You can incorporate Library Tools into your online course ...



Course Integration Exploratory Subgroup:Final Report and Recommendations to the Web Services Steering CommitteeFebruary 2009Kate Peterson (chair)Elena CarrilloStephanie CroweLiz FineJon JeffryesCaroline LilyardTable of ContentsExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Current Situation . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Course Reserves/E-Reserves Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Development and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Appendix A. Unresolved Issues Beyond Charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Appendix B. Current View of LibData, MyU, MyLibrary Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Appendix C. Landscape of Educational Technology Use on the Univ. of Minnesota Campus . . . 24Appendix D. Needs Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Appendix E. Media Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Appendix F. Course Integration Best Practices at Other Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Appendix G: Stakeholder and Instructor Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Appendix H: Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Appendix I: Instructor Survey and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55Appendix J: Student Survey and Results . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Appendix K: Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69List of FiguresFigure 1. Phase I Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 2. Phase 2 Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Figure 3. Development Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Figure 4. Ties to Existing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .17Figure 5. Library Course Page (LCP) Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Figure 6. Generic LCP (No Course Lib) Mockup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 7. Course-Specific Page (With Course Lib) Mockup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Figure 8. Generic Course Page Integrated into WebVista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Figure 9. Generic Course Page Integrated into Moodle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Figure 10. Models of Course Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 11. Internet or Partially Internet-Delivered Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 12. WebVista Courses Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Figure 13. WebVista Courses Pie Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Additional DocumentationRefWorks:Username: libraryintegration Password: courseBasecamp:Research materials and data located in Course Integration BasecampExecutive SummaryPurposeThe Course Integration Exploratory Subgroup of the Web Services Steering Committee (WSSC) was charged with examining the educational technology used in courses at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities campus (UMN-TC) and exploring possibilities and making recommendations for the integration of library tools, resources, learning objects and e-learning modules into these course technologies. MethodologyWe used both qualitative and quantitative methods to gain an understanding of our stakeholders’ (UMN-TC students, instructors and staff) current uses and needs for course-related educational technology. Our methods included reviewing the professional literature; online surveys of instructors and students currently using educational technology; in-depth interviews with faculty, instructional designers, and staff who work with educational technology at UMN-TC; and an informal scan of the landscape of educational technologies currently used on at UMN-TC and existing course support materials available through the University Libraries. We also found examples of library integration at other institutions. We used the data collected through these methods to make recommendations for future library integration.Note: For detailed methodological data, please see Appendices B-J.FindingsCourse Management Systems (CMS), primarily WebVista and Moodle, are ubiquitous on campus and are seen as a major method to share course related information.Instructors have difficulty integrating library content into CMS.Students have trouble accessing library content related to their courses.There are a variety of technical, political and organizational culture challenges to integrating library materials into the CMS.Library collections and services need to be more integrated into the user’s workflow.RecommendationsLibrary Course Page SystemBased on our findings, we recommend the creation of a Library Course Page (LCP) system to address the needs of students and instructors. This system will automatically create a customized library resources page for every class offered at UMN-TC, which will make relevant resources easy for students and instructors to find and use. The LCP system would be built on top of the LibData resources database. The LCP system would act as an aggregator, collecting information from the current different silos of library information (e-reserves, reserves catalog, CourseLib) and make them available in one interface. Each LCP would include all aspects of a course’s library presence (e.g. links to databases, instructional materials, MNCAT search box, reference help, e-reserves, course reserves, etc.) on one page with a minimum of mouse clicks and additional log-ins. Each page would be customized by department/subject with the option of further librarian customization at the individual course level. The LCP should be designed to be technologically agnostic so that it works with all types of course technologies (course management systems, blogs, stand-alone course site, Ning, etc). We recommend that the Libraries work with WebVista and Moodle administrative bodies to create a default link to the LCP that is posted in every course. We further recommend that the LCP be included, as a default, in all University supported online course technologies (WebVista, Moodle, UThink). Further development is recommended to widgetize and further customize content in order to extend use within and beyond courses as educational technologies are continuing to evolve and change. We recommend development of a system to facilitate the integration of media (videos, images, etc.) to be easily located and embedded within course technologies.We recommend exploring working in partnership with other units on campus to explore a course learning object repository.Course Reserves/E-ReservesCurrently students access their library course reserves through two independent systems: the Library Course Reserve catalog (MNCAT), and the Docutek electronic reserve system. Based on our findings, we recommend that library reserve materials be seamlessly integrated into the Library Course Page system. MethodologyWe gathered information on user behavior using a variety of methods, described below and in more detail in the Appendices. We investigated how the library is currently included (or absent) in course technologies; what library resources and services instructors, students and staff would find useful to more fully integrate into their courses; how our existing course support systems may be integrated more effectively into courses and course-related workflow; and what additional development of resources and services is needed. Our methods included:Stakeholder and Instructor Interviews We conducted one-on-one interviews with a diverse sample of twenty-one instructors, instructional designers, university and library staff to discuss their uses and needs regarding course technologies. We kept the format of these interviews broad and informal to allow for flexibility in the discussion. Many common themes were expressed from this diverse group, including many ideas for how the library can be more fully integrated into courses. See Appendix G for detailed results.Instructor SurveyWe created a survey in Survey Monkey and emailed a group of 289 instructors who had used E-Reserves or other course management systems in the past. We received 84 responses, for a response rate of 29%. We asked questions regarding their use and preferences of education technologies, who in their department creates course pages, if/how the Libraries are currently included in courses, and their preferences for future integration. See Appendix I for detailed questions and survey results.Student SurveyWe created a survey in Survey Monkey and emailed a group of 129 Libraries work-study student employees. We received 51 responses, for a response rate of nearly 40%. Ninety percent of the students who responded have taken courses that included some form of online course technology. We asked questions regarding how they used various CMS features, their preferences of features, and where they think other students have trouble using the Libraries. See Appendix J for detailed questions and survey results.Course Integration Best Practices at Other InstitutionsThrough personal contacts, posting questions on library association listservs, and examples from the literature, we gathered examples of course integration from other universities. See Appendix F for examples.Review of LiteratureThrough an extensive review of the literature we discovered that much has been written on this topic in the last decade as CMSs have become a major part of course technologies on college and university campuses. Originally only used for distance learning, these CMSs are now a central hub for a majority of courses, whether taught face-to-face, hybrid or online. Overall, much of the literature discusses the challenges to integrating the library into CMSs, a variety of possible solutions, and examples of small scale successes. See Appendix HHHfffdfgdfgsdfdssdfiedfsjpisdfsdfdsH for literature review.Findings: Current SituationWe analyzed the evidence that we collected on stakeholders’ and users’ needs to develop the following five findings, which summarize the current situation of course technologies at UMN-TC. Course Management Systems (CMS), primarily WebVista and Moodle, are ubiquitous on campus and are seen as a major method to share course-related information.Course Management systems have matured and play a dominant role in supplying online course information both for distance and on-campus students.WebVista and Moodle make up majority of CMS use on campus.WebCT Vista administration reported 2,604 individual WebVista sites in Fall 2008 (Blaine, handout in ATAC meeting).Moodle use is on the rise. In fall 2007, there were 189 Moodle pages. By the fall of 2008, there were 734 sites that autofetched students, a good indication that the Moodle site is being used for a course (handout at ATAC meeting). 88.3% of students reported taking at least one course supplemented by online educational technology in the past two years (OIT’s Net Generation of Students at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 2007 5).84.6% of students accessed online course materials at least two or three times a week (58.8% access online course materials at least daily) (OIT’s Net Generation of Students at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 2007 5).