• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.269-281
• /
• 2008

This paper evaluated the collection development of the Korean collection at the A university over the several decade. Compared against the ACRL standard Formula A, the result demonstrated that the Korean library collection is still needed to increase Korean collection to support Korean-related program and Korean community in the area. When we share western language materials in the library as the same area studies resources, we can evaluate Korean studies collection as Level B. Comparison with similar institutions (ARL comparisons) shows that the collection is the middle among 15 universities which provide Korean programs. The situation for Korean resources at the A university is needed to get more support from Korean institutes and Korean societies to keep up with the Korean collection for academics and regional community users as well.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.91-112
• /
• 2005

This is a survey study to measure degrees of understanding regarding Information literacy in Korean university students based on ACRL standards. In the results of the survey there were no meaningful differences between individuals age, gender, major, and University. There were also no meaningful difference between the five ACRL standards. However, there were meaningful differences between the performance indicators in each standard. For example in the first standard, the performance indicator 'Determines the nature and extent of the information needed', had the highest score. had the lowest score. In the second ‘Effective Access of Information', had the highest score. In the third ‘Evaluate and Incorporate Information', had the highest score>and had the lowest score. In the fourth ‘Use of Information', , had the highest score. In the last ‘Information Ethics', there was no meaningful difference. This study also showed outcomes regarding the details in each standard.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.8
• /
• pp.183-207
• /
• 1981

Library standards have been the source of considerable controversy, whereas many problems are involved in developing stardard for university library collections. For evaluation purposes, standards should be precise, quantifiable and measurable. In the United States, however, standards for academic libraries are limited to qualitative statements and principles. Quantitative standards, when given, are ususally related to the number of population in the institution being served, or the prescribed quantitative objectives are often arbitrarily formulated by value judgements. The study in this paper attempts to explain the problems involved in developing quantitative standard for academic library collections. Two problems facing in the formulation of the optimal size of collection are identified. One is the theoretically faulty concept of adequacy of collection to meet the situations of diversity of university libraies, and the other is the difficulties in quantification and measurement, along with the lack of concept of adequacy of collection. However, quantification of adequate size of collection is proved to be useful on the pratical level, even though not valid theoretically. ACRL, Clapp/Jordan and Voigt developed formulas or models for setting the optimal size of a library collection for any particular university library. The main purpose of this study is the analysis of the above formulas. ACRL standard was drawn from obervation and analysis of statistcs in leading library collections. In academic field, this judgement appears to have been based on the assumption that a high-grade institution would be apt to have a good library collection. This study criticizes ACRL standard for its failure to include some determinants of measurements, and points out the limitations of the standard. In contrast. Clapp/Jordan developed a formula rather scientifically based upon bibliographical sources. This is similarly empirical but has the advantage of bringing into play the elements which make universities diverse in nature. Both ACRL and Clapp/Jordan formulas share two major defects. (1) the specific subject needs of the collection are not indiacted directly, and (2) percentage rate of growth is an indicator in measuring the potential utility of a collection. Thus both formulas failed to provide a basis for meaningful evaluation. Voigt further developed a model for determining acquisition rates for currently published materials based on bibliographic technique. Voigt model encourages experimentation with different programs and different allocations of input resources, designed to meet the needs of the library's particular population. Standard for university library collections can be formulated in terms of input(traditional indicator), or additionally, in terms of output(cost-effectiveness). Cost effectiveness is expressed as user satisfaction, ability to provide wanted materials within a reasonable time period. Thus simple quantitative method does not cover all the situations of diversity of university library collections, nor measures the effectiveness of collections. Valid standard could not be established without further research.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.297-320
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study is to identify theoretical basis of information literacy program in the Korea. Nine Information Literacy Program were compared with ACRL Information Standards. The result of this study is as follows: (1) The identification of information needed was included in the programs that emphasized a thesis or topic statement and formulated question, critical thinking, information technology. (2) Most programs contained mainly potential sources for information. (3) Each programs had element of Information access strategy and skills that explained to OPAC, Indexes and Abstracts, On-line retrievals. (4) Implements the search strategy using various formats was essential elements in the programs. (5) Evaluation and synthesis was included in the programs, partially evaluation for information process and satisfaction was included. (6) The writing skills for termpaper. quotations and oral presentations are important elements of information use in the programs, however. those programs didn't contain enough the ethical and legal uses of information with respect to the standard.