I arrived in Seattle with great anticipation (perhaps a bit of anxiety too) and returned to Minneapolis with a renewed energy, lots of new ideas and a new sense of community among my library colleagues from all corners of the profession. If only I had another week to process everything! It is reassuring to me to know that the conference materials are available to me for another year on Virtual Conference website. One thing I did not come away with is a pile of stuff. Now, I recognize that this is my first national conference, but I have a hunch that there was a lot less paper this year than there has been at past conferences and this in part a reflection of the greening of the conference. I’m sure there is more that we could all have done to make the conference have even less of an impact on the environment, but I think we’re headed in the right direction. One question: I noticed bamboo plates were used for food but I never actually ate any of the conference food so I was wondering if these bamboo plates were reused, recylced or simply thrown?
I figured one national conference was enough for me this year, so I hadn’t planned on going to the ALA annual conference in July. I’m reconsidering this decision, however, based on the recommendations from several of my new and more experienced librarian friends made at the conference. I also learned about ACRL’s immersion program which I had not heard about before. The deadline for this year’s program application has passed, but I will be watching closely for future opportunities now that it is on my radar.
That’s the challenge of being new to the profession, I think. There is so much to learn, so many people to meet, and so many routes one can take professionally. The trouble for me is I feel like I am interested in so much and I don’t always know exactly where to focus my energies or attention. Any other newbies experience this too?
All in all, I had a fabulous conference (Ira Glass was a perfect finale for me!) and look forward to the continued conversations. I am delighted by everyone’s willingness to share their ideas and innovations with me (and other conference attendees, of course) and hope that one day I might have an idea or two worthy of sharing at an ACRL conference. Even though I’m borderline Net Gen/Millenial/Gen X, Y, Z (or whatever you want to call it), I guess I am a bit more slow on the uptake when it comes to the technologies piece of the puzzle. I barely manage a course blog and I have yet to take my socializing to the web (am I the only one?). I guess I just don’t know when people find time to do it–but maybe it just takes me longer than everyone else. I have great respect for those attendees who were able to contribute highly substantive posts to the ACRL blog, create photo slide shows using flickr, and managed to get on board with Twitter. As for me? Here’s what I can do: tweet. tweet. tweet. (maybe by next conference…?)
This will be my last session-related post. I went to several CZS sessions yesterday, but they’ve already been blogged admirably, so I won’t be redundant. I made a conscious decision not to be be so gung-ho as it was wearing me out! I was able to cram in a short time at the Pacific Science Center late yesterday afternoon. I recommend it, especially the Tropical Butterfly House and the naked mole-rats.
Today’s post concerns the Subject Liaison2. 0 presentation. As an accidental science liaison, I’m curious about ways I can improve my ability to interact with faculty and students of subjects I have not usually taken on (being a Medieval History guy in college, there wasn’t much call for studying Biology). Strangely, I’ve rediscovered my interest in science (I wanted to be a scientist of some kind when I was in elementary school). I’ll be live blogging this session.
Mel DeSart of the University of Washington’s Engineering Library kicked off the session. Very funny use of the track from the Bionic Man - he says were not going to get that type of suggestion - no bionic liaison. 2.0 suggests a big jump or new form, however. They are going to say where SL librarians are now and what direction we need to be moving in.
Jim Neal, the Vice President for Information Services and University Librarian at Columbia University
Providing an administrative perspective on subject librarianship.
SL needs to be considered in the larger context of where Academic libraries are heading.
Academic librariesare still going to be “fundamental infrastructure” for modern academic institutions: legacy, infrastructure, repository, portal, etc.
SLs help us respond to user expectations: content, access, convenience, new capabilities, cost reduction, participation, individual productivity, individual control and organizational productivity.
Core responsibilities: selection, acquisition, synthesis, navigation, dissemination, interpretation, understanding, use, application, archiving - all in support of teaching and learning.
New responsibilities (old ones are not enough): libraries as consumers, intermediaries and aggregators, publishers, educators, r&d, entrepreneurs, policy advocates. - transcends Information Literacy.
Expectations for the SL: commitment to - rigor, r&d, assessment and evaluation, marketing skills, political engagement, project dev and mgmt, entrepreneurial spirit, resource development, leadership, deep subject or technical expertise. We can only be successful if we build this capacity in our libraries.
