Home Publications College & Research Libraries News Back Issues 2005 June Reports from national conference programs 05

Reports from national conference programs 05

C&RL News, June 2005
Vol. 66, No. 6

Meeting the student learning imperative
Seven presenters from four universities—Tami Albin, Lea Currie, and Scott Walter (University of Kansas); Randy Hensley and Margit Watts (University of Hawaii-Manoa); Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe (University of Illinois); and  Beth Lindsay (Washington State University)—presented “Meeting the student learning imperative: Building powerful partnerships between academic libraries and student services.”

The panel provided tangible insight into ways academic libraries and librarians can collaborate with other student services organizations on campus. Student services personnel, they said, have the same focus as librarians, and that is “to prove our worth to the university.”

Some of the “how to” information they presented included forging powerful partnerships to advance student learning, learning the language of student services professionals, and emphasizing the similar interests of librarians and other student services organizations.

Each presenter mentioned specific programs their libraries are involved in with the cooperation and support of their administrators. Each emphasized the necessity of gaining support and of initiating contact with other groups on campus. Communication and seizing opportunities that arise, as well as seeking out opportunities, will allow librarians to get our foot in the door.”

Walter stated, “teachers, learners, collaborators in service to learning is what we want.” Collaboration enriches student learning, and librarians and student affairs professionals have the same focus. Communication with the other services on campus with that common language will achieve inclusion of librarians in the process.

Currie talked about peer-to-peer modeling. Students from the writing center were trained to answer basic reference questions, and the library is looking at interviewing using focus groups for assessment of how this is working. The idea of merging peer leader groups was mentioned.

Lindsay discussed a freshman focus group where the students sign up for the same classes, live together, and work together. The library offering of “library in your room” allows the student to do research without coming to the library building. She suggested partnering with fraternities and sororities. She said a peer mentor class for training the student mentors would be useful. Health and wellness centers use peer mentors.

Working with the university’s 100 courses to explore majors and careers and workshops offered through advising could provide opportunities for librarians to help prepare students to do research.

Watts and Hensley focused on Service Learning, a freshman program at the University of Hawaii that “gives students a view of the world and how it operates.” Service learning is usually implemented through student affairs, so librarians could work through the student affairs group. The core of service learning offers “moving theory to practice, practice to theory.”

Albin talked about the success of implementing an online tutorial to help students find information on their own with student success and information services working together, cross-training staff, and implementing a Web page with information on who to contact.

The panel stressed that other campus groups have their traditions and objectives, and so collaboration is challenging for librarians and for student services personnel. But it is essential as we focus on student success to coordinate our services to meet the student-learning imperative.—Virginia Bailey, Abilene Christian University, baileyv@acu.edu

Scholars portal
“I never knew there were so many people besides me who didn’t know what to do on a Saturday afternoon,” was the comment made by Fred Gulden (Iowa State University).  Gulden was the first of four speakers in the panel “Scholars portal: One product, seven universities, seven approaches, seven implementations, what have we learned about federated searching?” I would have to disagree with Guilden. As a new librarian at a university that is working on implementing federated searching, I found there was a great deal to learn from the experiences of these seven institutions and was happy to spend some of my Saturday hearing from the panelists. 

The scholar’s portal collaboration involved seven universities: Arizona State University, University of Arizona, University of Utah, Iowa State University, University of Southern California, University of California-San Diego, and Dartmouth. The ACRL panel had four speakers. Gulden discussed Iowa State Universities’ implementation of the federated search feature as well as the history of the scholars portal project; Michelle Saunders (University of Arizona) described the collaborative efforts of the seven universities; Deborah Holmes-Wong and Marianne Afifi (University of Southern California [USC]) addressed USC’s approach to the collaboration using structured program management as well as some of the results and pitfalls each of the participants experienced during the project.

The idea for the scholars portal was born from a USC white paper by Jerry Campbell “The case for creating a scholars portal to the Web: A white paper.” This paper led to the formation of a scholars portal working group, which released its recommendation in 2001. This was the basis for a three-year collaborative effort involving Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the software vendor Fretwell-Downing, and the seven institutions. Their goal: “Provide a single point of access on the Web to find good information, return that information in a single presentation, and deliver it to user desktops.”  The ARL Web site for this project is at www.arl.org/access/scholarsportal/.

Iowa State University (ISU) formed a team with a broad cross-section of skills to launch the federated searching tool at their institution, including staff from IT, reference, technical services, subject specialists, and instruction.  ISU also chose to do a soft rollout of its software, called “Find It,” in 2003 to work the issues out, or, as Gulden said to, “Let people flounder with it.” To search Find It there are up basic profiles that search digital collections, their catalog, and general databases. They also have customized profiles arranged by subject, or undergrad and graduate level resources.  “Find It” also includes a feature that allows you to save, create, and edit a personalized user profile that can search up to 100 resources. Some of the problems that emerged after the first round of evaluations concerned speed, navigation, the interface, and authentication (all seven institutions had different ways of authenticating users).

