion on assessment was too esoteric.
• A two-day version at a more relaxed pace?
• Cut breakouts time and have two sessions available per person (wanted to go to multiple sessions).
• I would have liked to attend more than one discussion group.
• More formal structure for breakout- brief presentation followed by discussion rather than completing open-ended.
• I thought the panels were basically good, but during break-out it begged the questions: What are we assessing? Why and who’s driving it? One panelist was too dry and was over-budgeted on time which left little time for questions. The break-out sessions were good. But need one hour to break-out into networking groups or just a Q & A session to discuss or cull other questions not covered in the day.

THANK YOU.

Main | Agenda | Participants | Evaluation | Topics
Directions & Accomodations