“Faculty members appear to see educational technology primarily as a means for the efficient delivery of information” (OIT’s 21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 5).There is a growing field of alternatives (blogs, wikis, standalone webpages, etc.) as Web 2.0 applications make it easier for instructors to post content online.Using an informal scan, we estimate that at least 80 UThink blogs were being used as course pages in January 2008. Certainly more are actually being used to supplement courses.Instructors have difficulty including library content into CMS.50% of instructors are using course management software (Billie Wahlstrom quote from TEL minutes).71.5% of instructors have taught at least one course supplemented by online technology during the past two years (OIT’s 21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 15).Faculty have a desire to increase students’ access to course materials, want to make teaching more efficient, and want to use multimedia course materials — 3 out of top 4 reasons faculty members are attracted to using educational technology in teaching (OIT’s 21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 12).Faculty members lack time to learn how to use new technology. Any solutions must respect and even save faculty members’ time (OIT’s 21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 5).There are high barriers for faculty to find and reuse digital materials in course (lack of time, lack of awareness).“Although a good percentage of library resources are digital and available online, issues with persistent URLs and authentication can be significant barriers to their integration into a CMS” (Gibbons 14).Students have trouble accessing Library content related to their courses.Library content for courses is in silos of different systems and interfaces such as CourseLib, Course Reserves, E-Reserves and more.CourseLib pages are our primary method to deliver course related content. These pages get created based on individual contacts, and there is no systematic creation of pages. Thus, students cannot rely on having such a page for their courses. (See Appendix B).Today’s students want to search a single, unified place to find the information they need--for courses it is their CMS. “I hate it when an instructor uses their own course website instead of WebCT. It’s much easier to just go to one place to check into all of your classes” (OIT’s Net Generation of Students at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 2007 1)Students are unable to match their information needs with appropriate subject guides (Gibbons).Instructors and students are unaware of the collections and services the Library has to offer to supplement and enhance their course content.Instructors complain about students’ choice of sources for papers and projects. Students often rely on easy and familiar sites such as Wikipedia and Google due to lack of searching and evaluation skills. Instructors are unsure of how or unable to spend time in course to improve student research.There is a variety of technical, political and organizational culture challenges to integrating library materials into the CMS. The University Libraries buy content from a large number of vendors who organize their products in a large variety of ways. Although tools like OneSearch help to give a unified interface, for the most part users must navigate our different systems.Due to branding and a variety of library jargon, there is a lack of transparency as to what is available within a resource.Instructors and students use highly diverse materials (articles, books, media, primary sources etc.) in teaching and learning.CMSs are administered by OIT (rarely does library have a role in selecting or administering CMS).“Faculty, students and campus administrators all have a great deal invested in the integration of libraries and CMS. Unfortunately, many are unaware of the cost this nonintegration causes in terms of time, money, and the negative impact on the quality of education.” (Gibbons 21)Libraries (collections and services) need to be more integrated into the user’s workflow.Current models of customization within library website are not adequate—users can’t/don’t navigate to the rich content design for their needs.“Customization is central to the definition of technology of Net Geners. Technology is something that adapts to their needs, not something that requires them to change.” (Gibbons 5 as cited in Roberts 2005)In a climate of accountability, the Libraries need to be able to prove that our collections and services are being used. “Libraries must learn to use courseware environment to take their services directly to the students or face budget cuts as their services are seen as less relevant (Gibbons 5 as cited in OCLC E-Resources Task Force 2003)A majority of our users prefer to access library materials online. “Recommendations of relevant, contextual library resources provided at the time and point of need is perhaps the strongest and most effective response that libraries can make to the Googlization of information.” (Gibbons 5)In a climate of declining budgets, the Libraries tools and services need to be more strategic and scalable to get “more bang from our buck” including the money and time we spend collecting, curating/creating and providing assistance to our users.RecommendationsBased on users’ needs, the current situation, our existing course support technologies (LibData, myLibrary Portal, affinity strings, etc.) and practices at other institutions, we developed the following recommendations for increasing integration of the Libraries into course technologies. We prioritized our recommendations into Phase I and Phase II. Phase I recommendations focus on high-impact, user centered, integrative, strategic and cost-effective solutions based on the WSSC Project Criteria. Phase II recommendations include additional functionality which would be of higher cost and possibly lower impact, yet more experimental and potentially innovative.Phase I RecommendationsWe recommend the creation of a Library Course Page (LCP) system. This system would include all aspects of a course’s library presence (e.g. links to databases, instruction materials, MNCAT search box, reference help, e-reserves, course reserves, etc.) on one page with a minimum of mouse clicks and additional log-ins. The LCP system should be built on top of the LibData resources database. The LCP system would live separately from CMSs, so as to be useful to those instructors using other online technologies. Each page would be customized by department/subject with the option of further customization by subject liaisons at the individual course level. The LCP should include push functionality such as RSS to help librarians efficiently push content to the page.The LCP should be technologically agnostic so that it works with all types of course technologies (WebVista, Moodle, UThink, course web page, etc.). The LCP should include an easy, standard URL naming schemeWe recommend that the page be included as a default in all University-supported online course technologies (WebVista, Moodle, UThink). In the following chart (figure 1) we provide rationale and evidence for each of these recommendations.Figure 1. Phase I DetailsRecommendationsRationaleEvidenceCI-1A: The LCP would include all aspects of a course’s library presence (e.g. library links, instruction materials, e-reserves) in one page.All library content consolidated on one page versus in different system silos as in current situationSeamless integration of all systems within CMS Support the teaching and learning at the UniversityDecrease student library anxietyDecrease number of library-related questions instructors are asked Support off-campus and distance students in addition to on campus or hybrid studentsBased on in-depth interviews: Need to be integrated within CMS, not just link out to other sites.Currently library resources are highly decentralized, forcing students to go to multiple sites to access all the appropriate information.Instructors spoke of “a unified locale for access” and a desire for the creation of “a UGVL type portal that was course specific.”“Librarians will gain increased access to students and instructors, which will lead to enhanced integration in the teaching and learning process” (Shank 2006)“Relevant library sources in the CMS can decrease the complexity of the library research process, and therefore lessen the anxiety” (Gibbons 22)CI-1B:The course page should offer a base level of resources for departments/subjects drawn from LibData resources (RQS core) with the option of further customization by subject liaisons at the individual course level.The LCP should include push functionality such as RSS to help librarians efficiently push content to the page.Instructors and students want resources related to their coursework We need to ensure pages are of high quality (and revised in a timely manner) in order for instructors and students to see them as relevant and adopt usage. Minimal addition to librarians’ workload.Push technology such as RSS would allow for efficient updating of content (e.g. such as from blog, TOCs, database search alert content, etc.)Related to myLibrary undergraduate pagesBased on in-depth interviews, instructors would like a page to be customized to their course—they do not have time to do it themselves.Web Course Design Group, College of Continuing Education said they would like to see a library-run, task-oriented, course-specific portal of resources that they could link toInstructor quote: Some students find the libraries’ collections “traumatic” to navigate and that “being able to find stuff immediately” is critical to whether students will even bother to use any library resources. Instructor quote: “Many of the choices made regarding online course content are driven by simple expedience.”Student quote: “I don't think students know everything that is available to them. Working at the library I am always telling classmates about different options they have to get what they need.”