Some of the problems with the scholars portal project stemmed from the complexity of the project itself, as well as the collaborative effort involved. Michelle Saunders remarked that the collaborative effort was “a rollercoaster, not a rocket launch.” Some of the steps the participating institutions took to facilitate communication were to establish a project management system, hold biweekly conference calls, create a participant Web site, and set up a project management electronic list. Some of the benefits of the collaborative effort were the ability to draw on distributed experience, avoid a duplication of effort, and provide a forum for dialogue.

The University of Southern California used a structured project management approach to this project. This involves setting up a distinct process of planning, managing, and tracking work efforts, as well as maintaining a balance between money, time, and resources. 

Some reflective remarks the panelists made about the federated searching project that might be helpful to others were: 

• The most important thing to the students is that it was fast.
• Collaboration is essential.
• Training of library personnel is key.
• Focus on your key user groups (students, faculty, staff).
• Beware of vendor reliability, but be sure to maintain a cordial relationship with the vendor; and, if possible, opt for a short-term contract.—Emily Barton, Michigan State University, bartone1@mail.lib.msu.edu

Because federated searching makes it possible to search at the lowest possible denominator across multiple databases, it also does not give the same results the search would receive if the individual databases were searched alone. 

Hanna and Minick suggested that, when selecting a federated searching vendor, libraries consider using a vendor already providing software to the library so that it will interact easily with products already held. This may also mean being able to obtain a discount for an additional product from the same vendor.  Lots of vendor support will probably be required. Others things to be considered are authentication issues, whether to host in-house or let the vendor host, how much to customize, and what to call it. IUPUI decided to call their version MetaSearch. IUPUI opted for a minimal customization approach and put up a beta site in June 2004 and has left it that way for now. 

Rather than market the product to undergraduates, IUPUI marketed MetaSearch heavily to faculty and graduate students. One of the reasons they selected the Ex Libris product was because of the e-reserve component. More than 10 percent of the faculty are already using it for course reserves. A concern has been to make sure graduate students using MetaSearch for research understand that federated searching loses lots of the functionalities of the native databases.

There were a number of questions after the presentation.  Hanna and Minick acknowledged that there has not been any assessment of student behavior because they have not developed a front-end for undergraduate students. Graduate students appreciate the ability to create their own list of databases for federated searching.

When asked about problems with databases that don’t work, the panelists said libraries needed to be prepared to work with vendors. Frequently it is difficult to isolate where the problem is, so lots of troubleshooting is required. 

The panelists were asked about the relationship between various disciplines and faculty adopters. Hanna and Minick felt it depends on how well the various disciplines’ databases work. Law is one discipline in particular that is using MetaSearch at IUPUI.   When asked about the competition from “course packs” in course management software, they felt the e-reserve component in the Ex Libris product was better because it was “click” and not scanning, which avoids some copyright issues.

Clearly, federated searching technology will be among the issues that librarians will be making decisions about in the coming months and years.—Mary Ann Barton, University of Nebraska-Kearney, bartonm@unk.edu

What are learning commons and how do they differ from information commons?
The panel session “From information commons to learning commons” addressed this very question as six librarians from five institutions shared their experiences. The representative libraries were at varying stages of change and panelists were able to provide ideas, advice, and suggestions on implementing and maintaining learning commons environments.

Russ Bailey (University of North Carolina-Charlotte) moderated and introduced the panel by outlining the differences between the two types of commons. He described information commons as providing integrated services within a library computer lab environment. Learning commons offer varied and adjustable collaborative spaces that bring formerly external operations into the library. They take further steps in support of learning that occurs in these spaces by seamlessly incorporating resources and services emphasizing the creation and construction of knowledge rather than just the finding, using, and manipulation of information. Additionally, learning commons should be clearly and explicitly aligned strategically with the institution-wide mission, vision, or goals.

Shahla Bahavar and Melanie Remy (University of Southern California) described the learning commons in the Leavey Library, which serves undergraduates. They’ve added computer workstations for groups, a presentation practice and viewing room, and additional teaching spaces. In the future they plan to offer subject-specific learning commons for the sciences and social sciences. Due to the successful service model of the learning commons, Remy observed other campus services modeling the library’s philosophy. Acknowledging that learning does occur outside of the classroom, university-wide strategic planning is focusing more on service and supporting new types of learning environments.

Allison Cowgill (Colorado State University) described Morgan Library’s “baby steps” toward a learning commons. While their commons has some integrated services and systems, they are working with students and university administrators to push for more.  Cowgill stressed the effectiveness and importance of using students as advisors for such projects and recommended tapping into the Student Technology Fee monies to help fund them. She also stated the value of inserting the library into campus-wide strategic planning as a means to create initiatives within the larger plan.

Barbara Tierney (University of North Carolina-Charlotte) noted the move from information commons to learning commons in the Atkins Library found librarians assuming new roles. Instead of being tied to a reference desk, librarians are out on the floor of the commons or sitting and assisting students one-on-one. They hold one-on-one research paper clinics, work with faculty at the Faculty Development Center, and teach workshops on designing effective library research assignments. 