Need clear sense of mission, self vision, base of knowledge, strategic positioning, continuous improvement.
Feral Professionals (raised by wolves - not necessarily one type of academic degree - not even necessarily MLS ) - Professionals with diverse academic credentials, wide range of new professional assignments, professional roles of support staff and students.
SL relations to patrons: servant, stranger, parallel, friend, partner, customer, team - the last three are the ones that need to be developed.
Subject Librarians must enable: social networking, collective intelligence, permanent beta, authorship revolution, software as service/not product, artificial intelligence/expert systems, library as participation/not information. - not just “find” but “mine” information. We need a higher level of “professional maturity” to deal with the 2.0 (and, ultimately, 3.0) environment.
Complexity, ambiguity, flexibility, perpetual assessment, challenges to powers that be, low tolerance for management by cliche, erosion of boundaries and inflexible structures.
Users want us to be: authoritative and virtuoso, authenticated and secure, appropriate and pertinent, accessible and virtual and omnipresent, achromatic and advocative, audacious and attentive, assimilative and virtuous.
Must evaluate our work in terms of “human objectives.”
Overall, a pretty densely packed presentation - thought provoking and a bit disturbing at the same time.
Karen Williams of the University of Minnesota
She agrees wholeheartedly with Neal.
Everything they do supports and advances higher education. Different from public services, which has little relevance outside of the library space.
How do we make the SL 2.0 model happen?
Position Description Framework: scholarly communication, teaching and learning, digital tools, outreach, collection development & management, fund raising, reference services.
“Nothing is static anymore in our universes.”
“Teaching and learning” does not refer to “bibliographic instruction” or info literacy - it’s beyond that. UM wants to move beyond the old “guest lectures” model.
Scholarly Communication is the focus of her talk. Very dense slide - she will upload them to the appropriate place for people to read.
They form “collaboratives” at Minnesota - everyone participates “very broadly.”
Staff dev and support: experts, environmental scan, resources & tools, templates, action plans - toolkit created so no one has to start from scratch.
Recruited advocates from faculty in other departments.
Launched their Institutional Repository with collections already loaded so there were no empty links.
A system view: constituent behaviors, library vision/mission/goals, position descriptions/realistic jobs, individual goals, knowledge/skills/ability, staff education, resources, performance evaluation.
Have moved away from collection dev activities by using approval plans more heavily to free up liaison time. Also will scale down time spent at ref desk.
Create a “risktaking” environment; you have to celebrate failures as well as successes.
Kara Whatley, Head, Coles Science Center at New York University
The Holy Trinity: Reference, Instruction, Collectin Development
Reference: virtual, in-depth consultations, collaborative/team reference (use VR, blogs, etc.), data reference.
Collection Development: on-demand purchasing, focus on “medium rare” items, collecting new media, relying more heavily on approval plans.
Instruction: course-embedded librarians, effective assessment, instructional design techniques. Shift our teaching to make sure we are really providing effective instruction.
Expanding roles: engagement in knowledge creation, embedded librarianship, technologist, grant writing, communicator/politician.
New twists on old skills: mediation (”middleware” - connector between patrons and info); organization of information - tagging and metadata; preservation of info - data, new media; event planning/programming (need to find ways to get people into the library, since the collections are being used mostly virtually).
Development of new skills: “Just do it!”; technology competency and training; continuing education opportunities - small conferences, summer institutes for practicing librarians.
Things to consider changing (either by curtailing or strengthening): multi-desk reference service, firm ordering as we know it, stronger partnerships with campus IT, sharing common needs across librarians, going mobile.
The session was good, moving from more complex abstract considerations to a more concrete example of how subject librarians work. In the end, Whatley’s presentation was, perhaps, more useful for a CC librarian, since we need practical, practitioner advice.
…that’s what it’s like for a first-time attendee. And I must say, I don’t know how my roommate and the other first-time attendees who are also presenting or facilitating or working/volunteering do it…especially when I am here just trying to keep up with everything!