“MyLibrary now offers recommendations based on each course in which an undergraduate is currently enrolled, showing on a semester-by-semester basis the resources which are most likely to be useful (Hanson 2008).”CI-1CLCP must be technologically agnostic Instructors are using different types of online learning technologies in support of their coursework.Must have ability to use within other course technologies, including CMSs, blogs, wikis, etc.Extend use of library content Based on our instructor survey (Appendix H), the most commonly used course technologies are E-Reserves (74%), WebCT Vista (68%), Moodle (51%), Course Website (33%), UThink (11.5%), Wiki (10.3%), and other (7.7%).Course technologies such as CMSs change over time (for example, Moodle is now supported as well as WebVista). Although many instructors are using WebCT and Moodle many are not…keeping LCPs separate from CMSs and technologically agnostic will make the pages usable to a wider audience.CI-1DEasy, standard URL naming of Library Course PagesFor those instructors not using University-sponsored technologies, easy to remember, logical URLs would make inclusion in their online components easier (e g. current course lib pages vs. NCSU URL scheme – see Appendix F).Technological requirement of large scale systemInstructors spoke in favor of a solution that “was very simple to incorporate.”CI-1ELCP must appear as a default in all University sponsored online course technologies (WebCT, Moodle, UThink, myCourses Tab, etc.).CMSs are the center of course- related workflow.The default inclusion of a generic page in the CMSs would bring library resources to the user in a widespread, proactive manner, bringing library resources into the students’ and instructors’ existing workflow Should include ability to link to LCP from within CMS week or topic structureStudents prefer to have course-related resources within CMSs. Quote from OITs student survey: “I hate it when an instructor uses their own course website instead of WebCT.”Instructors see CMS as primary means to provide course related information to students. OITs Faculty survey: “Faculty members appear to see educational technology primarily as a means for the efficient delivery of information”Instructor quote: History of Medicine: She really liked the idea of having a default Libraries tab in Moodle and WebVista“From a student and learning-centered perspective on education, making the library visible in courseware is essential to achieving student learning outcomes (Bell & Shank 2004).”CI-1FCourse Reserves/E-reserves should be integrated into LCPReserves are a highly used course component that are currently in multiple locations/silosWebsites currently available for instructors to learn how to use Reserves are outdated and confusing (on library, bookstore, etc. websites)Some instructors did not realize that E-reserves was a service provided by the library Instructor quote: Would love to be able to do E-Reserves on the fly - i.e. not sending them through the E-Reserve request system to get posted. This takes time, and I feel like I am bothering the E-Reserve staff if I want to add something at a later dateIn-depth interviews: Adding readings to courses is confusing and instructors are unsure of copyright implications.Phase II RecommendationsFurther development of the proposed Library Course Page system is recommended to widgetize and further customize content to extend use within and beyond courses. As educational technologies are continuing to evolve, the ability to break content up in widgets would allow for maximum flexibility in future usage.Upgrade Course Reserves/E-reserves (see Course Reserves/E-Reserves Recommendations below).Create system to help instructors and instructional designers easily locate and integrate media (streaming video, etc.) and images to courses (see Appendix E). In the following chart (figure 2) we provide rationale, evidence and criteria for importance for each of the Phase II recommendations and additional LCP features.Figure 2. Phase II DetailsFunctionalitiesRationale EvidenceImportanceCI-2A:Widgetize all parts of LCP. Allow for integration at point of needExtend use of library content to CMS and beyondGrowing trends towards personalizationReusable and shareableFor use with mobile devices Similar to layout on myLibraryAcademic Health Center’s use of myLibrary to customize pagesiGoogle pages will grow with Google pilot with undergraduatesEDUCAUSE webinar (Widgets: The slicing and dicing (and splicing) of shareable learning content)Use of mobile devices continues to grow in education (2009 Horizon Report)“The myLibrary team envisioned a layout that comprised a number of smaller cells or widgets, some of which would be universal to all users and other of which would be customized to particular affinity string groups” (Hanson 2008).CriticalCI-2B:Further integration of cCourse Reserves/E-reserves system into LCP. Ability to incorporate readings into the topic/week of the course in CMS (at point of need). (see Course Reserves/E-Reserves Recommendations)Large number of instructors posting PDFs without copyright permissionDo not know how to post persistent linksReadings should be at point of need (course week/topic)Lack of instructor knowledge of Course Reserves and E-ReservesBased on in-depth interviews: Instructors unsure of what do to with readingsOften post PDFs into CMS-potentially exposing themselves to risk CriticalCI:2C Functionality for instructors to easily locate and add media, videos, images, learning objects, etc. to courses (e.g. materials the Library pays for and/or creates)Instructors want more streamed media in courses (enrich their course content)Instructors do not have time to search multiple locations to try to find such contentIn-depth interviews—This topic arose with no prompting time and again from instructors across the disciplines:Instructor, Social Work: He’d like the ability to put video excerpts on e-reserve or in CMSWeb Course Design Group, CCE: Staff spoke highly of the images library that the library maintains. They’d like to see that expanded and if it could include video that would be a plus.Instructor, History of Science and Technology: Would like a better way to incorporate visual resources that are already web-based but that aren’t particularly accessible because people aren’t aware of them.CriticalCI-2D:Give instructors the ability to add content from library (website, books, articles, etc.) into LCP using one-click technology “Add to My Course” type link (similar to “Add to My Library” link)Easy, one-click technology. Raises awareness of adding library materials to coursesStreamlines workflow of adding content to courses Instructors want their resources to be as specific to their class as possible.In depth interviews: Instructors spoke of a desire to self-edit pages Instructors spoke of need to make customization easy Instructors said they’d “like editing functionality” and “liked the idea of professors having editing rights to CourseLib pages”“Would like to see the option of staff being able to make changes, additions, etc.” and thought “joint administrative abilities would be best.”CriticalCI-2E:A centralized repository for all course-related library research and writing instructional resources that would allow for easy inclusion into library course page.Instructors want instruction modules to assist students in research. Currently these modules, if they exist, are scattered across campus, causing instructors to re-create existing modules/informationBeneficial to instructors and time-saving for librarians.Centralized location would enhance visibility of offeringsBuild partnerships with other units across campus to offer related content such as Center for Writing, DMC, plagiarism, etc.Need for instruction applies for undergrads but also Masters and PhD students (e.g. returning adult students)In-depth interviews:Instructor, Social Work: He’d like tools to help students learn search strategiesInstructor, Spanish and Portuguese: Most useful would be online tutorials on subjects such as how to use MLA, how to find and use periodicals and newspapers as sources, and an easy reference on how to cite sources.Instructor, Art Studio: Would like to see online tutorials for using the library in general.Instructor, English and African American Studies: Would love to see online exercises to help develop skills.Instructor, English and African American Studies: Would like to see some sort of online writing diagnostic toolInstructor, History of Medicine: Tutorials would be extremely useful on specific subjects such as RefWorks, citing sources (including primary sources), evaluating websites, and general information literacy. They should include quizzes at the beginning and end so that she doesn’t have to grade the exercises.CriticalCI-2F:Inclusion of “helps” or “how tos” and “FAQ” tied to each library resources (e.g. database would have a link to a guide or tutorial on using that goes with database link)Need to align “how-to guides” with resourcesStudents don’t know how to use resources effectively even if they get to the best oneInstructor quote: Research is difficult to teach. Anything that would make it potentially easier would be welcomeInstructor quote: “I waste a lot of time reinventing the wheel for basic research skills for my students.”ImportantCI-2G:Functionality to move content from LCP and add to other pages within course (e.g. include content within specific week/topic in course).Integration at point of need within courseCMSs are organized around weeks or topics of content LCP would still be outside of CMS organizationInstructors spoke of need to make customization easy ImportantCI-2H:Administrative abilities for faculty to add self-selected resources, delete, edit, reorganize content on LCP page.Instructors want flexibility in making the page fit their needs. This functionality would please instructors, but adds little to the total overall value of the resource.Instructors would also like to add web resources and other material they find to LCP (so student don’t have to consults multiple pages on research resources)In-depth interviews:Instructor, Social Work: Would like editing functionality so he could add resources as he finds themInstructor, Chemistry: Liked the idea of professors having editing rights to CourseLib pagesWeb Course Design Group, CCE: Would be useful if we could update certain things ourselves, such as the semester identified at the top of a CourseLib pageInstructor, English and African American Studies: Would like to see the option of staff being able to make changes, additions, etc.Instructor, History of Medicine: Liked the idea drag-and-drop items to include if faculty desired.ImportantCI-2I:Customized search box within the page (e.g. OneSearch for Anthropology, on anthropology pages, etc).Allow for searching of relevant resources with a minimum of clicks, bringing the library’s resources directly to the user. Most of the technology already exists, making this feature an easy, high impact addition.One Search rationaleInstructor, History of Science and Technology: Would like a streamlined way to specify searches to specific libraries or units.As one instructor said, “students want resources quickly and easily with a minimum of clicks.”ImportantCI-2JDevelop system repository, in partnership with other units on campus, for instructors and instructional designers to easily locate and add learning objects both locally created and created by others (e.g. Creative Commons, MERLOT)Instructors do not have time to search multiple locations to try to find such contentConcern about possible copyright implicationsNo system currently in place at UniversityBuild partnerships and relationships with other unitsNiceCourse Reserves/E-Reserves RecommendationsAs indicated above, it is critical for library reserve materials to be integrated into the Library Course Page system. Currently