Kate Hickey (Elon University) offered an example of how a smaller institution is implementing a learning commons. She emphasized the need for collaboration among departments and staff to make a learning commons work successfully, but she also noted it can be one of the biggest challenges. Belk Library already has a multitude of student services attached to its commons space, but they are currently looking into adding a presentation center where students can get assistance and feedback on their presentations.
 
Leslie Sult (University of Arizona) described the Main Library’s current commons set up, which includes classrooms, wireless technology, and a multimedia studio. They’ve had success in teaming up with the English composition program and using their library classrooms for courses, as well as success in teaming with the Writing Center. Their current challenge includes determining how to accommodate quiet study spaces within the commons area where collaborative group work is likely to create noise.
 
Panel members had several recommendations for libraries planning or implementing learning commons. Several emphasized the value of student input and feedback from advisory groups, student government, or student assistants. Funding recommendations included seeking out Student Technology Fee monies in addition to gathering quantitative and qualitative data demonstrating the use and demand of services. Russ Bailey recommended starting with data from small successes to demonstrate demand and need for expansion. Other ideas included using surveys; student retention, graduation, or academic probation rates; and working closely with student affairs to illustrate the significance of the services provided in learning commons. 

Recommendations for staffing learning commons included extensively training staff and student assistants in order to convey the culture of teaching and learning. Specifically, panelists recommended shadowing, training modules, and selective hiring. Lastly, the panel stressed adaptability in information technology and physical spaces to help accommodate future needs and services.—Leslie Bussert, University of Washington Bothell, lbussert@uwb.edu

Alternative to information literacy: Undergraduate research and writing
“What do students really do when they write their research papers?” During the panel session, “Alternative to information literacy: Undergraduate research and writing,” University of Rochester (UR) librarians, Judi Briden, Ann Marshall, and Stanley Wilder presented their preliminary findings from a student work-practice study they hope will help their library improve usability for students. University libraries staff, assisted by anthropologist Nancy Foster, are currently undertaking an undergraduate work practice study to determine how students learn. According to Wilder, this work-practice research is “a natural outgrowth of a different way of seeing the education function of [their] libraries, one that owes nothing to the literature or practice of information literacy.”
 
Marshall described the study, which was influenced by an earlier project focused on faculty work practice. The current study uses the same methodology to look at student work practice. The student study was designed to have “real outcomes” that can be applied to making improvements in the library. For the student study, library staff performed two preliminary data-gathering activities. Because students do research to achieve grades, the researchers surveyed faculty expectations.

They also conducted retrospective interviews with undergraduates at the end of the semester when research papers were completed. During the interview, students were asked to draw a picture describing their research process in step-by-step detail. These preliminary exercises helped the researchers determine the right questions for the larger study and where and when to conduct observations. This will include a variety of tools and methods, including ethnographic interviews, audio and video taping, e-mail and instant messaging, and peer interviews. The study is in progress; the researchers expect to complete it in about a year and a half.

The librarians expect the data from the study will help them to, in the words of Briden, “enrich an environment that is strongly focused on the needs of undergraduates.”

Bibliographic instruction and library course Web pages are tailored to individual classes, with the understanding that students are motivated by faculty expectations. Library staff has focused on improving physical access to the library (e.g., longer hours) and access to Web-based resources. For example, they have worked toward making it easier for students to find journal articles, employing a variety of technologies, including federated searching and open-URL linking.

Wilder stated that UR librarians’ approach to instruction is fundamentally different from the information literacy instruction he encountered in instruction literature. He found that “information literacy is not synonymous with the education function of our library. It is only one way of approaching the education function.”

Wilder explained that in information literacy, students are seen as information seekers, but that students and faculty see students differently. UR librarians approach their instruction from the perspective that students are not information seekers; rather they are apprentices in their classes and disciplines. This perspective is based on the finding that students “do not self-identify as information seekers . . . their academic identity lies in the classes that they take and the assignments they are responsible for.”  This is also supported by the survey of faculty expectations, in which faculty reported that students need strong argumentation skills and the ability to write in styles appropriate to the disciplines.

According to Wilder, information-seeking skills are “a means of becoming better students.” He reiterated that information-seeking skills are important and that UR librarians teach them. Wilder argued that instruction is more successful when librarians look at information-seeking skills as a means to an end, as students and faculty already do. Librarians should position themselves not as a last resort for help but as the people who can help students complete their assignments better and faster.

