ANLTC (Academic and National Library Training Co-operative)

Academic and National Library Training Co-operative

Home | News | Contacts |Events | Feedback | Awards | Links | Reports

ANLTC Annual Report 2007

Committee Chairperson's Introduction CPD Programmes 2007 Programme Review Financial Report


ANLTC Committee, 2007 

Miriam Corcoran (Dublin City University): Programme Evaluator

Pauline Corrigan (University College Dublin): Treasurer

John Cox (National University of Ireland, Galway): Web Site Manager

Ned Fahey (University College Cork) Secretary  to April 2007

Helen Fallon (National University of Ireland, Maynooth): External liaison

Ursula Gavin (Dublin Institute of Technology): Secretary

Jessie Kurtz (Trinity College Dublin)

Trevor Lyttle (Queens University Belfast): Continuing Professional Development

Colette McKenna (University of Ulster): Meetings Co-0rdinator

Grainne MacLochlainn (National Library of Ireland)

Seamus McMahon (University College Cork) from May 2007

Lindsay Mitchell (University of Limerick): Research

Paul Murphy (Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland): Chair



From the Chairperson

2007 proved to be a year of consolidation for ANLTC as we welcomed some new members into the Committee.

ANLTC’s relevance to its members is paramount in all its activities. The core of this is ANLTC’s annual training programme, described and evaluated elsewhere in this report. A diverse and well attended series of events marked 2007 but it is undoubtedly a continuing challenge to provide a programme of relevant, value for money events which are also accessible at a time of ever increasing demands on library staff time. There are also a growing number of CPD opportunities provided by various stakeholders in Ireland.

ANLTC undertook to provide sponsorship for the Irish National and Universities Libraries Staff conference held in NUIG in June 2007 and ANLTC is keen to develop linkages with all staff support bodies.

Also valuable are ANLTC CPD Support Programmes in the form of ANLTC’s Staff Development award and the SWETS ANLTC Research award. Both awards were hotly contested this year with some very interesting research proposals and we offer our congratulations to the winners.

Finally, I must thank the members of the Committee who met seven times during the year and committed themselves enthusiastically to a programme of change. Thanks also to all those who attended ANLTC events during 2007.


Paul Murphy




ANLTC CPD Support Programmes

Currently ANLTC runs two support programmes to encourage development and research activity, one aimed to encourage development work by no-professional library staff, the other aimed at professional grades.

ANLTC Staff Development  Award

To promote and support staff development, ANLTC (Academic and National Library Training Co-operative) is offering a bursary (currently €1,500 ) to an individual library staff member at Library Assistant and related grades. The money can be spent on travel, study, attendance at a conference or seminar or other relevant activities.  The aim of the award is to encourage continuing education and development. The Award is usually offered biennially; more information, including details of previous awards, is available at  or please contact your local representative.


ANLTC Swets  Research Fund

More about the ANLTC Swets Research Fund

This Fund, co-funded by ANLTC and by SWETS, was established to encourage practitioner based research among librarians in ANLTC member libraries. 

The award can be awarded up to a maximum of €2000.  Funding can be used to defray research expenses such as travel, visits, attendance at meetings or other activities directly related to the research project.  General professional development activities are not eligible for funding.  Entries are welcomed from librarians, in ANLTC member libraries, currently engaged in or wishing to undertake a research project.

Research may be on any topic of relevance to the individual or their library.   Research proposals which have applicability to other ANLTC libraries will be particularly welcome. The judging panel will be looking for an awareness of reflective practice and evidence-based practice, along with sound research methodology.     

The recipient of the award may be required

•           to produce an article on the research for a library-related publication
•           to provide a report on their research at  the Swets Annual Customer Forum
•           to do a presentation on their research at an ANLTC event
•           to write a report for the ANLTC website



ANLTC’s CPD Report was widely circulated in 2007 and responses from a number of stakeholders were considered. CONUL in particular proposed that ANLTC might make efforts to develop a National CPD Framework


ANLTC Programme 2007


Evaluation Review




During the 2007 calendar year 7 events were offered on the programme to ANLTC participant Libraries. 4 events were held in the greater Dublin area and all events were one-day events.


Programme 2007 comprised the following courses/seminars:


1.         Effective Report Writing (RCSI) - ANLTC 2007/02

2.         Working in an Intercultural Environment (DCU) – ANLTC 2007/03

3.         Introduction to Writing for Academic Publication (NUIM) – ANLTC 2007/04

4.         Developing the Blended Librarian (UCD) – ANLTC 2007/05

5.         Introduction to Project Management (NLI) – ANLTC 2007/06

6.         Marketing Planning for the Academic Library (DIT) – ANLTC 2007/07

7.         Maximising Web 2.0 for your Library (NUIG) – ANLTC 2007/08



1.         Analysis Methodology

Analysis of Programme 2007 is based on evaluation forms submitted for the 7 offered events.


Out of 117 participants, 108 submitted an evaluation form.





Number of Responses



Number of Participants





1.1       Participants were asked to respond to a number of questions under the following sections:-

§     Content and Design (6 questions);

§     Presentation (5 questions);

§     Venue and Administration (4 questions);

§     Overall Course Satisfaction (2 questions); and

§     A number of open-ended questions.