students access their library course reserves through two independent systems: the Library Course Reserve catalog (MNCAT) and the Docutek electronic reserve system. Current use statistics for these systems are as follows:Print Reserves: 2007-2008 Internal Circulations: 25,328Renewals: 1,313Total Circulations: 26,641E-Reserves:Spring 2008Total Courses (Wilson, BioMed): 240Number of Documents: 2683Number of Links: 1160Course Page Hits (Jan-May): 44,032Fall 2008Total Courses (Wilson, Walter, Magrath, BioMed, Vet-Med): 245Number of Documents: 3273Number of Links: 1226Course Page Hits (Sept-Dec): 68,913 From: changes that affect Course/E-reserves recommendations:University Libraries are many versions (10+) behind current Docutek electronic reserves systemSirsi Dynix bought Docutek ()Now offers integration with Blackboard (WebVista)Subgroup is working on how to proceed with Docutek and future E-reserves workflowUnfortunately, we were limited in our ability to gather data for next steps of the E-reserves systems. Thus, we created three generic scenarios envisioned for the handling of reserve materials, and these are described below in formats that represent “good” (minimum), “better” (acceptable), and “best” (ideal) means of integration. GoodAt bare minimum, it is important for students to be able to easily access course reserves from the LCP system. A default link to existing electronic reserves and to the library course reserve catalog would facilitate access. Even though links would take students to another page, the ease of access would be an improvement over the current decentralized system.BetterA better method for accessing the course reserves would be to have a module or widget within the LCP that links to individual resources or readings. In this way, students would have relatively quick access to their materials without having to leave the CMS page. Students would have instant access to check the availability of their hardcopy reserves and download electronic reserve documents.BestThe ideal scenario for handling course reserves includes the “better” option above with the added functionality of giving faculty the capability to integrate specific readings into each week/topic to match with course content.Development and ImplementationDue to the exploratory nature of our group there are many specifics that were beyond the scope of our group’s charge. Here is a high-level description of how the LCP system could be developed and implemented.Figure 3. Development TimelineStep 1: Creation of LCP SystemCreate LCP system based on LibData database. Include the following information on the page (see Figure 5): Search box with tabs for MNCAT Plus: Books and Media, e-Journals list, and Articles to OneSearch (based on discipline of course)Box for key resources pulled from RQS/Subjects or CourseLib pageBox for liaison librarian (with photo and contact information)Box/Link to Course Reserves (if available for course)Box/Link to E-Reserves (if available for course)Box for MyAccount/Checked out itemsBox for Library News/Events/Workshops (centralized creation of content (e.g. by Communications Office) to pull from)Box for Reference (chat, email, etc.) Integration of context-specific help such as future FAQ systemBuilding on push technology such as RSS to help librarians push content to LCP pages (blog, TOCs, search alerts, etc.)Box for selected e-learning modulesBox for Course integration instruction and assessmentIntegration into CMS:Work with WebVista and Moodle administrative bodies to create a default link to the course page that is posted in every course. Ties to Existing SystemsOur recommendations are a departure from our current “hit and miss” system of supporting courses using multiple systems. The Library Course Pages (LCP) system would bring together existing disparate systems and provide resources systematically for all courses. Figure 4. Ties to Existing SystemsCurrently available LCP systemCourseLib page only on instructor request/librarian initiative E-reserves and course reserves in separate systems—not tied to course pageReference help not included in courseMoodle includes default link to Library homepage. WebVista does not include link to library homepage.Page for every course generated automaticallyLink to e-reserves and course reserves system on pageReference help included within courseDefault inclusion in CMSs. Optional inclusion into other educational technologies. Step 2: Further Flexibility (Widgets)Develop further flexibility in all aspects of LCP and allow users to include in a variety of educational applications, such as wikis, blogs, stand alone course pages, etc. Widgets seem to make the most sense in terms of a systematic method to accomplish this. From our readings of the NCSU Library tools systems, it seems they widgetized the content into block. The goal of this flexibility would be to allow the same content to be re-purposed and re-used in a variety of course-related settings. Step 3: Faculty Editing CapabilityBased on information gathered from instructor interviews and the survey, the idea of administrative rights for faculty came up again and again. Faculty would like to be able to add, edit, and delete and otherwise customize the content within their courses—the LCP being no exception. Overall, faculty felt comfortable with the idea of librarians creating pages, but generally wanted the ability to add their own favorites (e.g. web sites, etc.) that they use in teaching. This capability does seem to be resource-intensive to build and thus we are unsure of the cost/benefits. This feature is due for further investigation to determine how important it is for instructors. Figure 5. Library Course Page (LCP) Components: Schematic of components that could be included in LCPs. Library Course Page (LCP) Mock-ups Based on developments currently underway, our desired features, and examples from other institutions, we have developed rough mock-ups of what an LCP may look like. Stand-alone LCP (outside CMS for use with other course technologies)Figure 7. Course Specific Page (With CourseLib) Figure 6. Generic LCP (No Course Lib) Generic Page (no Course Lib)Course specific page (with Course Lib)Location of Library BlockLocation of Library LinkWithin CMS (includes LCP and example of location of default link to the Library)Figure 8. Generic Course Page Integrated into WebVista Figure 9. Generic Course Page Integrated into MoodleImplementation PlanPhase 1: LCP DevelopmentAppendix A. Unresolved Issues Beyond Charge (a.k.a Notes to the Implementation Group)What else should be done to prepare for the design and implementation of the LCP?Customization Additional research needs to be conducted to determine the best LCP customization based on high level course categories such as: Discipline (e.g. Social Science, Science, Humanities, etc.)Level (e.g. lower undergraduate, undergraduate within major, graduate student, etc.)Writing intensiveLiberal Education requirements (Core, theme, etc.)High enrollment courses Student Learning Outcome integrationGateway, keystone and capstone courses We recommend prioritizing gateway, keystone, and capstone courses to invest additional resources in creating customized LCP pages.For example: including more extensive library resources, embedded librarians, instructional modules, and other specialized tools. StatisticsAn important aspect will be to determine how statistics will be collected for the LCP system (e.g. using Central Authentication Hub). To make this system user-friendly and effective, it will be vital to know what users are using and to be able to tie usage to user groups (e.g. first year students, grad, engineering students, etc.). We also recommend building from an analysis of data collected from the MyLibrary Portal project. This data will help with continued development of the LCP system. Collaboration with Units across Library SystemAdditional units, collaboratives, and liaison librarians need to be utilized to help design the features and workflows the LCP will effect. A partial list includes: Re-inventing Reference Collaborative (What effect would chat or email reference box in LCP have?)Information Literacy Collaborative, E-Learning Taskforce (What information literacy modules need to be created? How can we better support students while they are using our resources)Current Awareness-WSSC subgroup (how/should the results of this group be integrated into LCP?)Discoverability-WSSC subgroup (How can their findings apply to LCP?)Performance Support (How can their findings apply to LCP?)Digital Collections (What infrastructure can be built on? How can these materials be included on LCP?) Archives and Special Collections (how can these unique materials be integrated in the LCP?De-emphasis on Other GatewaysAs we adopt LCPs we may want to move focus away from the front ends of other library resource gateways (CourseLib, e-reserves). Discussion of which gateways to keep and to what level we want to de-emphasize others must occur.Using multiple methods for integrationMuch of the literature discusses the idea of system-level integration and individual course-level integration (Shank & Dewald 2003). Both methods should be part of a comprehensive system to ensure success with integration of the library into courses (see figure 10). The LCP system should be developed with an awareness of existing and ongoing efforts at integration at the individual course level. Also there should be an awareness that courses will benefit from a wide spectrum of integration, with the LCP acting as a minimum. The increase in interdisciplinary research needs to be considered, and using individual-level integration techniques may provide the most useful way to alleviate this challenge. Figure 10. Models of Course IntegrationSystem-level integrationIndividual-level integrationGeneric library presence in all courses (through CMS) Automated solutionLibrary resources become a de-facto part of a class’s online presenceCustomized content through personal, one-to-one contacts to individual courses Usually related to in-class instructionProsStandardizes materials in coursesEasy to maintainIncreases visibility of library resourcesCapitalizes on technological solutions currently availablePro-activeProsLibrary more-fully integrated into courseProvide more human connection with library and librariansLibrarians become partners in teachingEasier to gain feedback on contents of LCPConsGeneric pages may not fit expectations of customizationChallenging to get feedback on content on pagesConsTime and resource intensive; not scalableDifferent levels of support in specific coursesMust be reviewed and maintained oftenLiaison Development and TrainingTo make the LCP system successful, it needs to be more than just a page in the CMS. As listed above in the “Customization” section, we recommend prioritizing gateway, keystone, and capstone courses for investment of additional resources in creating customized LCP pages. To make this approach successful, we recommend investigating the training needs to support such a system. This may be supported