Wilder explained two ways he sees UR library instruction as distinct from information literacy. First, he stated that the information literacy approach to the problem of overly complex library Web sites is to teach to that complexity instead of eliminating it. UR instruction focuses on simplifying Web resources. Second, he said that information literacy literature focuses on delivering skills, but does not make space for what students already know and how they work. The UR approach includes “systematic listening,” which takes place in reference transactions, instruction sessions, and during assessment practices. Wilder concluded by describing how, ideally, library instruction will become an “inextricable” part of students’ academic lives.—Kaijsa Calkins, University of Washington, Bothell/Cascadia Community College, kcalkins@uwb.edu

AACR3
Matthew Beacom (Yale University), John Attig (Pennsylvania State University), and Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) presented a panel discussion titled: “AACR3: Redefining a standard for the 21st century.” Beacom began the session by answering the first of three questions that were posed to explain the changes being considered to AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) and the reasons for these changes. Beacom’s question was: “Why change the rules this way now?” He titled his answer: “These old rules: From AACR2 to resource description and access.”

Beacom stated, “The fundamental reason for changing the rules is a move toward universality, or generalization, and a de-emphasizing of the Anglo-American character of the rules,” and he suggested “this old house” as a metaphor, the purpose being “remodeling, repair, modernizing, extending.” The best of the old combined with the best of the new to prepare for the future while respecting and building on the past.
     
Why change the rules?  Several goals for the revisions include: modernizing to provide access and collocation in online tools, and simplifying and clarifying bibliographic description. This will make the general rules into statements of principle rather than practice. As libraries change to an online environment, the card catalog genre must be revised and adapted. The library community has responded with the development of FRBR (functional requests for bibliographic record), a planning meeting in Toronto in 1997, and formation of the Joint Steering Committee and the Committee on Principles in cooperation with library organizations worldwide to create a strategic plan and set up the mechanisms.
      
How are the rules being changed? As the new rules are drafted, they are sent to reviewers for comment. Each piece is then redrafted and prepared for publication. If the committees are able to meet the time and budget limits, the document will go to the publisher in December 2006 and be ready to market by summer 2007. It will be available in print (probably loose-leaf), on the Web, and, if all the parties can work out the details, on Cataloger’s Desktop.
     
The second topic was addressed by John Attig. His title was: “Redesigning the rules for bibliographic description.” Attig served as the leader for the revision of Part 1 of AACR2. He stated the objectives, which include redesign of the general rules to support for both users and catalogers, allow application of clearly stated principles for all formats of resources, and focus on the “item-in-hand.” The first priority is to address consistency. Every attempt is being made to produce robust general rules. Catalogers should consult these first as the principles to apply to any record. If there are special rules, the cataloger will be directed to them. The general rules as principles for all cataloging should enhance the flexibility of AACR3.
     
Part 1 will be divided into three sections: general rules, supplementary rules based on content, and supplementary rules based on medium. FRBR terminology  and the expansion and moving of the GMD (general materials designation) to a different area will allow more accurate descriptions throughout the record. The scope of all the special rules will be identified. The second section has seven chapters for content rules and a key to refer to the general rules. The last section offers the media supplements and is the most controversial in the draft. Since there are few general rules for this section, the seven chapters here will be more extensive.
     
Jennifer Bowen addressed “It’s all about access.” Parts 2 and 3 in AACR2 are the access points and authority control sections. The goals of access point revision are to modernize card catalog terminology and rules and to determine how a catalog should function. Part 2 revisions are based on the “IFLA Statement of International Cataloging Principles.” The work on Parts 2 and 3 is not as far along as Part 1.
     
Bibliographic data must serve the user tasks of finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining information. Since Google users search by keyword, why have authority control? Technology vendors are realizing the functionality and efficiency provided by authority control and considering making authority files available to the Web. Authority control has great potential as it becomes more efficient and technology catches up with the library’s vision of how it should work to create more reliable and effective searching. The library world can contribute to metadata description as FRBR defines the relationship between resources and improves navigation of results sets. AACR3 can lay the foundation for the future as libraries and technology merge. Handouts are available at www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca. Jana Davis, Abilene Christian University, davisj@acu.edu

 The survey results are, for the most part, based on 160 survey responses from the Electronic Resources in Libraries electronic list (ERIL-I) from March 2004. The respondents are overwhelmingly female and only half had “electronic resources” or “digital” as part of their job title. These librarians did not match up into precise categories; they came from technical services (33%), public services (24%), or neither/both (43%). The duties of an ER librarian are countless and varied. Of 18 responsibilities inquired about, the average score was 12.6. Only 3 respondents had no public services tasks. 92 percent of those surveyed have a minimum of 9 of the 18 responsibilities listed.

Skills required for these positions are developed from experiences in other areas. Reference skills provide the librarian a user perspective that is beneficial for education and troubleshooting. Serials skills assist in the ability to maneuver around in the complex serials publishing world dealing with packages, platforms, and aggregator resources.

Transferable skills that can come from any experiences in life, even outside the libraries, include the highest level of interpersonal communication and the ability to move forward despite recurring challenges with just about everything.  ER librarians communicate with staff from various departments, it’s vital they have perfected these skills. 

These librarians are working with many different elements, including co-workers in their libraries, vendors, complicated electronic resources, testing, service, education, and access. It’s imperative they develop patience and the ability to handle an environment that is a “composite of public service, acquisitions, technical services, marketing, training and vendor negotiations, and more.”  It’s a challenge just to try and stay on top of it all.

