After an overly long hiatus, I'm finally bringing this blog up to date. My last entry was concerned with embedded librarianship, and this remains a strong interest of mine. Equally important to me, however - as a historian and as a librarian - is the issue of digital history. So, I do want to mention that briefly in this entry.
In an issue of the Journal of American History earlier this year, historians Daniel Cohen, Michael Frisch, Patrick Gallagher, Steven Mintz, Kirsten Sword, Amy Murrell Taylor, William G. Thomas and William Turkel engaged in a wide ranging discussion of digital history as it applies to historical scholarship. See: “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History.” Journal of American History 95, no. 2 (September 2008): 452-491.
While those discussions are too detailed to relate here, some points struck me as very relevant to librarians. The first is the idea of the abundance of historical sources made available through digitization. Whether we consider the online images and content now available from the Library of Congress, or the millions of pages of newspapers digitized by ProQuest, historians now have an embarrassment of primary and secondary source riches at their fingertips. Serious historical scholarship has been made much faster and less labor-intensive than it used to be thanks to these technologies. As librarians, we already know this; but often our students (and sometimes faculty) are not aware of the full extent of the resources available.
The second point, however, has more to do with the use of digital resources in a web 2.0 environment. Increasingly, the impetus for active learning across the undergraduate curriculum demands collaboration and interaction through wikis, blogs, podcasts, and social networking. Digital collections can reach the full potential of their usefulness through these modes of interaction. As librarians, we particularly need to make our faculty aware that these tools are available for them and their students, and that we are willing and able to help them use these tools in support of teaching and learning.
Related to this, I was also struck by the findings of a recent study done for the Association of Research Libraries by Ithaka Strategic Services. The study found that scholars in the humanities and social sciences tended to use digital resources that were more geared towards exchanges among scholars - e-journals, discussion lists and blogs - rather than data sites. The latter tended to be favored more by those in the science, technical and medical fields. Nevertheless, fully 50% of those in the survey reported using digital resources at least weekly or daily. In the humanities, e-journals were the most commonly cited type of digital resources used, followed by discussion lists. Other resources that are growing in use are online encyclopedias like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and annotated content like that in the Roman de la Rose Digital Library. Finally, there is the growth of what the study calls 'professional and academic hubs." These are content-rich digital portals that offer e-journals, reviews, conference papers, gray literature, etc. A good example would be the Center for History and New Media.
Of course, the digital resources that we academic librarians are most keen to have students access are those available through the subscription databases provided by our colleges and universities. Not all of the resources in those databases are born digital, but they do represent an efficient way to provide a wealth of academic resources in one location - one that is also connected to the library's catalog. Increasingly, the challenge will be to connect those resources to other online venues that students use more regularly, such as social networking applications and course management software. But, that's the subject for another entry.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Embedded Librarians, part II
At the college where I work, we've launched a project designed to improve and streamline the way we do bibliographic instruction. We're using the Angel courseware to deliver the basics of library orientation, and to target individual classes with guides and tips tailored to their assignments. Using the courseware, we can create mini tutorials and how-to jings that explain many of the day to day functions and procedures in the library. We can also provide external web links, bibliographies, and list of the best databases to use for specific disciplines. We can even do our pre and post instruction surveys using the courseware. We call it the Library Lab.
Admittedly, the information we can provide via the courseware is not fundamentally different from what we have always provided through the library website, in PowerPoint presentations, or in printed subject guides - or, indeed, in person. What is different, of course, is that we can now put all of this information in one place, and 'push' it to the students in a format that they are increasingly required to use for most of their courses. What was once widely dispersed over different media and in different venues can now be more centralized.
Certainly, this doesn't mean that we are moving towards totally virtual or self-directed instruction. We will still have individual classes coming to the library for course-specific instruction, but those sessions will now be more assignment focused, more geared to teaching the methods and strategies of library research. The formal sessions should also be shorter than they have been in the past.
Under the ‘old’ system classes would come to the library for sessions that included a brief orientation tour, a course-specific dog and pony show covering everything from how to make a photocopy and check out a book, to an explanation of the Library of Congress cataloging system, and some hands-on practice searching the databases and the online catalog.