by other groups, such as liaison or information literacy training. Librarians would work in-depth with instructors to customize pages for strategically targeted classes. Additional resources such as access to syllabi and assignments would be needed. Also, librarians would need training on CMSs, on topics such as how they are organized, how students and faculty use them, and more.Instructor Considerations Instructors play a vital role in the academic success of students. Instructor buy-in is important to make any system effective. Whatever system is created, it must respond to faculty needs such as time savings, ease of use for themselves and students, and seamless integration into their CMSs and course technology.Since “providing information” is one of the primary uses of CMSs which helps to extend information to students 24/7, there is a need to be able to include library resources both within an individual unit/week, as well as in one centralized location in the course. One concern s that adding a Library Course Page (LCP) will add yet another page to look at for information. It would be useful to continue to explore providing editing abilities (Faculty Editing Capability) to the LCP to instructors, TAs, librarians, etc. This would allow instructors to edit, add to and delete content from the LCP based on their course content and needs. Many instructors are unaware of the MyLibrary tab, and that there is currently customized content based for undergraduates based on Affinity Strings. The way these ideas are introduced to instructors will be important to make sure instructors encourage students to use the LCP, and integrate it fully within their course. Additional research is needed to determine if the creation of an Instructor/Faculty toolkit (designed to give faculty a one-stop shop to find resources to include in their course) would help facilitate richer courses by providing a place for faculty to learn more of our collections and services. We recommend either utilizing an existing group of faculty and staff (Library Advisory Board?) or forming another group of instructors, faculty, TAs and IT Fellows or other departments’ course designers to provide cross-disciplinary advice on their informational needs while building courses and how the Libraries can best support this process.CMS in the life of the userSimilar to the idea under instructor considerations, additional research needs to be conducted to investigate how instructors and students are using the CMSs.LibData FoundationsFor this tool to be widely used by librarians, LibData (which would undergird the LCP) needs to be revamped to be more user-friendly and provide more flexibility. The database of resources is excellent for saving time and updating links. However, over time this system has become outdated in the current Web 2.0 environment. We recommend a group be tasked with recommending and implementing updates to this system to make it fit librarian workflow, and provide the customization (include images, how-to guides, video integration, etc.) to support the LCP. The categories, naming conventions and style guidelines should be addressed as well (e.g. default alphabetical order-users expect relevancy ranked lists, etc.). Since this system as grown organically in the last years, a systematic examination should be made to determine if the RQS, core, and other categories of resources adequately match the output desired on LCP. Course integration instruction and Assessment The LCP system should work with in-class course integrated instruction and assessment efforts. These could include the ability to insert recorded in-class sessions with librarians, customized handouts or web guides, etc. The LCP should have the ability to be modified quickly and easily based on liaison librarians’ and instructors’ needs. The ability to include assessment, including quizzes and surveys (using the features of the CMS), are important for the long term accountability of our instructional efforts.MyLibraryFurther investigation is needed to determine how the LCP and MyLibrary would work together, overlap or duplicate each other.Appendix B. Current View of LibData, myU, and MyLibrary UsageLibDataTotal CourseLib visits for 2007 (HTML visits): 50913Total PageScribe visits for 2007 (HTML visits): 541903Total RQS visits for 2007 (HTML activity): 358589Number of Subjects/RQS pages: 255Number of items in CourseLib database: 15,197Number of “published” CourseLib/PageScribe pages: 1160Last modified in 2003: 11Last modified in 2004: 66Last modified in 2005: 107Last modified in 2006: 177Last modified in 2007: 197Last modified in 2008: 295Last modified in 2009: 81Total last modified between 2007-present: 573MyU*140,000 registered users (13,619 Academic Health Center)47,000 (2,971 AHC) unique logins monthly34,000 unique logins weekly9600 unique logins daily*Unsure of date of statistics. From statistics (unavailable at this time) may be useful to help inform how we think of course integration.Appendix C: Landscape of Educational Technology Use on the University of Minnesota CampusIn order to get a better picture of the current state of course technology on the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities campus, the group conducted an informal scan of the use, types, and prevalence of different technology currently being used on campus. We ultimately focused our search to users of Moodle, WebCT Vista, and UThink. Contacting Moodle Support directly by email, we received a link to a statistics webpage that they have put together (). According to this site, Moodle usage is on the rise. In Fall 2007 there were 189 Moodle pages. By the fall of 2008, that number had more than doubled, with 384 pages. We also directly contacted WebCT Vista administration, who reported 2,590 individual WebVista sites in Fall 2008 (Blaine, personal correspondence).To get an idea of the use of UThink on campus, we conducted a scan of what UThink designates as “active blogs” – blogs that have been active within the last three months (dates scanned January 6-7, 2009). When possible, these blogs were accessed (some blogs are password protected) and evaluated to see if they were blogs tied to a course or courses and created by an instructor (as opposed to student-created blogs created as an assignment). Using this rather informal methodology, 87 blogs were identified as being course-related. Internet-Delivered Courses at the University of MinnesotaFigure 11. Internet-delivered or partially Internet-delivered (Spring 2009)CourseNumber of courses offeredNURS - Nursing34PUBH - Public Health34OT - Occupational Therapy26CI - Curriculum and Instruction18BBE - Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering15ABUS - Applied Business 14CMGT - Construction Management13EDPA - Educational Policy and Administration11PHAR - Pharmacy11WRIT - Writing Studies10MT - Manufacturing Technology7ADED - Adult Education6COLA - Collaborative Arts Interdisciplinary Program6HRD - Human Resource Development6HSM - Health Systems Management5BIOC - Biochemistry4INET - Information Networking4LGTT - Language, Teaching, and Technology4PSY - Psychology4CLS - Clinical Laboratory Science3FSCN - Food Science and Nutrition3FSOS - Family Social Science3HORT - Horticultural Science3IS - Innovation Studies3JOUR - Journalism and Mass Communication3Number of WebVista Courses by College or SchoolFigure 13. WebVista Courses pie graphFigure 12. WebVista Courses chart238633050800Fall 2005 (most recent available)College or SchoolNumber of WebVista coursesCFANS96COD13College of Biological Science32College of Continuing Education41College of Education and Human Development367CLA444CSOM81College of Public Affairs21IT147Health Science242Appendix D. Needs Analysis Using data from in-depth interviews, faculty and instructor surveys, and literature reviews, we analyzed needs of instructors, students and the University Libraries.Instructors:NeedsChallengesIssuesSeverity/ImportanceBuild richer/better coursesWant to include media (video, images) in courseHard to findLack of awareness of resources and servicesDoesn’t work well in courseCriticalSave timeLittle time for buildingHard to findLack of awarenessCriticalEasy to include Develop CMS content quickly (week or two) Don’t have time to spend huntingCriticalTechnology must be easy to use Seamless for studentsInstructors deal with students who have trouble with accessCriticalMust be embedded within the courseDon’t want to link out to another system to navigateInstructors deal with students who have trouble with accessCriticalSupport for teaching “how to” use library resourcesStudents don’t know how to use library resourcesInstructors don’t have time to teach in their own coursesImportantSupport on plagiarismUnsure strategies to help students avoid plagiarismNo time to teach within their courseNiceStudents:NeedsChallengesIssuesSeverity/ImportanceWant connection between course content and research toolsNot good a selecting subject guides or finding CourseLib pagesOften no existing resources that match their research needsCriticalWant everything within CMSCurrently only link to Library homepage Hard to navigate Library homepageCriticalCourse Readings all in one place within CMSCurrently in Course Reserves catalog and e-reserves and in courseSpend time hunting for reading versus reading ImportantWant to succeed academicallyDon’t know how to find high quality researchUse Google and Wikipedia due to familiarityImportantUniversity Libraries:NeedsChallengesIssuesSeverity/ImportanceRatio of librarians to courses is low-Very large, distributed University-Impossible to make personal connections with all instructorsFew ways to standardize across all disciplinesCriticalShift to electronic access-Library no longer only place to find information -Vendors and access to resources in all different ways-Often still thought of as physical places-Organization and authentication problemsImportantTo reuse and re-purpose collections and servicesDifferent technologies used in course deliveryBest delivery method may be different based on discipline or courseImportantBranding and marketingLack of awareness that library provides materials-Resources not being used-Often still thought of as physical placesImportantNeed to provide evidence of use of library spendingNot part of revenue generating unitFew ways to tie use back to learning outcomes/academic successNiceAppendix E. Media IntegrationOne theme that arose throughout many of our in-depth interviews with faculty and instructors was their need for easier access to media that they could integrate into their courses. Faculty indicated that they were interested in providing image sharing capability (similar to Flickr), integration of currently available image databases (e.g. ArtStor), podcast recording and sharing, and general integration of “hidden” visual resources (e.g. media that isn’t used much now because instructors aren’t aware of its existence). Also faculty would like to include media content such as streaming media and video clips into their CMSs. These materials, such as FMG on Demand-Film Media