To borrow from Sherman Alexie, I saw first-hand a glimpse of what he referred to as “Librarians Unleashed” last night as I attended my first “sponsored event” of the conference: the Gale Gala at the Space Needle. The location for such an event couldn’t be beat, the food and drink were plentiful, and the energy was lively, to say the least. I couldn’t help but wonder how much $$$ such an event must cost. And then I couldn’t help but think about my community college’s teeny tiny budget (which is getting teenier and tinier as I write) and how maybe if/when next time I am invited to such an event I might politely ask if our Library could get a discount on the Gale databases we purchase annually instead. Doesn’t that sound like a more sensible exchange? I mean, if a good product/publication exists, I’m going to purchase it regardless of whether the company offers me some kind of perk in return–after all, I’m in librarianship not pharmaceutical sales. All I expect is an affordable quality product accompanied by satisfactory customer service and as long as the content continues to support the college’s curriculum and/or the library’s collection needs, I am satisfied. I would like to think I will continue to feel this way for years to come, but who knows. Maybe I’ll one day find myself asking “what’s in it for me” before making a decision about purchasing something for my library’s collection. I hope not. So I’m not sure what exactly I learned from this experience (or all the free swag I was offered in the Exhibit Hall), but I can’t help but critically reflect upon it and wonder what the value is in being pampered by companies who turn around and charge my Library an arm and a leg for their products.
So, last night Sheman Alexie rocked the house! I hadn’t laughed so hard since meeting the Emery-Pratt robot (see earlier post for more on that). But one thing I noticed at the keynote that was totally NOT funny was someone taking a mobile phone call and proceeding to have 5 minute conversation in the ballroom as Mr Alexie was being introduced! I was completely shocked and disconcerted (and from the looks of others around me, I wasn’t the only one). It’s one thing for an 18-year old first-year college student to mistake the library as an appropriate place for a phone conversation, but I would like to think that anyone attending this conference would understand that it is just not good etiquette to do such a thing. But wait! It gets even worse. So, today at the final invited paper presentation “I would sort of appreciate a little more understanding:” Engaging Net Gen Students in Virtual Reference, I actually witnessed this happen again. This time, however, the woman taking the call didn’t even bother getting up from her seat. As Mary Kate or Ashley Olson from the Full House days might say, “How Rude!”
But to prove that I’m not just another annoyed librarian, I will share at least a few more positive experiences…
Today I attended my first (and only) round-table discussion. I joined a small group discussing how to improve/increase delivery of online library services to distance students. I learned our little community college library is perhaps a bit behind (or below) other institutions in what we offer, but we are certainly being innovative in our own way and are doing what we can with the limited resources/budget we have available to us. I enjoyed the discussion and now I know what to expect and perhaps in the future I could even propose my own round-table discussion…?
While I attended and learned something from all of the poster sessions, the most memorable presentation for me was Library Secrets!:… I loved the originality and creativity of this poster. According to this conference the whole world is tweeting, but I highly doubt my urban community college student body is doing much with twitter. Even so, I really appreciated the innovation behind the various library/library services “presence projects” (some people call this “marketing,” but I like to use the terms “visibility” or “presence”) Jennifer Kelley presented on behalf of the College of DuPage. Her library MOO cards are exactly the kind of Guerrilla marketing project I can take back to my campus and pitch as an idea as it is a very practical approach to reaching our students…especially in a time of deep budget cuts!
One shot from “Library Secrets!” poster presentation
I’m back in the CZS for more tech fun. There has been some interest at our college in finding ways to get students to use reference, and one idea was to have roving reference (as well as office hours outside of the library). I’m here to check out what Emily Rimland of Penn State has to say about their experience with handheld devices and reference. You have to hand it to the Nittany Lions. This is the second innovative session from them I’ve seen today! The next thing you know, they’ll be bustin’ out the tricorders on us.
Their situation: giant library, many floors, many users, many service desks - how could technology help in this context?
2007 - considered the iPhone - “sexy,” but it didn’t have a compatible VPN client - long-term contract an issue, too.
Basic Idea: roving staff member with handheld; able to answer ref questions; able to help patron at point of need.
4 devices tested in pilot and testers completed multiple evaluations. This all was done through collaborating with their IT staff (key component of this). Non-IT staff came up with “use cases,” and the IT department selected the “right devices” for those use cases. Three of the four devices were already owned by the IT department, which kept down the costs.