The one skill that is specific to the position and a challenge to learn is the ability to negotiate license agreements and identify a “good contract.” Library schools might take notice of this invaluable skill and teach the budding ER librarians. Some hold a belief that bargaining is especially difficult “…with multi-million dollar corporations who hold all the advantages.”

This position is a relatively new function within our libraries. ER librarians are still trying to work out all of the bugs within their processes and systems. They’re looking for a standardization of workflow, more staff hours, and a higher level of competency in staff. When asked what they need more of, 55 percent indicated more staff/time, improving adequacy of staffing, and 23 percent needed more coordination and communication and only 13 percent needed more technology.

When asked about the means to improve their job, answers were mixed. The ambiguity of clearing a new trail brings forth many suggestions. Some wanted to share the responsibilities of e-resources with many people; others felt it should be concentrated with a few specialists. A desire for a more formalized and organized department with clearer responsibilities was also mentioned.  When talking about their jobs, responses regarding general attitude ranged from “dread” and a sense of “spinning out of control” to “my job is never boring, and I always have a problem to solve” and “exuberant, proud of my work, challenged!”

This survey had a range of responses, and the presenters provided a number of very positive and upbeat quotes about the love of the challenge, the opportunity to solve problems, learning something new and fun. These characteristics may be representative of the environment of today’s libraries.

Questions were raised regarding the value and relatedness of the MLIS background to these positions and the ability to manage the range of staff reactions to the dynamic growth. These questions will continue and likely, over time, we will find the answers.
—Lisa-Jean Forslund, St. Cloud State University, lcforslund@stcloudstate.edu

Becoming essential
The panel discussion “Becoming essential: The why’s and how’s of integrating your library into campus copyright issues” began by asking why the library should commit to copyright in higher education.  Two successful models from Purdue and North Carolina State Universities were introduced on the library copyright and scholarly communication leadership. The panel asserted that the needs of the library and the campus on copyright are interrelated:
• The library has experience in adding value to faculty and the academic community, despite political environmental changes and refining traditions.
• The library is a part of the Scholarly Communication Network and evolving modes of scholarly communication and collaboration.
• The library’s association in teaching and learning environments is the same.
•The library has experience in dealing with issues on copyright.

Purdue University’s copyright leadership was a result of the university’s strategic plans.  It began with an environmental scan to serve the campus by focusing on “broad activities on a typical day dealing with copyright,” identified common myths, and developed questions.  Subsequently, the University Copyright Office (UCO) established the outcomes and started an education and awareness program on copyright. UCO was designated as a one-stop shop with expertise on copyright.  Although this was a non-traditional library function, the leadership of the library on copyright reduced potential liability while increasing scholarly communication.

Purdue University Libraries also created a faculty position in the library requiring that the person be people-oriented, flexible, adaptable, and patient with diplomacy and tact. They began the copyright education by developing basic pamphlets and workshops covering Web pages; e-resources; file-sharing information; current awareness, including “orphan works”; and giving advice on what is legal ownership. The university benefited by providing a campuswide “Teach Act” central authoritative resource center and thus became well positioned for future changes. 

At North Carolina State University, parallel with Purdue’s strategic plans, the Scholarly Communication Center (SCC) was opened in 1998, and began advising on copyright and fair use as they relate to database licensing, user privacy, materials on reserve, interlibrary loan, what materials to digitize, and document delivery services. The SCC gained visibility by providing workshops and presentations on copyright, fair use, and scholarly communication. The TEACH Toolkit was developed and it helped to move initiatives, including intellectual property issues, writing letters to Congress, grant proposals, etc. 

The university library positions above were created and staffed by library personnel with MLS and JD degrees. All copyright questions, including those about which materials are permissible for copyright or “fair use,” are handled by the office.

At the conclusion of the session, in response to a question from the audience, Peggy Hoon stated that what is permissible copyrighted material is partially answered by the question. “Is this content from licensed material?” A panel member emphatically commented that the copyright law does not matter in terms of the use of contents of licensed electronic information. Instead, contract law applies to licensed resources.

Panelists were Peggy Hoon, scholarly communication librarian, NCSU Libraries; Carolyn Argentati, associate vice provost and deputy director of libraries, NCSU Libraries; Cheryl Kern-Simirenko, associate dean and director of public services and collections, Purdue University Libraries; and Donna L. Ferullo,  director, University Copyright Office, Purdue University Libraries.—Shin Freedman, Framingham State College Library, sfreedman@frc.mass.edu

The ubiquitous James Neal, vice president for information services and university librarian, defined his institution as “a technology-embracing organization.” He described Columbia Information Services’ shift to embrace new values, including customization, usability, “ATM style” self-service, and new realities of marketing, business planning, and strategic action. He described increased competition from within the institution to develop marketable products and positions information services to retain a leadership position in the effort. Neal’s taxonomy of faculty expectations for development of new media includes personal advancement and remuneration, contributions to the literature, high-quality instructional experiences, student success, innovative projects with interesting colleagues, and excellent support from libraries and technologists.