Group (to which the library buys access), are not in MNCAT; therefore they are difficult for instructors to find. Further investigation is needed to determine to what level the Library Media Collection can facilitate this desire of faculty.Jason Roy is currently working on the alpha version of the Libraries’ Media Repository, a database of the Libraries’ images and rich media. The repository will be dynamic (University-affiliated users will be able to upload their own products) and socially interactive, containing tagging and sharing features. Including the Media Repository in any LCP product should be a fairly easy step, and it would allow instructors to create their own “collections” of media that they could push out to their students through the LCP. It would also easily allow student interaction with media resources. Appendix F. Course Integration Best Practices at Other InstitutionsMethodology: The Course Integration Subgroup employed a variety of techniques to determine practices at other institutions, including querying listservs, conducting literature reviews, and consulting with colleagues on and off campus.North Carolina State University: More information: Tools web pages are sets of library recommendations built around courses and curricula. There's a Library Tools page for every course at NC State!Library Tools pages include:E-Reserves for your courseArticle databasesLibrarian RecommendationsIM a Librarian for helpCitation Tools, including the Citation Builderand more... Library tools pages can be customized. If you'd like to tailor a Library Tools page to a specific assignment or other course needs, contact Librarian for Digital Technologies and Learning.You can incorporate Library Tools into your online course environment in several ways:1695450590550Library Tools in BlackBoard Vista - just check the box to include library resource and/or e-reserves for your course when signing up for a Vista section. This is what it looks like.:361950257810Library Tools in Moodle - a Library Tools "block" is available for Moodle course sites. Course Websites - you can insert a link to the Library Tools page for your course right into your course website.”Ohio State UniversityJust published an article on their early efforts:Black, E. L. (2008). Toolkit approach to integrating library resources into the learning management system. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(6), 496-501. (see more quotes below in Lit Review)Below is a screen shot of an example from winter 2008, when they delivered pages similar to this one in about 10,000 courses that were created by 15 subject librarians. Soon they will be allowing more choices for box headings, though still limiting them for consistency of user experience. Those librarians who do not want their picture on the page can use a male or female avatar. In the long run they plan to integrate the content creation tool, which was created locally by one of their web programmers, into their web content management system.981075130810University of Northern Texas:Persistent URLs + Stem (to put through proxy) to library resources -problems with dead links-inconsistent proxy server also causes issuesVPN (Virtual Private Network) -Some firewalls do not allow the security exceptions that are required.-VPN is a “resource hog” and can be quite slow on older machinesStanford University Linking e-books and e-articles into courses using DOI or other URLsLink Research Guides developed for the coursesRole of the librarian is limited because of access restrictions of the systemsUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonEnhancements to their current Library Course Page to allow for more granularity and modularization of content…individual components can be accessed and used flexibly by facultyAutomatic links to Library Course Pages in Learn@UW (D2L) and working towards incorporation in Moodle as well.317500-542925391795-260350537845568325University of ToledoInternal library page on process: link to their portal: University“Course sites are ready made for links to library content. Academic librarians are making it easier than ever for faculty to integrate an array of research tools into course management software or even a faculty member’s personal website. At the Temple University Libraries the librarians create customized content packages that contain just the right databases that students need for their assignments. They can even add in custom Google search boxes and non-library links that may be of use to instructors and their students. If faculty desire links to specific articles, those can be added as well. The content package is sent to faculty as an e-mail attachment. Faculty then simply upload it to their course site. The content installs itself as a unique courseware page and even adds a library link to the course menu. It eliminates any faculty excuses for not integrating the library into their course.” From the Library into your Blackboard courses: a service called Library Express () with different levels of pages for specific courses—must contact a librarian to have course page createdBlackboard Sampler which demos a few different types of pages: of North Carolina-Chapel HillThey use Blackboard as their CMS.Librarians create course guides upon faculty request/collaboration. They are straight HTML type pages that conform to a style and template. A list of the current pages is at pages are then linked to the course in Blackboard, so when a student clicks on the library resource button, they get this page UNC library systems and IT worked out this technology and might be willing to share.They are working to integrate e-reserves into Blackboard with Docutek’s Blackboard module Individual librarians have also been embedded into some online classes. Have the idea of creating online library instruction sessions but have not worked anything out yet.190500University of Texas at AustinThe Blackboard support group agreed to put a “Start Your Research” link on every course page leading user to a lot of how-to and help content, as well as some search tools (catalog, etc.) Web services librarian figured out how to get discipline-specific content into Start Your Research link. The guide and subject librarian contact information that shows up is based on the course prefix (ENG, HIS, etc.) Hoping to further develop it so that if a librarian is working with a specific course and has created materials for that course, those materials will show up in addition to the subject guide.University of North Carolina-GreensboroHas a two-tiered approach based on some specialized programming. They have libraries choose resources for courses with links pulled from a database and placed on pages created with a wireframe website, and they have a major-specific library tab in each student’s Blackboard account.UC Berkeley Interactive University Project: Scholar’s Box (2004) and “Digital library and museum collections are inaccessible to the authoring tools and learning management systems being used to develop online educational services and course materials; these digital materials exist within different standards regimes and are managed and delivered with incompatible protocols.”“The Scholar's Box software helps to address important interoperability issues at the intersection of four information technology domains: (1) digital libraries and repositories; (2) educational technologies and learning management systems; (3) web syndication and portal technologies; and (4) desktop applications and structured content authoring tools.”47625019050Additional Examples: Tab or Library Course pageRochester Institute of Technology ()UT AustinNorth Carolina State University ()E-ReservesNotreDame uses WebCT for e-reserves (Black 497)Ryerson uses Blackboard for e-reserves (Black 497)Northwestern uses Blackboard for e-reserves (Black 497)Ohio State U uses D2L for e-reserves (Black 497)Philadephia University trains faculty to post their own reserves using links from the databases or through Docutek (Bell, Shank 3)LinkMaker was designed to work with Blackboard (building block) to create links to readings in library databases ()Information Literacy Instruction St. Mary’s offers IL course in Blackboard available to all students (Black)New York University includes instructional materials organized by goal (Black)Penn State College of Medicine included tutorials in ANGEL CMS (Gibbons 25)Oakland University created WebCT module on using library (Gibbons 25)AuthenticationEZproxy/Blackboard Build Block developed by OCLC Reference University of Illinois, Chicago uses Questionpoint and created a form to allow users to access email/chat reference from within Blackboard (Gibbons 25)RefWorksNorthwestern University created feature to access RefWorks from within Blackbooard. Instructors can set up links to RefWorks databases from within courses (Gibbons 25)Librarians given access to CMSBabson College gained access through certain departments to review syllabi and course assignments (Gibbons 25)Appendix G. Stakeholder and Instructor InterviewsDepartments & Units consulted:History of Science and TechnologyHistory of MedicinePublic HealthAcademic Health Center Learning CommonsOccupational TherapyPhysical TherapyNursing EconomicsHuman Resources and Industrial Relation DepartmentInstructional Designer CSOMHubert H. Humphrey InstituteAfrican American StudiesDistributed Education & Instructional TechnologyDigital Media CenterAnimal ScienceContinuing EducationEducational Policy and AdministrationSpanish and PortugueseChemistryPost Secondary Teaching and LearningSocial WorkCLA Instructional TechnologyUniversity Libraries: DLDLUniversity Libraries: Digital CollectionsWe targeted a diverse sample of twenty-one faculty members, instructional designers, staff instructors and library staff to sit down for one-on-one interviews to discuss the specific needs and desires of those who work with CMSs and other educational technologies. We kept the format of these interviews broad and informal to allow for flexibility in the discussion, but were careful to cover some specific areas of interest.In analyzing the data gathered from these interviews some trends became readily apparent. Generally, instructors want a library resource that is course-specific, but also covers general informational literacy instruction on how to search, access and evaluate materials. They want a central resource that incorporates various technologies already in use, something simple for students to access and simple to administer by faculty or staff. Some more specific trends that arose in our interviews include:Media Integration (see Appendix E)We noticed a desire to use a greater variety of media by instructors in their classes. A theme that occurred throughout the interviews was a desire for more access to different kinds of media as well as more support in its use. Many instructors brought up the desire to incorporate more audio and video into their course’s online presence and wanted a library resource that could stream video and audio as well as make editing existing media easier. The