Used for roving ref to find physical item, find further info and email to patron, ref outside of library, faculty liaison activities, library instruction in class.
Devices: Fujitsu Lifebook, Sony Vaio UX-490, Nokia N-810, OQO. No clear winner, but the Lifebook was the closest (similar to laptop). Phone connectivity is important. Some testers found some devices to be too small for efficiency in answering ref questions. Learned that it is critical to collaborate with IT, that the wireless system needs to be tweaked and other “serendipitous” findings. They found that the Lifebook is good for other scenarios.
They are currently testing the iPod touch along with/without cell phone.
Good question: how did they identify the roving ref person? They did not have any identifying clothing or tags - just educated the staff member on how to approach patrons.
So far this session is really great. First off, the presenters are from Wayne State and that is where I got my MLIS! Secondly, they are incorporating really great interactive practices that we all should be using in our instruction courses. They kicked off the session by soliciting from the audience the challenges that they feel they might face in creating the learning objects to be used “to go”. The presenters clearly defined what a learning object is and continued on to another exercise that got us, the audience, talking amongst each other about clearly defining a learning objective. Next they moved in to a discussion of “storyboarding” in order to create a learning object. The storyboard provides a plan where a clearly defined objective, a list of visuals/examples to include, and the attendant details associated with each example, ie. any scripts, highlights, or clicks needed.
The presenters next moved on to a discussion of their decision to attempt to utilize web 2.0 technology with their learning objects and the challenges and opportunities that this decision presented. In their first example they showed off trailfire and some of its linking capabilities. Their second example came from brainhoney and they utilized hot potatoes for their quiz assessments.
For community colleges who are beginning to explore the use of online learning objects like we are at my institution I think this session provided a lot of good food for thought in terms of the creation of these portable objects and how to make them socially interactive for the students.
Good morning. Like many of you all, I enjoyed Sherman Alexie’s keynote last night. It was great to finally see him in person. I was bummed to miss him when he came to Spokane back in the fall.
The paper is focused on online social networking, as opposed to other types of social networking.
These sites have become “central” for accessing and sharing information.
We have to develop the skill sets to maintain our role “as information experts” in the Web 2.0 world.
The skills he proposes are based on the ACRL IL competency standards. They are flexible and applicable across social networking sites. They are not just relevant for Facebook or Twitter.
We need to be teaching these to students and patrons as well. Note: this is very true in my experience with undergraduates. They might know how to use the technology, but are they thinking critically about these things?
Some skills
Creating content: contributing content in various formats, creating a library presence - pages, groups, profiles, applications.
Understanding and articulating the nature and roles of the social networking tools available.
Evaluating information: need to be able to critically evaluate the content in SN sites. We should help our patrons gain these skills. They also need to be critical about how they are creating content, as well.
Applying info ethically and legally: need to respect copyright and intellectual property. Be aware of unique cultural norms of and need for privacy.
Searching and Navigating: effectively search and browse. What are the connections and hierarchies in each of the SN sites? What fields are searchable? Structures of relationships important.
Interacting: tricky for librarians. How do we interact appropriately with patrons through SN sites? Which methods are interactive and which aren’t?
Teaching: Assist patrons and peers with developing SN skills.
Providing services - building and managing the library’s presence. I like this question: how do we respect the privacy of patrons AND our own privacy? We need to be ready for vendors selling “facebook” compatible applications for the library, too.
Other points
“Flexibility is the defining competency.” We have to be ready for change, be able to visualize what’s around the bend.
Encourages “hands-on,” a “sense of play.” We don’t need to be afraid of engaging in these things. Our associations need to be encouraging and supporting us in learning these skills, which are soon to be “required skills” for doing our job properly.
Murphy argues that we need to develop the skills to design applications for Facebook. We cannot rely on IT people to do this. He invites interested parties to friend him and his co-author on Facebook.
I wonder how students see the Facebook initiatives in Community Colleges and universities. The LibGuides presentation I went to yesterday suggested that students saw using Facebook as a portal as “unprofessional.” Also, how do we separate our “personal” lives from our professional lives in a Facebook profile, or do we create both?
