Piloting a long-term evaluation of library data workshops

Fred Willie Zametkin LaPolla, Nicole Contaxis, Alisa Surkis

Abstract


Background: Over four years of hosting library data workshops, we conducted post-workshop evaluation of attendees’ satisfaction with the workshops but not longer-term follow-up. To best allocate library resources and most effectively serve the needs of our users, we sought to determine whether our data workshops were impactful and useful to our community. This paper describes a pilot project to evaluate the impact of data workshops at our academic health sciences library.

Case Presentation: We surveyed individuals who signed up for data workshops between 2016 and 2019. Surveys included open-ended and multiple-choice questions, with the goal of having participants describe their motivations for taking the workshop(s) and how they ultimately used what they learned. An analysis of responses using the Applied Thematic Analysis model indicated that the workshops had an impact on the respondents, although the strength of our conclusions is limited by a relatively low response rate.

Conclusions: Survey results indicated that our workshops impacted how researchers at our medical center collect and analyze data, supporting the conclusion that we should concentrate our educational efforts on providing skills-based workshops. The low response rate and time-consuming nature of the analysis point toward several improvements for future evaluation efforts, including better tracking of workshop attendees, a shorter survey with fewer open-ended questions, and survey implementation within one year of the workshop date.


Keywords


library evaluation; data education; data science; library workshops

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


Coates H, Carlson J, Clement R, Henderson M, Johnston L, Shorish Y. How are we measuring up? Evaluating research data services in academic libraries. J Librarianship Scholarly Communication. 2018 2018;6(General Issue). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2226.

Brandenburg MD, Garcia-Milian R. Interinstitutional collaboration for end-user bioinformatics training: cytoscape as a case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Apr;105(2):179–84. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370611/pdf/jmla-105-179.pdf.

Federer L. Beyond the Basics: Pushing the Limits of Data Management Education. Austen, TX: Medical Library Association; 2015.

Federer LM. Beyond data management: developing a comprehensive data science support program in the library. Toronto, Canada: Medical Library Association; 2016.

Surkis A, LaPolla FW, Contaxis N, Read KB. Data day to day: building a community of expertise to address data skills gaps in an academic medical center. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Apr;105(2):185–91. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370612/pdf/jmla-105-185.pdf.

Deardorff A. Why do biomedical researchers learn to program? An exploratory investigation. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Jan;108(1):29–35. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920002/pdf/jmla-108-29.pdf.

LaPolla FWZ, Rubin D. The "Data Visualization Clinic": a library-led critique workshop for data visualization. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Oct;106(4):477–82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148617/pdf/jmla-106-477.pdf.

Read K, LaPolla FWZ. A new hat for librarians: providing REDCap support to establish the library as a central data hub. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):120–6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764577/pdf/jmla-106-120.pdf.

Partridge E, Vaidhyanathan V, Hoover B, Gotschall T, Beard L, editors. Establishing a successful data visualization service: lessons from the field. Chicago, IL: Medical Library Association; 2019.

Foster E, Champieux R. Hosting a science hack day…and you can too! Seattle, WA: Medical Library Association; 2017.

Weill S. Transformed from a cemetery of bric-a-brac. In: Shepperd B, editor. Perspectives on outcome based evaluation of libraries and museums. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services; 2000.

Cox AM, Kennan MA, Lyon L, Pinfield S. Developments in research data management in academic libraries: towards an understanding of research data service maturity. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2017;68(9):2182–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23781.

Deardorff A. Assessing the impact of introductory programming workshops on the computational reproducibility of biomedical workflows. PLoS One 2020;15(7):e0230697.

Ragon B. Where is my data scientist? Austin, TX: Medical Library Association; 2015.

Kutner M, Sherman R, Tibbetts J, Condelli L. Evaluating professional development: a framework for adult education. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Associates; 1997.

Guskey TR. What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan. 2003;84(10):748–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308401007.

Knowles MS, Holton EF III, Swanson RA. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 6th edition. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 2005.

Guest G, MacQueen K, Namey EE. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 2012. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/applied-thematic-analysis.

Nitecki DA. Program evaluation in libraries: relating operations and clients. Arch Sci 2004;4(1-2):17–44. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10502-005-6989-3.

Nitecki DA, Hernon P. Measuring service quality at Yale University's libraries. J Acad Librariansh 2000;26(4):259. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(00)00117-8.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1047

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2021 Fred Willie Zametkin LaPolla, Nicole Contaxis, Alisa Surkis

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.