incorporation of media makes the online presence more dynamic.Instructor administration of Library Course PageInstructors had mixed feelings towards the ability to edit their own library course page. Although a significant portion of instructors still rely on support services through OIT and the library to help them set up websites, reserves and other technology for their students, many instructors we talked to were inclined to want some administrative access over their course pages. Supporting staff and instructors to set up resources initially is important, but providing the option to make changes and additions to their content once the course is underway is an added functionality that would be welcomed by some faculty. Also, some instructors expressed a desire for the flexibility to easily move specific library resources out of the course page and into other contexts (such as a general “recommended links” page for their students).Instructional materialsInstructors believed that along with the incorporation of library resources into their courses, they’d also like to see accompanying online research instruction that students could use at their point of need. Instructors felt that students need more assistance with using the library-supported tools and learning library and research skills, and welcome instructional resources that teach critical thinking and problem-solving related to library tools.Centralization of resourcesThe idea of visibility was prevalent among faculty concerns about students and technology. Some instructors feel that being able to find information “immediately,” with a minimum of clicks and authentication requirements, is critical to whether students will even bother to use a given technology. A general feeling is that library resources are often confusing and difficult to find, and having course-specific resources integrated directly into the user workflow (course page) would be extremely helpful.Discovery of new resources and servicesIn general, instructors feel like there are many useful library tools or services that they do not know about. They expressed a desire for an easy mechanism, integrated into their workflow, to heighten awareness of potentially helpful resources. Many instructors recognize that librarians have deep expertise in this area, and welcome their assistance, though they often forget about what the library can offer. SummaryOverall, instructors are eager for something that will help to seamlessly integrate disparate pieces of their course materials into one easily-accessible place, so long as it is tailored to the specific needs of their course. They want something that is easy to implement, maintain and use.Appendix H. Review of Literature Our literature review provided evidence supporting the importance of integrating library resources into the online technologies used for courses. Gulbahar and Yildirim note the importance of having “a wide range of pre- and post activities (additional resources, additional materials, self assessment utilities etc.) apart from content” available to students using online learning technologies in the findings of their “Assessment of Web-Based Courses” (377.) Although not explicitly stated, the additional resources could be a place for the library to strategically integrate its offerings into online course technology. Christopher Cox posits in “Becoming Part of the Course” that University-sponsored online course technologies are a strategic location for libraries to integrate their resources: “…Blackboard and similar courseware packages offer librarians an opportunity to participate more fully in the coursework of our university’s students.” (39). The primacy of connecting library resources to online course technology gets explicitly championed in “Blackboard on a Shoestring: Tying Courses to Sources,” by Dan H. Lawrence. Lawrence (citing Gibbons) writes: “If the library can push relevant content into this domain, the resources gain importance to the students simply by their presence within the course .” (247). Not only does Lawrence view the integration of library materials as beneficial to student learning, he also believes that successful integration will be vital for the future of libraries: “Libraries must also insert themselves into the CMS to preserve and/or reinvent their symbolic place in the institution.” (248)Lawrence strongly advocates for a top-down approach to the integration of library resources into online course technology: “Rather than establishing a desired level of deep course integration with only one or two courses, it can be argued that a generic, global link to the library will better serve all students by increasing the ease of access to library resources.” (246). Citing the work of Shank & Dewald, he writes that “macro-level approaches make the provision of library services a scalable endeavor while working to increase the ease of access for students and faculty.”(257) A top-down generic approach also has pedagogical benefits, as noted by Gulbahar and Yildirim. They advocate “[k]eep[ing] the design of web pages simple and consistent” from an instructional design standpoint (377). The presence of a single location of a library resources link in an instructional technology’s layout included as a default by the software administrators (instead of added anywhere, if at all, by instructors) would be the ideal.This top-down approach was also supported in the research of Lau and Woods. Their study illustrates the time intensiveness of a micro-level, bottom up approach of course integration. They found that the acceptance of objects is a slow and gradual process: “Potential adopters must first learn about the innovation and be persuaded to try it out before deciding to adopt or reject it.” (695) This description of the process of adoption makes a micro-level, one-on-one, librarian-to-individual-instructor approach almost untenable. A top-down approach would expedite the process, making the library resources a de-facto portion of a class’s online presence. Lau and Woods also found that once users are made aware of learning objects two key factors to consider to ensure adoption and future use are ease of use and perceived usefulness (693). The authors state in their conclusion, “Therefore, educators and instructional designers must consider not only the ease of use of learning objects, but also their usefulness, in order to promote and encourage end-user acceptance of learning objects.” (696) The library must tailor its presence to fit both of these criteria in order to be effective after gaining entry to the course technology interface. The idea that libraries must be the actors in course integration, instead of passive responders to instructors’ requests, also gets reiterated in “Course Management Software: Where is the Library?”, an editorial from Online Libraries & Microcomputers. Here the author notes, “Librarians will need to become more proactive in working with faculty and software developers to leverage what has already been done.” Instead of waiting for instructors to come to the library, we need to bring the library and its services to them. “If Higher Education Listened to Me…” an article co-written by four students taking undergraduate courses, shows the importance of an Internet presence to all aspects of university life for students spanning the age spectrum. Bill Phillips writes, “The four of us agree—across the generations—on the importance of providing a minimum Web presence for all courses by posting handouts, syllabi, and class schedules online.” (18). His co-author Jessica Vargas makes a case for tying library materials into this online presence: “I’m a history major, and I’m trying to do research. I’d prefer to have the resources made available to me at any time.” (26). Phillips makes a case that library instructional support is especially needed: “When I go into the library to do research, either face-to-face or online, the library is just darn hard for me to use.” (26). Students want online access to resources, to utilize at their point of need, and library instruction is still required and desired. As Lawrence also notes, “It is widely accepted that online access and exposure to information technology from an early age has created expectations for ease of access and use.” (245-6). Additional Information from LiteratureGladstone, R., Kenausis, V. (2006). Creating an Electronic Toolkit: From Discovery to Delivery. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve. 16 (4) 73-83.“Each product we introduced can be considered a success on its own; but taken together, they create a complete Electronic Toolkit, empowering both library faculty and faculty with the ability to expand our collective reach to relevant materials and make them available to our users.”Lawrence, D. (2006). Blackboard on a Shoestring: Tying Courses to Sources. Journal of Library Administration. 45 (1/2) 245-265. “One way to help ensure students and faculty will use library resources is to provide just-in-time access to information within the context of their academic work, that is, from their classes.” (246) “That is to say, librarians must be responsible for creating a mental picture of the library for students that is central and relevant to their academic experiences.” (248)“In fact, the time and effort required to establish relationships with individual faculty, and then the work involved in maintaining support for individual classes, is the primary drawback to micro-level approaches to CMS integration (Gibbons, 2005b, Shank & Dewald, 2003).” (256)“This paper advocates the use of a generic, global, macro-level insertion into Blackboard as a first step toward full integration—before turning attention to more staff intensive projects.” (256)“Macro-level approaches make the provision of library services a scalable endeavor while working to increase the ease of access for students and faculty (Shank & Dewald, 2003). (257)21st Century instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 2007 (2007). Digital Media Center (DMC), Office of Information Technology.258 faculty surveyed“Faculty members appear to see educational technology primarily as a means for the efficient delivery of information” (5)Lack of time is big concern for faculty (inhibits use of technology—too much time to learn)—must respect faculty members time (5)Faculty are concerned about lack of standardization with educational technologies (6)Faculty have desire to increase student’s access to course materials , want to make teaching more efficient, and want to use multimedia course materials —3 out of top 4 reasons faculty members are attracted to use ed tech in teaching (12)71.5% have taught at least one course supplemented by online technology during the past two years (15)Net Generation of students at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities: Student educational technology survey 2007(2007). Digital Media Center (DMC), Office of Information Technology.1378 students sampled (half grad students)“I hate it when an instructor uses their own course website instead of WebCT. It’s much easier to just go to one place to check into all of your classes” (1)Strongly positive attitudes toward educational technology (5)88.3% reported taking at least one course supplemented by online ed tech in the past two years (5)84.6% accessed online course materials at least two or three times a week (58.8% access online course materials at least daily) 92.9% experienced using WebCT“Students appear to view educational technology primarily as a means of delivering information efficiently and in new, more convenient ways.” (5)Still like to print—and it is often a frustration (6)2.7% of students on dialup (7)78% own laptops (12)Students want ed tech that helps them complete academic work (12)Third most popular answer to “rate each of the following statements about the role of educational technology has played in your learning experiences” was “Online library resources and services have helped me succeed in my coursework” (13)Preference for taking courses with moderate to large amount of technology (77.5%) (14)Black, E. L. (2008). Toolkit approach to integrating library resources into the learning management system. