INFORMATION SERVICES REVIEW
Library Staff Consultation Session: 98/12/03

Library Instructional Programs

These notes from the Consultative Forum on Information Services attempt to provide an unbiased, accurate and unfiltered record of the meetings.  Attendees were invited to engage in discussion of their observations, concerns, proposals, ideas and questions related to Information Services.

While members of the Information Services Review Group were present as observers, a neutral facilitator managed these discussions among UW Library staff stakeholders.
 

• Discussion began with focus on General User Education Programs.
• Confirmed perception that these are not well attended.
• This may be because new students limited view of library services. There are many misperceptions regarding the library. Many have traditional view of library.

• How can we address this? Adjust timing? Too early in term? Seek faculty feedback?

• The rate of technical change has left students & faculty with inadequate models and expectations regarding library.
• The old model of individual learning at time of need (based on addressing personal needs) is not easy in new IT environment.
• Another misperception is that technology makes things easier
• In fact technology is complex. It delivers a lot but is much more complex.
• In the past, every student came to the library.
• Numbers decreasing. But we can't worry about numbers as such an important criterion.
• Most agree that user education has to adopt more of a Just-in-Time model not Just-in-Case. Just-in-Case general programs offered early in the term are not effective.
• But when students need us the most is when we're the most stretched.
• Library staff intimidates new students. Perhaps they would benefit from more peer instruction, especially in Porter.
• Regarding Peer Instruction: Library staff working with peers to try to assure "correct" information has been effective (e.g. in UMD Library, specifically with "Environmental Studies" focus).
• Peers have also been used in Kinetics, with variable success. Concerns relate to poor or incorrect information.
• We put a lot of energy into poorly attended sessions. Faculty has very full Syllabi/Agendas. Faculty has indicated that they would prefer not to use scheduled class time on general Library or Information skills sessions. But, students don't use unscheduled time for library.
• What are we trying to achieve? Basic outcome: Add value to learning environment of students regarding information resource needs.
• How can we address the relevance issue in Library Instruction?
• Attend to university and student goals.
• Students focus in very practical ways: i.e. linked to paper and exam dates.
• Link library education to their high need time periods.
• Utilise their sense of urgency.
• Promote their working knowledge with faculty.

• If we are failing to meet needs, we need to research what our current impact is and what needs are going unsatisfied
• E.G. Are the longer lines in library at service points and waiting for workstations indicative of more students not delivering as well on papers?

• …or perhaps with the availability of ERL, TRELLIS, etc. users are succeeding without as much intervention as we think they need?
• Is face-to-face service / instruction still as important?
• Individual contact leads to feedback for staff and enables interation to help students further (deepens assistance).

• RE: Faculty.
• It would be useful if feedback could be captured / compared / studied …especially faculty feedback regarding student outcomes.
• There is no good data on factors involved in outcomes dependent on library services.
• Why are faculty not more open to partnering / planning with library staff for library instruction?
• Many students now assume the Internet is an adequate information resource for all purposes.
• Should our focus be on faculty? (Partnering; involvement in curriculum, syllabus?)
• We have common cause with faculty.
• RE infrastructure: Library and faculty lack access to good facilities (wired classrooms, labs).
• Many faculty are not up to speed regarding electronic resources. Their research information methods have not kept up with changes in IT.
• Faculty is not pushing students regarding electronic resources nor inviting us to.
• We have a growing, changing knowledge base regarding information resources. How can we link with faculty?
• Once faculty is "up to speed" they are very enthusiastic. But this requires maintenance.
• Faculty tends to refer students to very specific resources. Students are then reluctant to deal with anything else.
• One successful way to "recruit" faculty is to utilise enthusiastic faculty as cheerleaders with other faculty (a variation on peer education).

• RE: Staff Resources.
• How can we get more staff involved in User Education?
• Staff is over committed now on other roles, responsibilities.
• New education initiatives require a lot of time (HTML coding / Editing etc.).
• The ratio of one assistant per four librarians (in humanities area) is not adequate.
• …and other staff are too busy to call on for help.

• RE: Publications.
• We should review benefit of "titles" publications. Could the staff time devoted to this be re-allocated?
• For many students our current guides are too big, …but so is TRELLIS.
• These publications are also very useful to desk staff.
• A web environment for these publications could be much more fluid; but only if based on a dynamic database approach. This would enable "selection" and customisation of bibliographies.
• The allocation of additional staff resources for user education is possible …it depends on priority setting. The influence of department heads crucial.

• Miscellaneous:
• Do we want to get more students to our sessions, tours, and workshops …or do we want to do a better job with those we get?
• The low turnout is debilitating.
• Can't blame the students for not coming
• Our service has to be seen to be valuable before they will come.
• Do we over emphasise the students coming to the library?
• Should we be stressing better virtual user education (splashy hooks on top pages?).

• There are good examples (e.g. UBC) but massive time requirements.
• Users need a balance; access to humans is still critically important.
• In general, tours are not very valuable. "I feel like a Pied Piper with bored students". Students on tours are there with no context or immediate need.
• It is important to provide opportunity for tours.
• Tours do benefit some students.
• Benefits could be delivered by student tour guides (peers).
• Tours valuable in breaking intimidation barriers
• Could we link to the university wide tour programs done as part of University orientation? The guides they use are enthusiastic and well trained.
• RE peer learning: there is very powerful potential to utilise Teaching Assistants and graduate students
• RE intimidation: When they need us they are not intimidated.
• Tours do address some basic physical orientation questions.
• Couldn’t that be better addressed by better signage?
• A very basic directory would help.
• Simplest possible directory required.
• Library jargon such as "Discharge" is very bad.
• The Library and information environment has become more complex.
• Users are confused. They don’t distinguish between TRELLIS, ERL, etc.