As long as students are using the courseware for their classes - and increasingly most courses at the college are making this a requirement - then we have a greater likelihood of reaching them where they are. Also, having separated the more general informational content from that which is targeted to a specific course or a specific assignment, we are now able to make library instruction more focused and (hopefully) more effective. With this tighter focus, we can also concentrate more comprehensively on incorporating the ACRL's information literacy standards and guidelines into our core instruction.
We plan to introduce students to the courseware and the Library Lab mainly through short sessions right in their classrooms. In this way, we can quickly demonstrate where all of the general information and tutorials can be found, and encourage them to look to the course-specific content for help with their assignments. It is our hope that this will make students more likely to seek out these resources on their own, and at the same time give them a sense of having a more direct and efficient way of connecting to the library, its resources, and staff.
That summarizes our goals for this pilot project. It’s our first real foray into 'embeddedness' and we are still treading lightly. So far, the response from faculty has been very positive. We are providing useful resources directly to one of the points of instruction without infringing too much on the prerogatives of the instructors. The most important test, of course, will come when we begin to get more feedback from students. Stay tuned....
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Embedded Librarians
One of the issues that I’ve been thinking about lately – especially as the start of the fall semester approaches – is the idea of ‘embedded’ librarianship. This is a concept that has been making the rounds in the professional literature for a few years now. And it seems worth serious exploration, particularly in light of the increased use of web-based resources, and distance learning.
The embedded librarian concept basically entails having a librarian directly involved assisting students at the point of classroom instruction. This could take place either in a real-time class, or virtually, through courseware like Blackboard. Most of the impetus for embedded librarian initiatives has come from a desire to address issues of information literacy, outreach to departmental teaching faculty, and the marketing of library resources and services to the wider college or university community.
Several articles in library science journals addressing this idea have focused on pilot programs in research orientated courses, where the librarian plays a role similar to a teaching assistant, specifically focused on helping students to find, evaluate, utilise and cite sources for their research projects. For example, Russell Hall, at Penn State “embedded” himself in a freshman speech class in which he attended all of the class sessions, often participating in class discussions with respect to his expertise. This was in addition to providing the usual stand-alone library instruction sessions. He reports a very positive experience, in which the instructor proposed involving him directly with the grading of students’ annotated bibliographies. He also notes that most of the students viewed his presence in a positive light as reflected in feedback from the course evaluations. See: Russell Hall. “The Embedded Librarian in a Freshman Speech Class:Information Literacy Instruction in Action.” C&RL News. 69, 1 (January 2008).
The advantages of having a librarian work closely with an instructor in a speech class are certainly obvious from the point of view of the students. They get a value-added service that helps them to do better in the course. Also, the librarian gets the opportunity to demonstrate his professionalism and expertise, both to the students and to the faculty member. The potential downside that I see in this type of scenario, however, is that such an active presence in the classroom could be seen as an intrusion by many teaching faculty. Moreover, there are questions about how much time such intensive projects will take from librarians' regular duties – from collection development and committee work to traditional bibliographic instruction.
This is an area where librarians need to tread very carefully. In their study of the model of the faculty liason librarian, Rodwell and Fairbairn of the University of Sydney point out that however much librarians may want to redefine their traditional roles, it remains unclear whether or not teaching faculty are themselves on board with such innovations. See: John Rodwell and Linden Fairbairn. “Dangerous Liasons? Defining the Faculty Liason Librarian Service Model, its Effectiveness and Sustainability.” Library Management. 29, 1/2 (2008).
In the area of distance learning, however, the embedded librarian concept does seem to promise more success. Several articles in the professional literature have examined the innovative role that librarians can play bringing information literacy instruction to students who are otherwise unable or unwilling to come to the library to receive such assistance. One method used in many initiatives has been to add librarians as instructors in Blackboard. In this way, librarians can engage students directly through the courseware’s discussion forum. This has the advantage of making the librarian immediately available to students at the site of their coursework, and it also means that all students reading the exchanges can benefit.