Also, do students want to know what we’re up to via Twitter? Maybe they do, but we need to find this out somehow.
Katy Lenn’s presentation was incredibly thought provoking! She basically posed the question of whether we should be teaching IL sessions for freshmen students. She went through all the major arguments for why library instruction should happen for freshmen (it improves retention, reduces library anxiety, ‘it is good for them’, and validating our own roles), and then took them apart one by one. For example, in terms of retention, she asked how important library instruction really is to retention? Are we targeting those groups of students whose retention rates are really low?
Although I’m sure not everyone would agree with Lenn’s argument, it is a worthwhile discussion to have - especially, as she pointed out, now that the economic downturn means that many librarians are having to look at where they can cut back. Is it worth it to spend time and effort teaching freshmen if they don’t necessarily need (or want) library instruction, and often don’t retain the information anyway?
I am attending three straight Cyber Zed Shed presentations, beginning at 3 today. The first is Learning Information Literacy Online (LILO), followed by BibApp and Podcasts. I’ll be “live” blogging these three presentations. These will be my first of this series, which, as Jennifer blogged earlier, will give me the practical know-how that is so useful in the CC world (not that it’s not useful in other settings).
Session 1 (LILO)
I hadn’t realized that one of my fellow bloggers was presenting at CZS, i.e., Margot Hanson (great job, Margot!). She is demonstrating a project from the University of Hawaii to put IL online. The code came from North Carolina State. LILO is a systemwide effort throughout the state. Note to self: how could we set up a collaborative model at the Community Colleges of Spokane for all three parts of our system?
Interactive: tutorial, research journal; IM chat, email librarians/instructors; videos and links to interactive elements.
Assessment: institutional standards, information literacy reports.
Students know what is expected of them - very important. They also included a local topics section, which can help keep students interested.
Tutorial is comprised of 6 modules, ranging from general to specific. The students automatically have an account in the system. The students have a journal, which can be emailed to librarians and their instructor. This provides an easy, safe way to provide meaningful feedback to students about their progress. Showed a good, quick video about citing sources - good use of humor. They posted it on YouTube.
Assessment - follow a cycle.
ACRL standards, university standards
LILO content and questions
Student responses
Score with rubrics
Response Data to faculty - trying to get more faculty on board to make it required, whether than voluntary, as it is now.
There is a guest login available. Interested parties are welcome to login.
I like the tools available, such as links to Bubbl Us, a “fridge magnet” boolean search tool, citation builders, etc.
Session 2 (BibApp)
The presenter is Sarah L. Shreeves of U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. BibApp is billed as “A campus research gateway and expert finder.” Sounds intriguing, doesn’t it?
The project is still under development, so it’s still being refined.
Issues
talk to faculty about archiving and scholarly comm. issues
market institutional repositories
faculty want something that gives access to all publications not just what is available in repo
often don’t know faculty’s publication history and patterns
faculty need lists of pubs for easy import into grant apps and other reports
often do not udnerstand collaborations across campus - hard to get that data.
BibApp is a mashup, pulling data from faculty directory info, publication lists, Sherpa/Romeo archival database (open API), OpenURL resolver, and SWORD (for repository connection). She showed the 0.7 version. It looks like an innovative way to pull together the scholarly communications of an institution. I like the cross-referencing with faculty they’ve collaborated with - reveals patterns of collaboration at the university or college.
Author disambiguation has been built in to BibApp. Example: two D. Morgans (one in sciences, one in humanities). The system can “learn” how to assign the articles to the correct author. Different types of data can be pulled out of the records.
Currently working on BibApp 1.0. BibApp 2.0 is also planned for the future (will include tag clouds, collaboration network visualization, etc.). It will be completely open source (Google code).
Session 3 (Podcasts)
The presenter is Clarence Maybee from Colgate University. Students in a conflict resolution class (Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies)had to create podcasts. These podcasts were loaded into Youtube and can be found there.
Video excerpts of student reflections are available here. There are also excerpts from the instructor of the course at the site.
They were looking to embed technology in classes to enhance pedagogy. They used a model called Collaboration for Enhanced Learning (CEL), which “pairs librarians with information technologists to work with faculty to embed appropriate technology and information literacy instruction into course curriculum.”