Patricia Renfro, deputy university librarian, described the library perspective in the collaborative environment. Overcoming differences in professional jargon and language, time scales, and priorities are challenges. Collaboration’s potential has been realized in projects, which include authentication, electronic publishing, and metadata. Renfro described specific examples of successful collaborative projects including Papers of John Jay (www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/archives/jay/), an indexed database of 25,000 page images; Digital NYC with images, out-of-copyright monographs, and other resources; and the Film Language Glossary, which integrates digital video and text. Refro emphasized the contributions of librarians as subject specialists, digital format experts, and metadata authorities. She described the development of a course management system as an obvious platform for library involvement; chat reference, contact information for subject specialists, online tutorials and subject guides, embedded search boxes, and tools like Endnote provide a high profile for the library. 

Renfro concluded with the identification of major issues for future collaborative projects:  tools for integration of content and services, archiving, metadata standard development, true federated searching systems, and rights management.

Executive Director Frank Moretti introduced the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (CCNMTL) (ccnmtl.columbia.edu/), which “makes a bridge between technology and instruction.”  His description of the CCNMTL staff (35 FTE and 10 to 20 graduate assistants) invoked audible sighs of envy from the 300 members of the audience. CCNMTL is headquartered in Butler Library but also has four satellite offices to provide proximity to faculty collaborators. He described an iterative methodology for design research that provides “a paradigm of execution for all projects large and small”; it begins with a curricular context, identifies challenges and hypotheses that then impact design, leads to an education experience, and concludes with research and evaluation, which result in modification and thus repeat the cycle. The success of Moretti’s methodology is borne out by the number of completed projects: 150 large projects from 1999 to 2004 with nearly 2,500 clients. He noted that 60 percent of the clients are tenured faculty who “are no longer focused on traditional publishing.”  Moretti described the development of rich multimedia study environments for texts including the Autobiography of Malcolm X, King Lear, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (www.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/), Frontiers of Science, and Midnight’s Children; online tools including Deconstructor (an online film analysis tool) and Video Analysis for Teaching and Learning; simulation programs for a wide range of disciplines, including public health (ReliefSim), environmental health (Brownfield Action), and medicine (Heart Simulation). CCNMTL, the library, and information systems have successfully collaborated on projects including the Library Compass (ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/compass/), which orients students to library resources and strengthens their research skills, CourseWorks (Columbia’s course management system), Film Language Glossary, Sonic Glossary, and the music library Virtual Tape Project. 

Neal returned to the podium to describe the Academic Information Systems (AcIS) role in providing infrastructure, including electronic classrooms, hardware and software and accompanying support through the help desk and other means, authentication and secure access, e-mail, course management system, and the network environment. He defined future requirements for distributed learning and emphasized Columbia’s “real commitment to content creation.” Neal predicts a rapid consolidation of online knowledge creation to key players that may or may not include academia, and emphasizes that collaboration is critical to universities’ viable participation in the future.—Brenda Hazard, University at Albany-SUNY, bhazard@uamail.albany.edu

Googlelizers, visualization, metasearch, mapping, and other disruptive search technologies
Are you a googlelizer or a resistor? Moderator Mignon Adams (director of the library at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia) and panelists Suzanne BeDell (vice president of publishing at ProQuest), Steven Bell (director of the Paul J. Gutman Library at Philadelphia University), Judy Luther (president of Informed Strategies), and Richard Sweeney (university librarian at New Jersey Institute of Technology), asked the audience to consider this question in terms of information literacy instruction during the panel presentation, “Googlelizers, visualization, metasearch, mapping, and other disruptive search technologies: Implications of revolutionary change for user education and information literacy.” If in the future you see your colleagues wearing buttons that read “I’m a Googlelizer” or “I’m a Resistor,” then you know those buttons might be from this session.

The panel defined googlelizing as the desire to see traditional database search interfaces look more like that of Google. Thus, a resistor is one who does not want all search interfaces to choose Google’s basic, single-box design. Throughout the session Adams facilitated snap polls that asked audience members about their support of the Google interface, and, increasingly, attendees volunteered by hand that the Google design was not preferred. The panelists equally divided their opinions: Bell and BeDell opposed googlelization, while Luther and Sweeney supported it.

The session raised three important discussion questions: 1) Is Google a good model for search design? 2) What other new technologies are coming that can disrupt our known search models? and 3) What are the implications of disruptive technology for user education and information literacy?

Arguments for googlelization were that it makes searching simple and easy to use with a common interface, provides advanced search features for expert researchers, offers fast results, and searches a wide array of Web resources. Sweeney argued that searches “are beginning to include the hidden, deep Web . . . It’s beginning to look like the world brain.” However, Bell countered, “Google is not a good model for search . . . it’s not about what you find, but about what you miss.” Other reasons against googlelization were that it “fosters ‘good enough’ or ‘stop here’ mentality” and that the display of results is “inefficient,” overwhelming, and lacks controlled vocabulary.