Another interesting concept is to create library courses specific to certain curricular areas. For example, a library information literacy course designed for the social sciences could provide tutorials, links, and a discussion board. Victoria Matthew and Ann Schroeder have discussed plans for such a program at the Community College of Vermont. In this model, teaching faculty would have a choice between having a librarian embedded in their classes’ courseware, or having their students sign up for the library course, much as one might sign up for an additional lab in a science or language course. See: Victoria Matthew and Ann Schroeder. “The Embedded Librarian Program.” Educause Quarterly. 29, 4. (2006).
To my mind, these are all exciting innovations. The main caveats, of course, are that libraries must proceed based upon the availability of resources. It should be kept in mind that these projects with take some time away from traditional duties, and that they will require a great deal of staff time in terms of preparation on the front-end. Finally, the teaching faculty must be prepared to meet the librarians in a collaborative way. Many faculty members (indeed, many department heads) may be loath to open their courses up to what they might perceive as interference by outsiders. A good deal of trial and error will likely be involved, and the good will of teaching faculty will be most important to ensure success.
The embedded librarian concept basically entails having a librarian directly involved assisting students at the point of classroom instruction. This could take place either in a real-time class, or virtually, through courseware like Blackboard. Most of the impetus for embedded librarian initiatives has come from a desire to address issues of information literacy, outreach to departmental teaching faculty, and the marketing of library resources and services to the wider college or university community.
Several articles in library science journals addressing this idea have focused on pilot programs in research orientated courses, where the librarian plays a role similar to a teaching assistant, specifically focused on helping students to find, evaluate, utilise and cite sources for their research projects. For example, Russell Hall, at Penn State “embedded” himself in a freshman speech class in which he attended all of the class sessions, often participating in class discussions with respect to his expertise. This was in addition to providing the usual stand-alone library instruction sessions. He reports a very positive experience, in which the instructor proposed involving him directly with the grading of students’ annotated bibliographies. He also notes that most of the students viewed his presence in a positive light as reflected in feedback from the course evaluations. See: Russell Hall. “The Embedded Librarian in a Freshman Speech Class:Information Literacy Instruction in Action.” C&RL News. 69, 1 (January 2008).
The advantages of having a librarian work closely with an instructor in a speech class are certainly obvious from the point of view of the students. They get a value-added service that helps them to do better in the course. Also, the librarian gets the opportunity to demonstrate his professionalism and expertise, both to the students and to the faculty member. The potential downside that I see in this type of scenario, however, is that such an active presence in the classroom could be seen as an intrusion by many teaching faculty. Moreover, there are questions about how much time such intensive projects will take from librarians' regular duties – from collection development and committee work to traditional bibliographic instruction.
This is an area where librarians need to tread very carefully. In their study of the model of the faculty liason librarian, Rodwell and Fairbairn of the University of Sydney point out that however much librarians may want to redefine their traditional roles, it remains unclear whether or not teaching faculty are themselves on board with such innovations. See: John Rodwell and Linden Fairbairn. “Dangerous Liasons? Defining the Faculty Liason Librarian Service Model, its Effectiveness and Sustainability.” Library Management. 29, 1/2 (2008).
In the area of distance learning, however, the embedded librarian concept does seem to promise more success. Several articles in the professional literature have examined the innovative role that librarians can play bringing information literacy instruction to students who are otherwise unable or unwilling to come to the library to receive such assistance. One method used in many initiatives has been to add librarians as instructors in Blackboard. In this way, librarians can engage students directly through the courseware’s discussion forum. This has the advantage of making the librarian immediately available to students at the site of their coursework, and it also means that all students reading the exchanges can benefit.
Another interesting concept is to create library courses specific to certain curricular areas. For example, a library information literacy course designed for the social sciences could provide tutorials, links, and a discussion board. Victoria Matthew and Ann Schroeder have discussed plans for such a program at the Community College of Vermont. In this model, teaching faculty would have a choice between having a librarian embedded in their classes’ courseware, or having their students sign up for the library course, much as one might sign up for an additional lab in a science or language course. See: Victoria Matthew and Ann Schroeder. “The Embedded Librarian Program.” Educause Quarterly. 29, 4. (2006).
