Home⇛Information Generation & Management⇛vol. 5 no. 1 (2025)

Curriculum-Aligned Subject Assignment and Publication Coverage in a Forestry Library: Evidence from a Class S Bibliographic Subset

Sarah Jane Berbo | Jamie Lynne Flora | Julie Ann Empinado | Janine Cruz | Lyjhey Flora | Nathalie Esguerra

Discipline: library and information science

 

Abstract:

Statement of the Problem / Objectives: This study examined the Class S subset of the College of Forestry and Natural Resources (CFNR) Library, UPLB. It determined how many distinct titles could be assigned to forestry-related subject groupings based on the Bachelor of Science in Forestry curriculum and described subject distribution, publication years, and Filipiniana and nonFilipiniana profile. Methods: A descriptive quantitative design was used to analyze 1,961 Class S record-level entries from a 5,364-volume working collection. Combining duplicate copies and repeated title entries yielded 1,367 distinct titles. Coders used titles, Library of Congress call numbers, and curriculumbased decision rules to assign titles conservatively to five subject groupings. The principal researcher reviewed the full dataset. Unassigned titles were categorized by reason for nonassignment. The same title-level publication years were used for five-year periods across all dated titles and broader periods within assigned subject groupings. The content-based Filipiniana profile was summarized separately from curriculum assignment. Results: Of 1,367 distinct titles, 720 (52.67%) were assigned and 647 (47.33%) remained unassigned. Forest Resource Management and Silviculture contained 490 titles (68.06% of assigned titles). Assigned records represented 53 course codes across five analytical groupings. The content-based Filipiniana profile comprised 388 Filipiniana and 979 non-Filipiniana titles. Publication years were usable for 1,315 titles; 52 lacked a usable year, including 25 assigned titles. Among assigned titles, 531 (73.75%) were dated before 1990 and 12 (1.67%) from 2010 to 2019. Conclusion: Bibliographic curriculum alignment was partial and uneven, and assigned titles were concentrated in older publication periods. The results support collection review, acquisition planning, updating, and faculty consultation, but do not establish prescribed reading or overall collection adequacy. Originality: The paper shows how a specialized academic library can convert legacy bibliographic records into curriculum-linked planning evidence through distinct-title analysis, conservative subject assignment, and coded non-assignment. It treats non-assignment as meaningful evidence rather than as missing data.



References:

  1. Brock, A. (2020). Developing a reusable methodology to conduct a review of library resources. Insights, 33, 2. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.495
  2. Buchanan, H., Webb, K. K., Houk, A. H., & Tingelstad, C. (2015). Curriculum mapping in academic libraries. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(1), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2014.1001413
  3. Colbongan-Papay, L. C., Sugando, P. P., & Florendo, R. A. (2024). Library collection mapping   for   board   programs   of   the   University   of   Baguio. College   & Undergraduate Libraries, 31(1–2), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2024.2374710
  4. Durrant, S. (2022). Using an evaluation grid to holistically assess library databases. Collection Management, 47(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2021.1958723
  5. Gu, W., Ni, C., Yang, A., & Mi, X. (2025). Assessing the alignment of university library collections with scholarly research outputs:  UW-Madison case study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 51(6), 103153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103153
  6. Herren, A.  (2021).  Transforming library collections and supporting student learning with    collection    mapping. The    Serials    Librarian, 80(1–4), 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2021.1883207
  7. Kelly, M. (2014). Applying the tiers of assessment: A holistic and systematic approach to assessing library collections. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(6), 585–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.10.002
  8. Kohn, K. C. (2013). Usage-based collection evaluation with a curricular focus. College & Research Libraries, 74(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-295
  9. Lantzy, T., Matlin, T.,   Opdahl, J.  (2020).  Creating a library-wide collection management cycle: One academic library’s approach to continuous collection assessment. Journal of Library Administration, 60(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2019.1677092
  10. Lasig, C., Madia, R., Reyes, N., Morales, V., & Garabiles, R. (2024). Assessment of the library collection of the Central Luzon State University Library: Basis of the collection development program. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 19(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30458
  11. Orner, S. (2024). Analyzing and assessing a library collection using faculty citations via OpenAlex and R. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 19(4), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30493
  12. Rama, R. S., Jr., Samson, K. B., & Soriente, V. C. (2022). DLSU Libraries’ collection assessment about Philippine languages collection and collection mapping of Filipino reference list. IAFOR Journal of Literature & Librarianship, 11(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.22492/ijl.11.1.02
  13. Redigolo, F.  M., Lopes Fujita, M.  S., & Gil-Leiva, I.  (2022).  Guidelines for subject analysis in subject cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 60(5), 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2022.2093300
  14. Thornton,  L.,  Rose-Wiles,  L.  M.,  &  Shea,  G.  (2024).  Will print books survive?  Print book circulation and in-house use at a mid-sized academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(6), 102979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102979
  15. University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Forestry and Natural Resources. (2018). Bachelor of Science in Forestry (BSF) program:  Revised as of 2018 [Institutional curriculum document].
  16. Wang, X., & Huang, J. (2020). Department-specific collection assessment. Collection and Curation, 39(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-02-2019-0005.
  17. Wright, C.  R., & Tokarz, R.  E.  (2024).  Analyzing course descriptions and student learning outcomes for digital primary source collection development. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 36(2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2024.233758

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic