Article Discussion: Using Google Forms to Schedule Classes in Your Library

Kenney, J. (2011). Using Google Forms to schedule classes in your library. Journal of Library Innovation 2(2). Retrieved December 1, 2011 from http://www.libraryinnovation.org/.

What is awesome about no longer being in grad school (besides having a job with health insurance, having my own apartment, sleeping on a regular basis instead of pulling all-nighters, and actually getting to see my friends and family) is that I don't have to read articles I find boring. I get to choose the articles I get to read! (Believe me, this is pretty darn luxurious! I love practical articles where I find something in it that I can actually apply right away!) I was really excited when I began browsing the Directory of Open Access Journals (http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=home&uiLanguage=en) and came across the Journal of Library Innovation. One: because, let's face it—I'm frugal and the fact that it's open access (free!) makes me feel like I'm getting a great deal; two: because the articles are remarkably readable and practical; three: because I drink the Google Kool-Aid, and what did appear before me but an article about using Google tools to make life easier! I'm sold!

So, let’s talk about this wonderfully practical article that uses Google magic, shall we? Kenney is a high school librarian who uses Google Forms (GF) to schedule classes in the library. Though our institution is a university, we have a similar break-down with our number of students (Grand View serves about 2,000 students; Bristol Eastern High School has 1,300) and types of facilities available (both BEHS and GV have one computer lab devoted to library instruction).

When I arrived this summer I visited with my colleagues about using GF as a replacement to paper stats. During my internship at University of Dubuque (UD), we used GF for this purpose and it worked fantastically, so we revised the UD form to make it simpler and began implementing the new statistics procedures. In the past, as a student leader in SLIS at Indiana University (IU), I had used GF to coordinate events, gather RSVP information, help with officer elections, etc., so I was already comfortable with the format. Kenney took it a step further and uses it for scheduling instruction (love this!).

As an Instruction Assistant at IU, course instructors scheduled library instruction sessions using a PHP form. This is a similar concept, but could be more difficult to implement depending on access to server space and coding experience. GF allows librarians to easily make and modify a form that meets their instruction scheduling needs, and all of the information is kept in a central location (not to mention automatically organized in a rockin' spreadsheet).

Prior to using GF, Kenney's procedure was to have teachers email back and forth with her to line up not only the times/dates, but also exchange several emails about what was to be included in the session, assignment expectations, etc. Though I am not our official scheduler, I have visited with our librarian about the (sometimes…) lack of information we receive from instructors regarding what they want their students to learn during the library instruction sessions, resulting in a situations and email exchanges similar to those Kenney experienced. Implementing the form would simplify this experience for all involved. Also, Kenney's form included a detailed list of the services and types of instruction the library provides. This allowed her to highlight specific resources and technologies that instructors might not have otherwise thought to include in their requested instruction session. She then transferred the submitted information from the Google spreadsheet into a calendar item. The calendar was available for classroom instructors to see (so they would know when instruction was/was not available).

I think it's a fantastic solution using resources that are freely available to simplify a process (and keep your email inbox tidier)! There are a few caveats that we need to consider, should we decide to implement this new method. I think educating faculty about the new procedure and form is the top consideration. Some professors may not be comfortable with electronic forms, so some training may be necessary. Populating the calendar with instruction sessions/information may be a bit clunky, but it is no clunkier than what we are currently doing—and this procedure would eliminate excessive email exchanges. Another consideration is that, even though Google works to make many things customizable, we still can't accept attachments via the forms; we could add a mailto link to the form so they automatically send it to the right person (so it can be added to the right calendar item).

I've shared this with my colleague, who sounds keen on making this work for our library. Fingers crossed for a simpler instruction scheduling process for all involved!

Article Discussion: Searching Where for What: A Comparison of use of the Library Catalogue, Google and Wikipedia

Waller, V. (2011). Searching where for what: A comparison of use of the library catalogue, Google and Wikipedia. Library and Information Research 35(110). Retrieved November 28, 2011 from Freely Accessible Science Journals.

