Kirsten Hemperley
Professor Lancaster
LIS 524
August 3, 2017
Assignment 6- Random Sample
For my assessment of Whitesboro Middle School’s Library I have chosen to perform a
collection map for the entire library, as well as a Random Sample of the 500’s section (Science).
I first chose to do a collection map because I wanted to look, compare, and decide which
particular category needed more attention. Basing my results off of the collection map, I then
chose to do a random sample of the Science department, simply because of how many books
made up that category. I feel that there is a great need for the Science section to be weeded after
my results findings. I will present my findings in greater detail below.
Collection Map:
Whitesboro Middle School Enrollment- 335 Students
Collection Map August 2017
Average Age of
Category Number of Books Books
000 General 42 2004
100 Philosophy 66 2003
200 Religion 64 1995
300 Social Science 728 2002
400 Language 32 2002
500 Pure Science 915 2001
600 Applied Science 539 2002
700 The Arts 620 2004
800 Literature 173 2001
900
History/Geography 1,277 2003
Refrence 138 2001
Biography 1,331 2001
Fiction 8,913 2002
Short Stories 291 2005
Total Collection 15,129 2002
I chose to use the collection map, in order to gain a better understanding of which
sections need more attention. This collection map, modeled after page 178 of our Mardis
textbook, shows that there are 15,129 total print resources in the library, with the average
copyright of those books being the year 2002. It also shows us that there are 45 books per
student, where the library’s goal is set to 18 books per student. From this sample, you can see
that the only category that really needs work in regards to relevance and competence is the
Religion section. With the average copyright date being 1995, it goes to show that there haven’t
been many new books in the way of religion. Other areas that I feel like might need work in are
Science, Biography, and Fiction. Each of these sections have a vast number of print resources,
and in my opinion most likely need to be weeded. I also would like to share these results with my
fellow coworkers to enlighten them on what the library is/isn’t in need of. Another reason to
have a collection map is to show parents (who might complain about why we weed books, but
then ask for more funds to buy new books) how outdated and irrelevant many of these
sections/resources are. I liked this technique because it is fairly simple to do, gives a good
general view of where the library is at, and provides a clear example of where the collection is at.
While it’s a good starting point, I do think it should be combined with more assessment
techniques to provide a clearer, more detailed picture of what needs to be done.
Random Sample of the 500’s Section:
Representative, Random Sampling of the Science Portion of the Whitesboro Middle
School Library
Copyright Last Circulation Physical
Number Title Author Date Date Condition
Light and September, 5
535.078 Color Gary Gibson 1994 2012 Good
Experience
with Light and Robert
535.2 Color Gardner 1995 October 7, 2015 Fair
Burning and
536.078 Melting Peter Lafferty 1990 N/A Poor
537 Electricity Richie Chevat 2003 April 26, 2016 Good
Advent of
Electricity Charlie
537.09 1800-1900 Samuels 2011 N/A New
December 5,
540.78 Chemistry Chris Oxlade 1999 2013 Poor
Chemical Jenny
541 Energy Karpelenia 2006 October 16, 2015 New
Sparks of life- Jean F.
546 Carbon Blashfield 1999 April 30, 2014 Fair
Acids and Jenny
546.24 Bases Karpelenia 2006 March 12, 2015 Good
A Drop of
546.29 Water Walter Wick 1997 January 26, 2015 Poor
Rocks and
549 Minerals Dan Green 2009 February 2, 2012 Good
550 Earth Science Shirley Cox 1992 May 13, 2010 Fair
Earth Science
550.78 Fair Projects Yael Calhoun 2005 January 31, 2011 Fair
550 Planet Earth Robin Kerrod 2000 October 8, 2015 Good
Volcanoes
and
551.2 Earthquakes Terry Jenning 2002 March 18, 2016 Good
551 Landscapes Helen Barden 1992 N/A Fair
John
551.46 Oceans Woodward 2005 May 17, 2011 Good
September 18,
551.46 Oceans Johnna Rizzo 2010 2012 New
John
551.46 Seafloor Woodward 2004 N/A Good
Seymour November 13,
551.5 Lightening Simon 1997 2014 Poor
Science at
Work- Heather
551 Geology Hammonds 2005 April 24, 2009 Good
Seas and Jane and
551.46 Oceans Steve Parker 1997 March 5, 2012 Fair
Geological
551 Change Denise Walker 2008 N/A New
Lifeblood of
the Earth December 1,
551.46 Oceans Randy Frahm 2002 2014 Poor
553.632 Salt Neil Morris 2006 October 28 2016 Good
Jacob
559.97 Jurassic Poop Berkowitz 2006 May 3, 2017 Poor
Cave David L.
560 Detectives Harrison 2007 January 7, 2016 Good
Dinosaurs
Picture
567.92 Dictionary Anita Ganeri 1993 N/A Very Poor
Birds
Conquer the Andreas
568 Sky Llamas 1996 March 31, 2011 Fair
Little People
and a Lost Linda September 6,
569.906 World Goldberg 2007 2013 Good
I chose to do the random sample to get a better assessment of the 500’s section. I noticed
that there was a large number of print resources and figured many needed to/could be weeded
out. With Science being such an evolving subject, it is one of the sections I can see needing
assessment/weeding more often than fiction or others. There are a total of 915 paper resources in
the Pure Science section of the library. I took a random sample of 30 (Ideally I would have liked
to have taken more, but I had two kids under the age of two with me) which provided me with
insight of 3.3% of the category. I found that most of the books, 23 to be exact, were in New,
Fair, or Good condition. While I categorized seven as being poor or very poor. In this respect I
now have seven books to examine closer, and 23 books to continue examining. There were six
books that I could find no record of ever being in circulation. I am assuming that Whitesboro
started an online record in 2009 since that was the earliest recording I found. So those six books
are also on my weeding list. The books that I would likely suggest to be weeded are: “Dinosaurs
Picture Dictionary” by Anita Ganeri because it had not been checked out since 2009, it is in very
poor condition, it was copyrighted 24 years ago, and it sounds and looks too young for the
middle school age. I would also recommend “Landscapes” by Helen Barden because it was
copyrighted in 1992, had not recently been checked out, and was in poor condition. The final
book i would recommend for weeding is “Burning and Melting” b y Peter Lafferty because there
was no record of it being circulated, it was in very poor condition, and copy written in 1990. I
like this method of assessment, however, it is time consuming and only gives you a percentage of
the library. If you happen to choose the wrong section to assess, you could come out with a very
unrealistic view of the section. I think in relation to weeding, you could make a rubric type
spreadsheet out of these criteria and weed that way. Very useful overall, just takes a lot of time
and effort.