• RE Peers:
• Example recounted re utilising a student to develop a web-based pathfinder focused on specific needs of classmates (English course). Lessons: good "product" developed; peer teaching is powerful; was unable to involve the faculty member; required a LOT of time on part of student and librarian.
• Should we try to increase this type of "peer partnering"?

• If so, faculty involvement, not just student (peer) involvement would be critical.
• Many faculty would not be so open to student assignments used for pedagogy (some have raised concerns of pedagogical conflict).
• Would this be a problem if it was not done as an assignment
• Could the library hire Co-op students and thus ensure a "student tone" to what was done.
• Can’t we (library staff) adopt a student-like tone?

• RE: Tone. Library web sites address very diverse audience which leads to formal tone and approach.
• Some libraries have addressed this by having split environments in their web site.
• Mascots? "Dana" & "Davie".
• We should tap into informal (student) language …but that can be tricky.
• It would be an acknowledgement of (another way of) addressing variant learning styles.
• Jargon can be imprecise.
• Could we connect General User Education program to UW "Bridges" program?

• Remember the Mars Bar effect: I want it, I want it now. That means we should not loose "point of need" service. Reference / User Services desks address needs one at a time, on demand.
• Students do not have time to adjust to our schedules.
• Do we need more staff on desks at peak load periods?

• We have the most success with course specific service and when integrated into classes.
• Time constraints might be addressed by integrating library education with large, core, first semester courses.
• Have we had any success with that strategy?
• Yes, in Psychology; a large research methods courses for majors. TA's are trained to assist. 200+ students in class. Library related assignment is done by TA's.
• Could we generalize that?

• RE Infrastructure:
• "Hands-on" instruction is best for electronic resources but we lack sufficient numbers of workstations (general agreement) in library.
• When demonstrating or teaching groups it can be difficult to keyboard and talk.
• Having other staff present to hand off keyboarding task works.
• Current set-up of Porter room 428 is not great.
• Would it be better to utilise workstation software like "Class-net" rather than be limited to using the projection screen?
• There is a need for a proper electronic classroom available to the library (ideally in the library / libraries.
• Is it possible to reserve access to web resources like ERL for user education sessions?
• Is it possible to access UW library LAN resources in Room 428?
• It is critically important to be able to access and demonstrate ALL electronic resources.
• Was the issue of electronic classroom(s) seriously looked at during recent space review / allocation?
• We need to make a case for a learning lab / electronic classroom (strong agreement).
• Should this be the Library’s highest priority?
• No, increase staff numbers first.

• Other infrastructure issues?
• The Data Projector is loud and hot (room 428).
• Davis Conference is not a great room either.
• We have to check and re-check the equipment set-up before scheduled classes. The software as well as the hardware set-up is unstable. Set-ups are often changed by colleagues and not re-set.
• Some CD resources are not reliably updated.
• Because of limited options some staff book public workstations for small group demonstrations. This is not possible anymore because of the high utilisation of workstations.
• There are not enough public workstations …but there is no more room for workstations on second floor Porter.

• RE: Staff training for User Education.
• Anyone doing instruction should have training in instruction.
• There are specific software applications (like PowerPoint for presentations and Web Board for conference communications) which can be very useful in the classroom.
• Training would be essential.
• We would also benefit from skill improvement regarding assignment creation.
• Ditto re HTML and other web environment skills (e.g. Snaggit) to support teaching.
• A simple need: access to a colour printer.
• A general need: more support staff with expertise in capture / refinement / creation of web pages used for instruction.
• We lack workstation facility to test CD ROM records.
• General concern was expressed about the low level of knowledge re Web / HTML / Software. Linked to insufficient staff training.

• General question related to all the above: Is there anything we can stop doing or do less? Is everything esential?
• Now we also have to devote time to TUG. That is an additional fragmentation factor.
• How can we decide on priorities?
• Are there techniques we could use?
• We get very little feedback from users regarding what they think is important.
• Do we have goals regarding user instruction programs?
• Are they linked to values like information literacy and critical thinking?
• As liaison librarians we have instructional activities as a core priority; but we lack the time and resources to evaluate and adjust.
• The main stumbling block is time.
• We think we have to continue to do everything we’ve done before.

• The library generally has a weird profile on campus.

• It is seen as support service but not as an academic support.
• Do we need different forums to communicate with faculty and students?
• Are we vital to the academic mission?
• Does the library constitute a vital instructional arm of the university?
• Does the library act as an essential element of the universities curricular, teaching and research functions?

• RE Assessment:

• Have we done anything with the numeric date we have on instruction?
• Some statistical analysis is available but these numbers do not provide information concerning impact or outcomes. We only have activity counts. Such data has very limited utility.
• To assess impact (outcomes) we need to ask the students and faculty.

• There is a one day workshop (available through LAMA, Betsy Wilson) on managing instructional outcomes.

University of Waterloo Library | 200 University Ave. W. | Waterloo, Ontario Canada | N2L 3G1 | 519.888.4567 | www.lib.uwaterloo.ca

University of Waterloo Library
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
519 888 4883

contact us | give us feedback | privacy statement | © 2011 University of Waterloo