I’m pretty sure every instruction librarian has struggled with students who simply want to Google or search Wikipedia to find “research” for their course assignments. This is nothing new. Students tend to gravitate toward the familiar, and toward what they think is the easiest route. In fact, I received an email from a student that said “I just ended up looking it up on Google. Google knows all.” (Granted it was very early in the semester, before I had gotten into their class to do any IL instruction, but still). So when I saw “Searching where for what: A comparison of use of the library catalogue, Google and Wikipedia” I was intrigued. We all turn to different resources for different research needs. Let’s be honest, I won’t turn to the library’s catalog or databases to figure out when Beyonce announced her pregnancy (2011 VMAs, Aug. 28th) or whether Jason Segel is married (Single! But I knew that from a Letterman interview...I digress); Wikipedia is just fine for that. But, if I’m looking to write a paper for a grade (hint hint, students), I should use something more credible. So as part of my instruction, we discuss web quality. I share fun examples of less-than-stellar websites, and then have the “Come to Jesus” moment when it comes to using Wikipedia. (See slide four below.)

Searching and Evaluating the Web (General)

View more presentations from stonca01

I don’t know if you can see it, but the Wikipedia entry for Newton, IA shows the nickname to be “The Armpit of America,” the motto as “Too lazy to commute. Let’s go on title 19,” and the population is made up of “15,579 Smiling toothless methheads” (keepin’ it classy, Wikipedia). That usually gets a chuckle out of the students, and opens their eyes to just how easily this information can be manipulated. I tell them that I went back just one hour after I took the screenshot, and the information had been changed back to something less controversial—so not only can Wikipedia be ridiculously incorrect, it’s also not a stable, constant resource.

While reading the article “Searching where for what: A comparison of use of the library catalogue, Google and Wikipedia” I was interested in seeing what might be implied about user behaviors and the reasoning behind it. Waller examines the catalogue (yes, spelled the British way) searches in the State Library of Victoria (Australia) as compared to the searches done in Google and Wikipedia. The researcher looked at the following categories: popular culture, ecommerce, business-related, cultural practice, computing/web, health, history, science (including math), place/building, contemporary issues (news, government information), books/authors, high culture, adult (XXX or dating sites), genealogy, unknown, and other. Waller used transaction logs to gather data from the library/internet users without impacting their behavior. The findings showed that 20% of catalogue users were researching contemporary issues, wherein only 5% of Google searches were seeking information on contemporary issues. Quite the opposite was the case when researchers examined the results for pop culture; 29% of Google queries and 40% of searches that took users to Wikipedia. The article contains more information about the nitty-gritty results, but in the end, I wasn’t surprised by the user behaviors.

While not Earth-shattering, it was eye-opening to hear concrete numbers regarding Google use versus library catalog use. According to Waller, “Google is used approximately one hundred times more often than the State Library catalogue to look up information on contemporary issues. Similarly for every five library catalogue searches, there are in the order of 500 searches conducted in Victoria using Wikipedia…Wikipedia is used approximately twenty five times more often than the State Library catalogue to look up information on contemporary issues.”

I encourage my students who are working on research papers to ask “So what?” or “What’s the big deal; why should I care?” Waller’s “so what?” suggests that libraries should monitor the catalogue query subjects to better understand how their collections are being used (or where there are gaps in the collection that should be filled with new purchases). This approach would still leave gaps in the data, not allowing researchers to understand users’ reasoning behind their searching habits. Perhaps patrons are simply unaware of the depth of the library’s collection regarding their topic so, instead of searching the library catalog, they search online elsewhere. The issue then becomes educating library users about the collection, as opposed to modifying holdings. I like that Waller points out the advantages of using library resources over (possibly sketchy) web resources: difficult to find “authentic meaning when using a search engine,” most users don’t dig deeply enough into the search results (past the first page of results), you get all of the bibliographic information you need to properly cite your sources when using library resources, and information on like topics is grouped together (making students’ research easier). Waller failed to mention that when you use library resources, you’re likely to have at least one librarian you can contact when you have questions, need help sifting through and interpreting information, or need help remembering to breathe because your paper is due tomorrow and you know you should have started it sooner but you didn’t and you realize now that you kind of screwed yourself over but really you just need to get it done and just survive until the end of the semester (where’s the closest cup of coffee?). (Not that I’ve seen students do this or anything…)