Members of the panel explained that the term “disruptive technology” comes from Clayton Christensen’s 1997 The Innovator’s Dilemma. Disruptive technologies are technologies that outperform others and are often ignored by mainstream technologies.

These technologies improve rapidly and achieve mainstream adoption. Examples included Google’s quick progression to become the dominant search engine and improvements in federated searching, such as Ex Libris’ MetaLib, Cambridge Scientific Abstract’s MultiSearch, and Google Scholar’s Open URL functionality. Also, the panel members discussed customizable technologies that deliver instant content, such as RSS feeds and link resolvers in courseware such as Blackboard and WebCT. Sweeney lauded the user’s ability to customize searches. Conversely, Bell emphasized the danger of existing in an “information silo.” Some users might think it is unnecessary to search elsewhere for information in order to compare different sets of results.

The panelists described how new disruptive technologies will soon affect the teaching of current search practices. The millennial generation of gamers developed critical thinking skills through online community interaction and through visual electronic stimuli. Luther explained how Grokker software introduces concept mapping (showing subsets of search results and metadata in related groups of circles) within an online searching interface. This development will affect how information literacy skills are taught. “The next generations are visual learners, and they’ll push us further,” she said.

The panel showed the audience EPIC (Evolving Personalized Information Construct) 2014, a dystopian flash presentation that was developed by the Poynter Institute for Journalism. The presentation described a future that provides Internet users with an automated Web portal that markets, collects, and maintains personal information and customized news resources—without the need for human mediation. The future well-being of critical thinking and information literacy instruction as well as news journalism would be bleak in this fictionalized future. Therefore, Bell keenly summarized in response to a question about pedagogy that information professionals must “engage in the teaching and learning process, take on new skills such as instructional design, and provide faculty with new materials and digital objects.”—Alex R. Hodges, American University, hodges@american.edu

Rethinking information literacy instruction for first year students
Representatives from three liberal arts colleges discussed ongoing instruction efforts designed for first-year students. Gretchen Revie, reference librarian and instruction coordinator at Lawrence University, was the first presenter. Librarians at Lawrence interact with first-year students through a two-term freshman studies program that has been a part of the curriculum since 1945. The freshman studies program emphasizes critical thinking and analytical writing. Culturally or historically important readings and the participating faculty are drawn from every division of the curriculum, and there has always been a strong history of librarian involvement. In addition, since attending  ACRL’s Institute for Information Literacy’s Immersion Program in 2000 and 2003, librarians at Lawrence have revamped a number of their first-year student activities. Library orientation tours were stopped; instead the library is now represented at the university’s organizational fair and hosts an open house for new students. Revie closed her presentation with advice to libraries competing for recognition and funding with other campus initiatives. Taking into consideration the environment of one’s own institution, she suggests three things: first, don’t privilege the kind of instruction that just won’t work at a particular institution; second, keep an eye on the college climate; and finally, take a look at current practices and make changes whenever possible.

The presenters from Grinnell College were Catherine Rod, associate librarian and special collections librarian and archivist, and Rebecca Stuhr, collection development and preservation librarian. Grinnell takes a different approach with first-year students. All students complete a first-year tutorial, which happens to be the only required class all students must take. Twelve students are enrolled in each class, and instructors act as advisors to the students for their first two years. Librarians have been a part of the first-year tutorial since the 1970s. Instruction at Grinnell has evolved over the years from orientation tours, to one-shot sessions, to multiple instruction sessions, to the current “cafeteria plan” of instruction options. After they attended Immersion in 2003, Grinnell librarians decided to take a less-is-more attitude towards instruction, convinced it would be more effective to do fewer tasks in a better way. All librarians at Grinnell participate in reference and instruction, so they work together to develop instructional components. They brainstorm concepts, select those most appropriate for first-year students, decide the best ways to present the concepts, and modify presentations for the students’ needs. The one-concept instructional sessions typically take 20 to 30 minutes, are developed to be visual yet technologically independent, and include an exercise and assessment.

Connie Ghinazzi, reference librarian and instruction coordinator, represented Augustana College. After new general education requirements mandated information literary must be integrated into the college’s LS (liberal studies) first-year courses, librarians at Augustana decided to use the “Information literacy competency standards for higher education” as the basis for student outcomes. Six outcomes, such as how to develop and implement a search strategy, or how to distinguish between primary and secondary sources, are divided into three sets of two, given that Augustana operates on a trimester schedule. Creating specific outcomes for student information literacy skills has empowered faculty to take on teaching some of the skills in their classes. This is a new effort for Augustana, so librarians gathered focus groups of 8 to 10 students and also administered an information literacy pretest to 380 of 600 new students. As the new integrated approach to information literacy continues, it may need to be fine-tuned, so the librarians plan to work with faculty to decide what could be done differently.

