This document discusses the University of Kent's efforts to promote academic engagement through its implementation of the ReadingLists@Kent system. It provides background on the university's three UK campuses in Canterbury, Medway, and Tonbridge. It then details how the system was first introduced in Canterbury and gained support from deans and faculty in humanities and social sciences. Next, it discusses unique challenges expanding the system to the Medway campus but also successes there. It concludes with next steps to improve uptake and interface with other systems, along with lessons learned around tailoring strategies to different audiences and departments.

1. Academic
Engagement
at
the
University
of
Kent

2. Introduc)on
• The
University
of
Kent
• Background
• Canterbury
• The
process
of
academic
engagement
• Medway
• Next
steps
• Our
top
Cps

3. The
University
of
Kent
• UK’s
European
University
• 3
UK
locaCons
• Canterbury
• Medway
• Tonbridge
• 4
European
locaCons
• Paris
• Brussels
• Athens
• Rome

4. Key
Facts
• 3
FaculCes
(Sciences,
Social
Sciences
&
HumaniCes)
• 18
Academic
Schools
&
3
Centres
• Over
19,000
students
(Over
80%
undergraduate)
• Have
Moodle
as
our
VLE
• Use
Voyager
as
our
LMS
• Currently
implemenCng
Primo

5. Background
–
Before
Talis
Aspire
• Reading
lists
didn’t
work
• Not
all
received
in
good
Cme
• Always
received
in
too
large
numbers
to
be
sustainable
• Had
to
be
checked
by
hand
• InformaCon
Services
(IS)
wanted
to
make
Academic
and
teaching
staff
more
responsible
for
their
own
reading
lists
• This
was
made
the
IS
departmental
policy
when
we
implemented
ReadingLists@Kent

6. Canterbury
• Phase
1
–
Setup
of
Reading
Lists
@
Kent
• Import
exisCng
data
&
input
reading
lists
• Promote
system
and
raise
awareness
• Develop
policies,
and
reassess
work
pa]erns
• Integrate
with
Moodle
• Phase
2
–
Embedding
into
the
University
• User
tesCng
and
focus
groups
• Support
and
outreach
to
increase
no
of
lists
updated
• Inclusion
of
reading
lists
in
staff
and
student
inducCons
• Increase
integraCon
with
systems
–
Moodle
and
Module
Catalogue
especially

7. Canterbury
Academic
Staff
–
Humani)es
• Dean
very
proacCve
• Wanted
to
focus
on
the
library
to
improve
student
experience
and
NSS
scores
• We
demonstrated
ReadingLists@Kent
at
a
meeCng
he
called
to
discuss
the
way
forward
• He
later
set
down
a
mandate
for
HumaniCes
staff
to
do
their
reading
lists

8. Canterbury
Academic
Staff
–
Social
Sciences
• School
of
PoliCcs
and
InternaConal
RelaCons
were
first
to
commit
• Student
reps
praised
the
system
at
school
meeCng
• Head
of
School
immediately
responded
by
following
the
HumaniCes
into
a
mandate
for
its
use.
• He
followed
up
by
promising
to
provide
administraCve
support
• Dean
of
Social
Sciences
• Students
once
again
praised
reading
list
system,
this
Cme
at
Library
Reps
meeCng
• Encouraged
by
the
PoliCcs
model
he
also
mandated
the
use
of
reading
lists
with
admin
support

9. Sta)s)cs
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
11-­‐12
total
12-­‐13
total
13-­‐14
total
No
of
lists
updated
by
end
of
Autumn
term
Soc
Sci
Hums
Sci
In
the
Autumn
term
of
the
academic
year
2013-­‐14
library
staff
processed
398
reading
list
reviews
submi]ed
by
academics
and
their
admin
assistants

10. Expansion
into
Medway
• Unique
challenges:
• The
Drill
Hall
serves
3
UniversiCes
• Uses
Capita’s
Alto
as
Library
Management
System
• BUT
-­‐
electronic
material
same
as
Canterbury
• PercepCon
that
things
are
“different”
(worse?)
here
• Academics
already
had
formed
opinions
through
conversaCon
with
colleagues
from
Canterbury
–
not
always
a
good
thing!

11. Medway
-­‐
a
new
tenancy
• PoinCng
to
Alto
for
physical
books
• Otherwise
sejngs
the
same
as
“main”
tenancy
• Challenges
• Shorter
Cmescale
• Smaller
team
(essenCally
2
people)
• Lack
of
academic
support
• No
extra
budget!
• Advantages
• Able
to
draw
on
experCse
and
learn
from
experiences
• Deans
of
Faculty
already
on
board

12. Medway
experience
• Launched
September
2013
• Reading
lists
entered
by
library
staff
–
training
offered
to
academics
• Resistance
from
some,
but
also
some
early
adopter
“champions”
• Lots
of
comparisons
–
“at
Canterbury,
they…”
• Some
notable
successes
–
parCcularly
Social
Sciences

13. Next
steps
• Improve
take-­‐up
in
Sciences
Schools
and
Medway
• Interface
between
VLE
and
reading
lists
• Improvement
of
number
of
items
on
a
list
that
are
given
an
importance
level
• Work
is
in
progress
to
increase
awareness
and
put
relevant
purchasing
policies
in
place
Classifica)on
of
items
on
reading
lists
Background
Core
Text
Suggested
for
student
purchase
Recommended
No
classificaCon

14. Lessons
Learned
/
Our
top
)ps
• Know
your
audience
• Modify
your
strategy
to
the
faculty/department/
academic/dean
you
are
talking
to
• Have
good
data
• Take
advantage
of
the
NSS
• Use
compeCCon
between
departments
to
your
advantage
But
key
among
everything
we
have
learned
is:
It
only
takes
one!

15. Ques)ons?
Get
in
touch:
• Canterbury
Campus
• Kirsty
Wallis
K.R.Wallis@kent.ac.uk
@OsMonkey
• Medway
Campus
• David
Bedford
D.Bedford@kent.ac.uk
@dhlDavidB