In the end, the article didn’t necessarily address user motivations, but it did reinforce that, as an instruction librarian, I need to continue to educate my students about the need to dig deeper—especially when they think they already know how to search and find quality information.

Article 9: Students' Academic Success and its Association to Student Involvement with Learning and Relationships with Faculty and Peers

Ullah, H., & Wilson, M. A. (2007). Students' academic success and its association to student involvement with learning and relationships with faculty and peers. College Student Journal, 41(4), 1192-1202. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Many factors are associated with student success at the collegiate level. Some the student may be able to control. Ullah and Wilson used the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to examine the academic achievement and level of involvement (student engagement with learning activities and institutional environment that supports learning) of students at a Midwestern public university over a span of three years. Factors noted were: student involvement, student relationships with faculty, student relationships with peers, gender, ACT scores, and age. All were examined in relation to academic achievement as measured by cumulative grade point average (GPA). The student sample was randomly drawn for each of the three years and included students ranging from first-years through seniors. The study found a significant positive correlation between students' relationships with faculty members and GPA, class involvement and GPA, and relationships with peers and GPA. There were also positive correlations between student academic achievement and ACT scores, and GPA and students' age. However, since age and ACT cannot be controlled by students currently enrolled (meaning, those things happened in the past or cannot be changed), their importance is less significant than the other factors mentioned. Female peer relationships had a positive effect on GPA and male peer relationships had a less significant positive effect on GPA. While not the focus of the study, it is something to note. Creating a learning environment in which students are actively engaged and relationships with faculty are developed will help students better succeed at the collegiate level (as measured by cumulative GPA).

Article 8: Developmental Relationships in the Dynamic Library Environment

Murphy, S. (2008). Developmental relationships in the dynamic library environment: Re-conceptualizing mentoring for the future. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(5), 434-437.

Libraries are shifting from focusing on physical pieces to focusing on learning outcomes for library users. Library-oriented career paths are no longer well-defined and work relationships beyond hierarchical mentoring need to be considered to support new workers through this change. Currently, the literature emphasizes formal mentoring, despite research indicating informal mentorship is more effective. Information is often subtly transferred from person to person; informal mentoring recognizes this and capitalizes on learning through stories and observations. Mentoring in this new environment is a tool to ensure succession planning, to help with future staffing needs by developing mentees into leaders in emerging areas of librarianship. Peer mentoring, informal mentoring, multiple or shorter-term mentoring experiences (i.e. dialogue groups, networks, mentoring circles, reverse mentoring) are all discussed. Mentee benefits include understanding of organizational culture, networking, personal guidance, career development, learning from role models, receiving advice, and development of friendships. Mentors also benefit from learning the mentee’s perspective and actively reflecting on current practices. This reconceptualization of mentoring, as it adapts to changing technologies, is key to the future success of librarianship and libraries.

Article 7: Communities of Practice at an Academic Library

Henrich, K. J., & Attebury, R. (2010). Communities of Practice at an Academic Library: A New Approach to Mentoring at the University of Idaho. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(2), 158-165.