Students were assessed by the professor and by some of the other students. They also had to review their own podcast according to 4 standard questions. The rubric sounds like it was clear.
Ray Nardelli from Colgate also spoke via Skype to go into the technology side. He’s the Manager of Digital Media at Colgate.
Nardelli credits the collaboration with making the project successful.
From the tech side - how will the recordings be made, edited, distributed?
Took one class period to present a workshop to use editing software. They used Audacity, an open source solution. “The fact that it was open source and could be used both on Macs on on PCs made it a good choice for them, even though there might be better ones out there.
The workshop took a final edit of a podcast then had the students try to edit the same files into a final production.
Students need to learn these editing skills to use new media - good hands on approach. Students can start to appreciate the amount of work and editing needed to make it work.
How can community colleges benefit from thinking about “workplace information literacy”? I think its clear that every institution can benefit from improving upon its partnerships, upon its collaboration and upon its ability to self assess. There are some clear barriers to improvement in community colleges where there is a predominance of adjunct faculty both within the library and within other departments and programs. However, now is the time to reinvest in collaboration, innovation, and creativity. We, at the community college level, could benefit greatly from renewed efforts to increase our understanding of how we initiate participation, how we learn from and illicit feedback, how we incorporate new information into our processes.
I know at my own institution there seems to be a need to first analyze our work processes and from there take that knowledge forward into our work with colleagues in other departments. The effort could greatly improve our ability to reach other adjuncts, to complete our desired initiatives, and to continue moving forward in this ever evolving process of gathering, analyzing, and planning the use of information.
Yesterday I UNconferenced with about 12 other amazing library folk. There were a few students, one recent grad., several newish to the profession and a few “veterans.” We had some very energizing discussions and a Radical Reference Work session where we partnered up and answered reference quesitons on the Rad Ref website. This session was valuable to me because I have wanted to get involved with Radical Reference group since first learning about their work many moons ago, but had some hesitations/reservations that prevented me from doing so. The work session helped me work through this and I now have a much clearer understanding of how I can participate and that there is a place for me in Radical Reference. I don’t know how other people here are doing, but I get overwhelmed when I’m surrounded by thousands of people I don’t know so the UNconference was actually a really great opportunity to ease into the first-time attendee conference experience. I also was delighted to get to meet some individuals in person I only formerly knew by name.
I was one of many who were disappointed to see Naomi Klein’s cancellation and had no idea what to expect from her replacement. Rushford Kinney did an excellent job and while I didn’t rush to buy his book or anything, I felt he shared some very thought provoking stories, several of which I have already re-told to many friends, old and new.
Some of my newest “friends” are a collection of community college librarians who got together for dinner last night. It was fun to spend some time with other librarians like me as I sometimes feel like a little practitioner fish swimming in a big pond of research-focused academia. Not to say I don’t value the research being presented here, because I very much do, but since my focus is more on teaching I am connecting more with the practical application presentations, such as the poster sessions.
I see someone has already posted a summary/review of the 2-paper presentation I attended this morning, so I’ll skip that and say that I think the Cyber Zed Shed sessions I attended have been very informative. I really enjoyed the session Popculture Multi-Media and Library Instruction. Perhaps one reason I find these sessions useful is because many of them are innovative with a focus on technology (not one of my greatest strengths so I always have something to learn in this area), the sessions are short(er), and the presentations are more of a “how to”, which coming from a community college really resonates with my day to day work. I’m glad these sessions are offered all day and plan to go back to them after checking out the afternoon poster session. Geez…I don’t know when anyone else finds time to blog. I had to do this over lunch, and I still missed an afternoon session to do it. And if I don’t post this soon, I’m going to miss the poster sessions too.
The vendor exhibit hall kinda scares me. So many booths/people vying for my attention. It probably wierded some people out, but I got a really big kick out of Oscar, the Emery-Pratt robot. So, I’ll leave you with one of my favorite conference photos (me giving Oscar a well-deserved hug for making me laugh!).
- not necessarily one type of academic degree - not even necessarily MLS ) - Professionals with diverse academic credentials, wide range of new professional assignments, professional roles of support staff and students.
Loading ...