Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Evaluation of the Monroe County Public Library’s Learn and Play Space. By Indiana University Consulting Group: Gary Arave , Megan Harris, Ryan Hinshaw , Kipp Rice. Introduction. Agenda. Introduction. Process. Data Collection Methods. Evaluation Question Results. Caregiver Feedback. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Evaluation of the Monroe County Public Library’s Learn and Play Space
By Indiana University Consulting Group:Gary Arave, Megan Harris, Ryan Hinshaw, Kipp Rice
Process
Data Collection Methods
Evaluation Question Results
CaregiverFeedback
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Introduction
Evaluation Questions1. How and to what extent is the LAPS being utilized?2. To what extent are caregivers and children satisfied with the
facilities?3. To what extent do interactions linked to early childhood literacy
development occur?
Introduction
Agenda
Introduction
Data Collection Methods
Evaluation Question Results
CaregiverFeedback
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Process
Start Process
Agenda
Process
Introduction
Process
Evaluation Question Results
CaregiverFeedback
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Data Collection Methods
Semi-Structured Interviews
Literature Reviews
Observations
Surveys
• Four interviews• Two interviewers present
• 14 articles• Early childhood literacy, development and activity
spaces
• 12.75 hours of observation• 342 interactions recorded• One observer present
• Paper-based and online questionnaires• 34 paper responses, 10 online
Agenda
Data Collection Methods
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
CaregiverFeedback
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Results: Demographics
Caregiver Ages
Who is using the space?
Child Ages
• Average reported age of children was 3.5• 72% of children were between the ages of 1 and 4
Agenda
Evaluation Question Results
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
CaregiverFeedback
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Results: Demographics (cont)Who is using the space?
• 81% of respondents were female• 55% reported bringing 1 child• 39% reported bringing 2 children
Agenda
Evaluation Question Results
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
CaregiverFeedback
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Results: UsageHow and to what extent is LAPS being utilized?
General Usage• About 20 people per hour, on average• 60% use the space at least 3 times per month• 30% report visiting 5 or more times per month• 45% report the LAPS as being their primary
reason for visiting the library
{ {
Agenda
Evaluation Question Results
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
Evaluation Question Results
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Caregiver SatisfactionTo what extent are caregivers and children satisfied with the
facilities?
Agenda
CaregiverFeedback
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
Evaluation Question Results
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Caregiver Satisfaction (cont.)
Perceived Difference when Staff is Present
Supervisor Roles• 39% unsure if difference is noticeable when supervisor present• Only one supervisor to child interaction observed (out of 342)• Comments indicate lack of awareness of staff member presence
Agenda
CaregiverFeedback
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
Evaluation Question Results
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Caregiver Satisfaction (cont.)
Signs• 62% felt signs were helpful and informative• 32% felt neutral about the signs• 5% disagreed that the signs were helpful and informative• 2 respondents never noticed signs (out of 44)
Agenda
CaregiverFeedback
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
Evaluation Question Results
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Evaluation Recommendations
Caregiver RecommendationsInfant Area
• Caregivers report frustration in regards to older children and infant area• “Magnet for non-babies”• “Babies seem to use it less often”
• Hard to keep older siblings and other children out• Caregivers do not enforce signage in area
Writing Area• Several respondents commented that the markers were
often out of ink and that sometimes the area was short on supplies.
• “I know it is difficult, but please make sure pencils are sharpened and the markers are working”
BooksAt least three people commented that the books
seemed mostly geared toward very young children (two specifically referred to them as 'baby books') and that more books for older preschoolers would
be appreciated
Agenda
CaregiverFeedback
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
Evaluation Question Results
CaregiverFeedback
Evaluation Recommendations
Results: Early Literacy SupportTo what extent do interactions linked to early literacy
development occur?
Agenda
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
Evaluation Question Results
CaregiverFeedback
Evaluation Recommendations
Results: Early Literacy SupportWhat is the tone of the interactions?
Classification of Interactions
Agenda
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Introduction
Process
Data Collection Methods
Evaluation Question Results
CaregiverFeedback
Early Childhood Literacy Results
Recommendations
Reprogram the infant area
Increase toddler appropriate books and activities
Assess supervisor roles and responsibilities
Increase patron awareness of signs within LAPS
Agenda
Evaluation Recommendations
Process
Data Collection
Results: Ages
Results: Usage
Results: Satisfaction
Satisfaction (cont.)
Results: Linkage
Recommendations
Introduction
QuestionsAgenda
Image retrieved from http://ifihadablogpart2.blogspot.com/2011/02/whats-in-word.html