Communities of Practice are made up of a group sharing a common goal. The environment created is one in which participants feel safe to share professional ideas. Benefits include efficiency of professional development; innovation, collaboration, and project success; and raised awareness about current happenings within the larger organization. Best practices for creation of Communities of Practice in libraries include having a common interest in the topic, inclusion of information and communication technologies, sharing common knowledge and experiences, promotion of publishing opportunities; and ensuring leadership is done from within the group. Promoting a Sense of Community, and making the Community of Practice meetings as part of the professional workday help add legitimacy to the development and sharing process. Challenges to Communities of Practice include finding and maintaining focus on the issue/s, allotting the time and effort to the group (it is a commitment), it can be difficult to sustain and leadership may lose momentum. When forming the group, the librarians at the University of Idaho kept the following points in mind: the goal is to benefit all members; they outlined how the time would be spent, who the facilitator was, what the goals were, how disagreements would be handled, and how they would stay on track. The group was limited to library faculty and they discussed research ideas and gave feedback to their peers. Participation was voluntary, and the environment was promoted as one that was confidential and an open space for sharing ideas without the threat that their research idea would be stolen. Meetings were held once per month the structure was that of presentation and discussion.

Article 6: Effective Mentoring

Freedman, S. (2009). Effective Mentoring. IFLA Journal, 35(2), 171-182.

Mentoring is guided learning to promote the development of skills and knowledge and happens in various points throughout a librarian’s career. Libraries are in a time of organizational change; many librarians are retiring, leaving professional gaps in experiential knowledge; the scope and approach to librarianship continues to adapt with changing technologies. By mentoring the incoming workforce, that experiential knowledge gap can be bridged, and new librarians are provided with the support they need to help libraries (and themselves) transition into the changing library & information services environment. Mentored workers feel supported by their colleagues, are given feedback, participate in professional development activities to aid with improving performance, and are socialized to their new work environment. Mentors may feel personal satisfaction and a renewed enthusiasm for their profession. The employers may see improved employee retention, and improved leadership throughout their organization. While there are many advantages, some disadvantages do exist, including mismatching mentor partnerships, lack of mentor expertise or commitment (feeling forced to mentor), and organizational cultural barriers. Formal, informal, peer, group, self managed, or professional association mentoring models may be considered or incorporated into mentoring practices.

Article 5: Practicums and Service Learning in LIS Education

Ball, M. (2008). Practicums and service learning in LIS education. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 49(1), 70-82.

There has been a struggle in library school curriculum between the emphasis placed on theory and the emphasis placed on practice. Service learning combines theory with practice by highlighting reflection throughout the practicum experience, and embedding specific learning objectives tied to course offerings; personal and professional growth are emphasized. The term "service learning," as used by Ball, involves student civic engagement and development. Though more research needs to be done in regards to experiential learning and LIS education (moving away from anecdotal accounts toward qualitative and quantitative studies), the benefits of practical application of, and reflection about, classroom theory include, but are not limited to: student confidence & comfort in the profession, an appreciation for the field, and assists the student in realizing and defining professional goals and values. Student journaling and reflection add critical thinking skills to the professional experience. Barriers to service learning in LIS education include administrative costs and supervision and financial considerations (to pay, or not to pay students for their work).

Article 4: Promoting and Archiving Student Work through an Institutional Repository: Trinity University, LASR, and the Digital Commons

Nolan, C. W., & Costanza, J. (2006). Promoting and archiving student work through an institutional repository: Trinity University, LASR, and the Digital Commons. Serials Review, 32(2), 92-98. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2006.03.009

Institutional repositories (IR) have typically focused on faculty scholarship. Trinity University, along with Carleton, Dickinson, and Middlebury Colleges, began an IR featuring student work in order to promote student scholarship, and help students and faculty better understand copyright issues and alternative publishing. ProQuest hosts the server, manages the accompanying software, and makes the libraries' content shared and searchable by each institution; each library independently manages it's own Digital Commons site. Traditionally, IRs have focused on faculty publications; the new idea of the student IR required education of faculty, students, and staff, though students were more receptive to the IR, noting the discoverability of their work to future employers and graduate schools. The students submit their senior papers/projects via web form to the Liberal Arts Scholarly Repository (LASR). Each institution determines collection guidelines. Some considerations for those institutions interested in beginning something similar include staffing and financial expenses, marketing the concept to the institution, collaborative work with other institutions, determining scope (which types of work are included?), pre-publication and copyright concerns in regards to future publishing, ownership and copyright, formats accepted, length of preservation commitment, metadata, migration as platforms/formats change, and departmental concerns from around campus. By developing the IR as a consortium, LASR was able to receive vendor discounts, sharing of student work throughout all participating institutions, and has the potential for sharing procedures, collection policies, and metadata creation. Authors utilizing the IR receive statistics detailing the use of their work.