To my mind, these are all exciting innovations. The main caveats, of course, are that libraries must proceed based upon the availability of resources. It should be kept in mind that these projects with take some time away from traditional duties, and that they will require a great deal of staff time in terms of preparation on the front-end. Finally, the teaching faculty must be prepared to meet the librarians in a collaborative way. Many faculty members (indeed, many department heads) may be loath to open their courses up to what they might perceive as interference by outsiders. A good deal of trial and error will likely be involved, and the good will of teaching faculty will be most important to ensure success.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Library Philosophy and Practice - Humanities Websites
In an article in a recent issue of Library Philosophy and Practice, Eileen McElrath explores the question of the value of free websites to students and faculty in the humanities. In a review of the relevant literature, she points out that some research has shown faculty in the sciences having more confidence in the "accuracy and format of the web" than their colleagues in the social sciences or humanities. She notes that undergraduate students, by contrast, have been shown in one study to use online sources at significantly higher rates and have a perception that such sources provide more information more quickly that books or periodicals.
This, of course will come as no surprise either to academic librarians or to teaching faculty. The anecdotal evidence has been before us for about a decade now. The interesting thing about McElrath's article, however, is that it takes recent scholarship on this subject as a point of departure for an analysis of a variety of humanities orientated websites from the standpoint of a set of standards measuring the overall quality, authority, usefulness, and functionality of their content. The standards that she uses are those developed by the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) of the American Library Association. In 1999, RUSA established a set of 29 criteria by which to judge websites, and each year 25 sites are nominated and the results published in Reference & User Services Quarterly.
McElrath evaluates 20 sites that have been nominated during the period from 1999 - 2005. The result is a kind of annotated bibliography of humanities websites. The conclusion of her analysis is that the RUSA standards do stand up to scrutiny, and that their method of independent evaluation helps to ensure that there are good quality humanities websites that both students and faculty can rely upon.
Like many academic librarians who work with undergraduates doing research assignments, I was glad to see McElrath's work because it represents the type of practical analysis that helps librarians in thinking about both information literacy instruction and outreach to teaching faculty. The problem of blind Internet searching by undergraduate students is one that plagues teaching faculty and librarians alike. This is particularly pronounced in the new period of web 2.0. As the functions of web portals, search engines, social networks and web applications begin to aggregate in synergistic ways, and as more higher quality content becomes available on the Internet, it is not always so easy for students to parse the differences between highly rigorous academic content and well-presented but more superficial fare.
Whether or not the RUSA standards represent a kind of seal of approval remains to be seen. But, clearly, these sorts of ratings are going to become increasingly necessary. This is particularly so because the dominance of the simplified search interfaces like that of Google and other search engines is having an influence over the design of academic databases. In the not too distant future, it may not be possible for the uninitiated user to tell the difference between the look and function of an academic database and a commercial site like About.com.
I, for one, plan to spend more time analysing websites in light of the RUSA standards. In the process, I think that we should also begin to think about ranking some of these sites in more hierarchical ways - that is, with a view to recommending some sites as appropriate to, say, high school and lower-level undergraduates, and others for advanced undergraduates, graduate students and researchers. McElrath makes these kinds of judgments on the appropriate "audience" in her own analysis of the 20 websites in question. This is a great start.
This, of course will come as no surprise either to academic librarians or to teaching faculty. The anecdotal evidence has been before us for about a decade now. The interesting thing about McElrath's article, however, is that it takes recent scholarship on this subject as a point of departure for an analysis of a variety of humanities orientated websites from the standpoint of a set of standards measuring the overall quality, authority, usefulness, and functionality of their content. The standards that she uses are those developed by the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) of the American Library Association. In 1999, RUSA established a set of 29 criteria by which to judge websites, and each year 25 sites are nominated and the results published in Reference & User Services Quarterly.
McElrath evaluates 20 sites that have been nominated during the period from 1999 - 2005. The result is a kind of annotated bibliography of humanities websites. The conclusion of her analysis is that the RUSA standards do stand up to scrutiny, and that their method of independent evaluation helps to ensure that there are good quality humanities websites that both students and faculty can rely upon.