1.2       The questions, apart from open-ended questions, required the participants to select from the following options:-


§     Strongly Disagree;

§     Disagree;

§     Agree; or

§     Strongly Agree.


1.3       Analysis was undertaken on the actual number of responses received from participants. The data on which this analysis is based is included in Appendix 1.



1.4       The following graphic depicts the percentage dispersion of responses to questions within sections with most of the questions concentrated on course Content and Design.









2.         Overall Response to Programme


Overall it may be concluded that, following the trend of the last three years since the initiation of this evaluation format, there is a high level of satisfaction both with the individual elements of the programme and the programme as a whole.



2.1       The following graph highlights this level of satisfaction as expressed by participants responding Agree and Strongly Agree. Participants responded positively across all elements of the programme with the greatest levels of satisfaction recorded for Presentation at 96%. Content and Design and Overall course satisfaction both scored 95% total satisfaction.







2.2  The majority of the responses fall in either the Agree or Strongly Agree category with it being the exception to Disagree or Strongly Disagree to the question posed.


2.3  The programme continues to build on the high standards it achieved from the previous year with the responses consistently responding a high overall satisfaction within the programme.


2.4  In analysing how each course contributed to the Strongly Agree scores of 46% for Content and Design, 59% for presentation, 45% for Venue and Administration and 51% for Course satisfaction, it can be concluded that scores for each course, were by and large, equally distributed, with the notable exception of ANLTC 06/10 – The New Shape of Knowledge and Learning (TCD), which stands out as making a significant contribution to the Strongly Agree responses.  This course had 28% of Strongly Agree responses for overall course satisfaction which represented twice the average score of the remaining courses. Analysis of the free text comments in the evaluations for this course indicates that the subject matter of this course was considered to be timely, useful and relevant.








2.5          The overall programme scores for Agree responses were 49% for Content and Design, 37% for Presentation, 47% for Venue & Administration and 44% for Course Satisfaction. These scores should be considered in the context that that the majority of responses were in the Strongly Agree category.





            Again, as with the Strongly Agree responses it can be concluded that there is, in general, a normal dispersion across these Agree responses with all courses contributing to this very positive result and ANLTC 06/10 – The New Shape of Knowledge and Learning (TCD) the notable peak.






3.         Analysis by Element


3.1       Content and Design

When Strongly Agree and Agree responses are totalled, there is 95% satisfaction with the Content and Design of courses. This area covers the overall content and format design and method of course delivery. As with last year’s programme the open questions reveal the importance of practical sessions, working examples and discussion and the programme has been successful this year in achieving positive comments in this area. The identification of time constraints as a negative factor which featured in the review of last year’s programme appeared not to have been a factor this time.


A very high 95% of participants Strongly Agree or Agree with the statement that “the course was relevant to my needs”. This is an important criterion for measuring the success of individual courses and this highly positive response is consistent across the entire programme.



3.2       Presentation

            Continuing the trend of the last three years, Presentation remains consistently the highest scoring area in course satisfaction across the entire programme. Presenters are consistently seen to deliver high quality courses and to have “demonstrated good knowledge of their subject” (99% either Strongly Agree or Agree).


Presenters are also seen to be open and responsive to questions by 100% of participants when Strongly Agree and Agree responses are combined.


3.3       Venue and Administration

            This area also scored a high satisfaction rate of 92% which represents a slight decrease over last year’s high of 96%. This section covers pre event administration, the training facilities including equipment and catering supplied. Analysis of the quantitative data and the open questions reveals that there were some issues with equipment on some of the courses and this accounts for the slight decrease in satisfaction.


3.4          Overall Course Satisfaction

This category contained the following two questions:

§  Overall the course met my objectives

§  Overall I was satisfied with this course

96% when combined Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the first question and 94% combined Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the second question, giving rise to an overall course satisfaction rating for the programme of 95%.


            This extremely high score of 95%, (the same as last year) demonstrates the continued high value of the ANLTC programme to individual course participants.









It may be concluded the ANLTC Programme 2007 was evaluated as a success. All facets of the programme are judged to be consistently highly satisfactory. The quality of presenters, contributors and facilitators is a key determinant of course satisfaction and the scores this year were excellent. Issues that emerge from the analysis of the open questions that are particularly noteworthy include:

·         The need to provide more courses on emerging technologies and to provide regular updates on the e-learning environment. 


·         The importance of collaboration and the role ANLTC offers in providing opportunities to share ideas and experiences.




Miriam Corcoran

Programme Evaluator






Hon. Treasurer’s Annual Report 2007


ANLTC Profit and Loss account for year ended 31st December 2007













Net profit/(loss) from courses (note 1)





Sponsorship received





Prior year adjustments















Bank charges





Survey prizes















Meeting expenses




















Net profit /(loss)





































Balance Sheet as at 31 December 2007
















Current Assets










Courses control account (note 1)















Current Liabilities





Courses control account (note 1)










Current assets less current liabilities










Represented by





Current account b/f





Profit and loss account























Updated: 18 March 2009