Article 3: Information Literacy and First-Year Students

Orme, W. A. (2008). Information literacy and first-year students. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2008(114), 63-70.

The definition of Information Literacy (IL) has changed as new technologies have been incorporated into higher education. What began as recognizing, locating, evaluating, and effectively using information has changed to a relational relationship based on information need and other contextual factors (previous knowledge and experience, instructor epistemological beliefs, and student characteristics). While some think of first-year students as "empty vessels," those following a more constructivist approach believe orienting the students to their new learning environment and academic culture can (and should) be done by meeting the students where they are in terms of their previous learning experiences. By using previous experience and orienting it toward this new environment, students are given meaningful learning experiences that can be used as a foundation for future learning and inquiry. Challenging held assumptions can also expand the student's knowledge base. Supporting this constructivist approach is the practice of giving additional academic assistance to "at risk" students (typically first-year, first-generation). This practice recognizes the "probable lack of a supporting environment that can help negotiate the challenges of an academic setting." Emphasis is placed on the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired, setting a foundation for lifelong learning within the students' first year.

Article 2: Librarians as Agents of Change: Working with Curriculum Committees Using Change Agency Theory

Travis, T. A. (2008). Librarians as agents of change: Working with curriculum committees using change agency theory. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2008(114), 17-33. doi:10.1002/tl.314

Barriers to integrating information literacy (IL) into the general curriculum include an unclear understanding of IL, ineffective methods of assessment of IL skills, a lack of ownership for IL instruction, and university culture. Librarians may not be seen as integral parts of classroom learning. IL is possible when its definition is understood as a way of thinking, and is seen as a liberal art, as opposed to just a skill set. California State University, Long Beach (SCULB) began the process of integrating IL by applying Change Agent Theory. The campus participated in a review of the general education policy, was preparing for an upcoming accreditation review, and there was increased interest in student-centered learning, indicating the campus would be receptive to incorporating IL efforts. Integration efforts began with the development, articulation, and shared vision of the intended change. SCULB received administrative support and grant funding to support the planning and implementation of IL integration. The grant supported those who took part in pilot projects or received additional job responsibilities. Progress was monitored, librarians were on every academic committee, and IL advocates were on key committees. The Director of IL and Outreach provided assistance, supporting the needs of faculty. Programs were also put in place to create a community of practice. Key elements of integrating IL into the general curriculum were that efforts aligned with the university’s goals, change agents and early adopters were prominent on committees and within their departments, and data provided evidence-based examples of increased IL skills.

Article 1: The Reference Librarian as Non-Expert: A Postmodern Approach to Expertise

Stover, M. (2004). The reference librarian as non-expert: A postmodern approach to expertise. The Reference Librarian, 42(87), 273-300. doi:10.1300/J120v42n87_10

In the postmodern approach to librarianship, emphasis is placed on communication and relationships between librarians and patrons. Subject knowledge, traditional information seeking skills, and the modern view of expertise fall secondary to the librarian’s communication, social psychological, reference interview, and non-verbal skills when assisting patrons with their research needs. Import is placed upon a mutual respect between librarian and patron, and the ability to adjust reference research practices based on his/her needs (as opposed to the quest for “ultimate truth” on a topic). Jargon and an air of superiority (wherein expertise equals power) obstruct patron understanding of and comfort with librarian assistance and can lead to ineffective research and also a negative patron experience, hindering future interaction. Postmodern librarianship lends itself to a partnership between librarian and patron, seeking information in a shared manner. Including information literacy as a part of the services librarians provide will empower patrons to research independently in the future.