A question-and-answer session followed the presentation. When asked how the speakers handled teaching transfer students, they concluded each college receives so few transfers it was really a non-issue. Another attendee asked the librarians from Grinnell to clarify what their non-technological approach to teaching meant. They explained that many of the classrooms they teach in are not technologically equipped, so they have adapted to teaching lessons without the use of technology. This also prevents them from being reliant on technology should it fail. A consistent theme emerged after one of the last questions was asked. Augustana College received a mandate to integrate information literacy, and this led one audience member to ask Ghinazzi if, given the option, would she have jumped at the offer of a separate information literacy course? Her reply was to remind the audience to consider the environment of one’s institution. A stand-alone course, integrated instruction, or a combination of both might be most effective for institutions with different needs.—Shaunna Hunter, Hampden-Sydney College, shunter@hsc.edu

For more information and to view the PowerPoint presentation visit, www.calstate.edu/LS/.  For sample questions and information from ETS visit www.ets.org/ictliteracy/. Jennifer Little, jenjaney@juno.com

Building the future: Attracting students from diverse backgrounds into librarianship
What can academic libraries do to attract the next generation of professionals and ensure they come from diverse backgrounds? In response to this question, a panel summarized three minority internship programs currently available.

The Diversity Internship in Libraries Program is sponsored by the Healey Library at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, staff from the Simmons College Libraries, and the Simmons Graduate School of Library and Information Science. The purpose of this two-year-old, ten-week long program is to introduce high school students to librarianship as a career.  Participants are exposed to three specific elements: job placement, enrichment, and research. The placement component rotates interns through four different areas: access services, reference, collection development, and interlibrary loan.

The enrichment component exposes interns to guest speakers from other area libraries (medical and law librarians, for examples), allows them to view and discuss videos on a given issue, and affords opportunities to attend abbreviated classes on topics such as storytelling or book design. The final component is a research project requirement. On the last day of the program, each participant delivered a brief presentation of his or her project to the intern staff, library science students, and to the library staff. Funding for the program has been made possible by a $10,000 H.W. Wilson Foundation grant. 

Students were recruited from the Boston Latin School and from Simmons Outward Bound program. When asked whether this program is worth the time and effort, and whether it will send these students to library school, Doris Ann Sweet (Simmons) noted that the success of a program such as this required “institutional commitment”—commitment to recruitment, training, instruction, and coordination. Although she did not know the answer to the question, she concluded by noting, “we will track them.”

The California State University-Bakersfield Title V Internship is open to Hispanic, ethnic minority, and/or low-income students who have an interest in pursuing a career in library science. It provides a competitive wage, basic study and training, and preparation for graduate study in library and information science. The interns work from seven months to one year in reference, database instruction, collection development, public relations, and archives. Mentoring assistance is also available for graduate school admissions, scholarships, to discuss professional issues, and to create professional contacts. Of the two interns who have completed the program so far, both are applying to ALA-accredited library schools. Manuel Sanchez, for example, will be applying to San Jose State, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), and University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW) to begin study in the fall 2006. He does not know where he will attend, but Louise Robbins, director and professor at the UW School of Library and Information Studies, offered him two years of tuition remission plus a stipend if he meets their admission criteria. 

Johanna Alexander, one of the internship coordinators, noted such programs are good for the university and good for the student in that they “bring attention to the library’s role in the academy.” With regard to successful recruitment, Curt Asher, the other coordinator, suggested that a program should find out about a student’s ideas about librarianship. Some applicants displayed an interest simply based on salary. “You don’t need a large pool,” he said, “but you do need good candidates.”
More details are available at www.lib.csub.edu/Johanna/internship.html.

Supported by two $500,000 Mellon Foundation grants and designed to make librarianship more visible to undergraduate, minority students, the Mellon Librarian Recruitment Program is considered the first significant effort at addressing recruitment and diversity issues at the undergraduate level. Interns come from the colleges served by the Atlanta University Center library, Mount Holyoke, Oberlin, Occidental, Swarthmore, and Wellesley. Each of these campuses began offering broad-based programming for its library student assistants and its college community. The aim was to provide brief presentations about librarianship as a career, explore issues facing librarians today, and to make known to the campus at large the internship opportunities available through the Mellon program. In 2003, the issue addressed was the USA PATRIOT Act, and in the fall of 2004, the topic was open access. Google and Libraries is slated to be the topic in 2005. The program offers curriculum, professional experience, and opportunities for paid summer internships at other libraries. The curriculum focuses on active learning and self-discovery and introduces different careers in librarianship. The summer internship provides more in-depth, full-time project work. The Mellon program also provides for a one-year, post-graduate, full-time internship, awarded competitively, for candidates who plan to pursue a degree in library science. Finally, to encourage matriculation, four $5,000 library school scholarships are awarded among the participating institutions. The 2004 award winners are attending UCLA, Drexel, Simmons, and Michigan State University. For a complete description visit the Mellon Program Web site: www.oberlin.edu/library/mellon/about/index.html. Megan Perez, Cornell University, mp265@cornell.edu