Like many academic librarians who work with undergraduates doing research assignments, I was glad to see McElrath's work because it represents the type of practical analysis that helps librarians in thinking about both information literacy instruction and outreach to teaching faculty. The problem of blind Internet searching by undergraduate students is one that plagues teaching faculty and librarians alike. This is particularly pronounced in the new period of web 2.0. As the functions of web portals, search engines, social networks and web applications begin to aggregate in synergistic ways, and as more higher quality content becomes available on the Internet, it is not always so easy for students to parse the differences between highly rigorous academic content and well-presented but more superficial fare.
Whether or not the RUSA standards represent a kind of seal of approval remains to be seen. But, clearly, these sorts of ratings are going to become increasingly necessary. This is particularly so because the dominance of the simplified search interfaces like that of Google and other search engines is having an influence over the design of academic databases. In the not too distant future, it may not be possible for the uninitiated user to tell the difference between the look and function of an academic database and a commercial site like About.com.
I, for one, plan to spend more time analysing websites in light of the RUSA standards. In the process, I think that we should also begin to think about ranking some of these sites in more hierarchical ways - that is, with a view to recommending some sites as appropriate to, say, high school and lower-level undergraduates, and others for advanced undergraduates, graduate students and researchers. McElrath makes these kinds of judgments on the appropriate "audience" in her own analysis of the 20 websites in question. This is a great start.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Presidential Records Act
This is the first of what I hope will be many monthly blog entries. My intention in starting this blog was to create a professional development venue that would force me to write in a serious way about issues in librarianship - especially those issues of interest to subject specialists in history or related fields in the humanities and social sciences. So, my goal is to select one issue each month to explore and comment upon. I don't anticipate that these will necessarily be elaborate commentaries, though some may be longer than others.
An issue that currently attracts my interest is that of the Presidential Records Act - specifically, the Bush administration's attempt to rewrite the law by executive fiat. For those who've lost track of this controversy, it revolves around Bush's 2001 Executive Order 13233, which, among other things, overturned the 1978 Presidential Records Act (PRA), and gave both former and current presidents (and vice-presidents !) the power to withhold presidential records, or even to block their release indefinitely.
The 1978 PRA gave former presidents the power to withhold the release of their records under FOIA requests for up to 12 years after leaving office. In response to Executive Order 13233, Public Citizen filed suit in US District Court in November 2001 on behalf of the AHA, OAH, the National Security Archive and others, to stop implementation of the order. This case has been working its way through the courts since that time, and in October 2007, a Federal judge struck down those portions of the executive order that broadened former presidents' rights to withhold or delay the release of records. The judge did not, however, rule on the constitutionality of the order, or on provisions giving the heirs of presidents and vice-presidents control over the release of records.
Earlier in 2007, legislation was drafted in Congress - HR 1255, the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 - that would: overturn Executive Order 13233, establish a deadline for the review of records, limit the authority of former presidents to withhold records, require the sitting President to make any claims to executive privilege for withholding records, and eliminate executive privilege for vice-presidents. HR 1255 passed the House, and then Democrats in the Senate introduced a companion bill, S 886. The latter bill was referred to the Senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The Bush administration has threatened to veto any final legislation Congress may pass, claiming encroachment on executive privilege.
In March of this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brought the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 (HR 1255 & S 886) to the floor for unanimous consent, but was blocked by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. So, this vital piece of corrective legislation still languishes in committee.
For historians and librarians, this legislation cuts to the heart of what we do. Scholars of presidential history in particular are hampered by the restrictions of Bush's executive order. The trend of restricting access to information formerly available has become a disturbing one, particularly evident under the Bush administration. Taken together with actions such as the destruction of White House officials' emails on the servers of the Republican National Committee, Vice President Cheney's attempt to block access to the visitor's log at his official residence, and the reclassification of previously declassified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration, this represent a reversal of the trend towards more transparency in government begun in the 1970s. These are developments that scholars, public intellectuals, and civil libertarians should rightly view with alarm.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Introduction: me and my blog
I'm starting this project in connexion with the other web tools that I'm using through Google - e.g. docs, calendar, groups, etc. I plan for it to be a venue for me to organise my writings and research with respect to academic librarianship in general, and history librarianship in particular. I welcome comments and collaboration from other academic librarians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