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(6), 496-501.Based on Ohio State University—large, decentralized institution (60,000+ students)—uses Desire2Learn“In order to encourage better integration of library resources…pursuing multiple strategies of integration at the same time” (498)Toolkit approach includes using both Micro level and Macro level Ereserves—use of Learning Object Repository (LOR) in the learning management system as the storage place for the e-Reserve files themselves (498)Seamless Authentication to paid resources from links within the learning management system (uses Shibboleth for both CMS and EZproxy)Librarians are tool in toolkit (working on the individual course level)—they created “librarian” as an option in their roles (e.g. instructor, student, librarians) of who participates in course—same access as instructor but no grade book accessLibrarians create Library Resource Pages Pilot 9 librarians created 345 courses—one for instructors; one for students—the instructors didn’t find the pages useful (they used other means to do their research) but were excited for student pages—41% of the instructors who completed the survey reported that they would like a customized library resource page for their courses. Students were more likely to click on “Library” link in courseExperimented with creating pages for instructors (so they could do research) but found they didn’t use them—had other ways to do their research.“The learning management system is heavily used on college campuses and rapidly becoming an essential extension of the physical classroom. It is important that libraries and librarians are present in this learning management system.” (500) (Image from p.499)Gibbons, S. (2005). Integration of libraries and course-management systems. Library Technology Reports, 41(3).Great resource—basically a short book on this topic. Chapters include:Defining the challengeCourse Management SystemsIntegration of Libraries and Course Management SystemsWho should Care and WhyStrategies for the Library: CMS Integration BarriersLibrary Course PagesGoing ForwardWorks Cited“The silos of information with a physical and virtual library remain just as separate when transported into a CMS. In fact, adding a courseware system to the equation make the solution just that more complicated.” (13)Faculty have a …“desire for students to have unfettered access to high-quality information sources for their research. This should in turn lead to better student scholarship.” (21)“The Library and CMS integration is a time saver for faculty. A library resources guide tailored specifically to the curriculum of the course within the CMS will have a significant impact on the number of students who come to the faculty member with base-level library research question” “Relevant library sources in the CMS can decrease the complexity of the library research process, and therefore lessen the anxiety” (22)“The presentation of library resources in the CMS is a time saver for students” (22)Collard, S., & Tempelman-Kluit, N. (2006). The other way in: Goal-based library content through CMS. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 11(4), 55-68.“Designing the Library/CMS interface using a goal-based approach speaks to users’ mental models by directly aligning resources and services with the completion of tasks. Further, it creates the opportunity for useful and meaningful library resources to be excavated from the link-heavy library homepage model where relevant research resources are often hidden several tiers below the homepage.”(55)“Our web sites have become so focused on comprehensiveness that many find it extremely difficult even to locate the resources that might be key to their research.” (56)“Librarians tend to see research as the goal in and of itself, and to arrange library resources accordingly. Users, in contrast, tend to see library research as a necessary task within the larger goal of completing a paper or another assignment.” (56)“By adding library links within the course environment, we were more able to present library research as a necessary skill needed for students in order to attain the larger goal of successfully completing the class.’ (57)“Feedback from faculty members indicated that the inclusion of these resources by default in their sites was a time- and effort-saving enhancement, and that they were pleased to have an easy way to refer their students to appropriate resources for their research purposes.” (66)Used a goal based model of ranking and describing resourcesCostello, B., Lenholt, R., & Stryker, J. (2004). Using Blackboard in library instruction: Addressing the learning styles of Generations X and Y. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(6), 452-460.Generation X and Y preferences (as cited in Lee)Present material in short, focused segmentsDesign materials that are concise and engagingCapitalize on students enthusiasm for technologyProvide opportunities for personal contactQuoting Cannon: “Librarians must spend less time in building and controlling collections and more time in distilling information into near, ready-to use packages” (452)“As consumers of information students expect to find what they need quickly and effortlessly” (452)Using Micro level in CMS to provide instruction (MiLLCI) (453)“By limiting the number of databases and web sites…the library instructors provided a concise handout in an easy to use format that catered to the [sic] some of the learning preferences of the Net Generation…” (457)Seeing the library in their course helps students see that the library is still part of their academic needs (457)Goal: “to reduce the amount of time students spend on ineffective research methods by helping them quickly and easily link to online resources such as course-specific databases and websites. Less time spent on fruitless searching should hopefully translate to more time available to students to develop the critical thinking and analysis skills, which are a guarantee of successful life-long learning” (458)DaCosta, J. W., & Jones, B. (2007). Developing students' information and research skills via Blackboard. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(1), 16-25.Very successful pilot offering instruction in Blackboard (one class traditional, one class online)Students liked 24/7 accessReduced grading time by librariansOnce the content was created it was easy to transfer to other departmentsJackson, P. A. (2007). Integrating information literacy into Blackboard: Building campus partnerships for successful student learning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 454-461.“Learning management systems make it increasingly possible for faculty and librarians to collaborate on information literacy instruction and outreach to students” (454)“…LMS software vendors have not regularly treated information literacy or library resources as a priority for successful student learning” (455)“Collaboration with the campus LMS administrator and with individual faculty members is essential to the successful incorporation of information literacy into online course.” (455)Karplus, S. S. (2006). Integrating academic library resources and learning management systems: The library Blackboard site. Education Libraries, 29(1), 5-11.“Agreements have been made between electronic database vendors and Blackboard. For example, ENCompass provides an interface on Blackboard that allows student to search three different Lexis-Nexis databases.”“A library Blackboard site provides tutorials, information and links in a pedagogically viable format that can be accessed by the entire campus community anytime, anywhere.” “The site can be the focal point for many librarians in one location thus ensuring a consistent, collaborative instructional program.”The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008“Technology basics for course work-college and university websites, course management systems (CMSs), presentation software and spreadsheets—are very widely used.” (46)93.4% of students use the college/university library website weekly (47)“Respondents have confidence in their skills with presentation software, spreadsheets, CMSs, and college and university library websites, generally rating themselves between “fairly skilled” and “very skilled” (50). “For using the institution’s library website, 54.9% of seniors rate themselves as “very skilled” or “expert”, compared with 37% of freshman” (51).67.7% of students used the college or university library website in the previous quarter/semester. “Surprisingly the range of use reported by different majors is relatively small. All majors other than engineering show between 67% and 77% of respondents using the library website during the quarter/semester of the survey” (60)82.3% of students had taken a class using a CMS (67). “Most respondents say their overall CMS experience is either positive (57.8%) or very positive (11.7%).” (67)Positive comments “focusing on the convenience of tracking grades and getting posted assignments and readings” (68)Information Literacy“79.5% give glowing reports of their ability to search the Internet effectively and efficiently. Almost half (46.4%) rate themselves “very skilled” and another third (33.1%) rate themselves as “experts” (52). “Although their confidence in their ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of online information and their understanding of related ethical and legal issues are lower, overall ratings are still high (52).“Many educators believe that students’ perceptions about their net savviness are questionable.” (52)“It is a do-it-yourself approach to information literacy; students rely on peers (and may perpetuate misinformation from peers) rather than on library staff or faculty” (52)“students may have excessive confidence because they are unaware of the complexities involved or just because they have grown up with technology” (52)Shank, J., & Bell, S. (2006). A_FLIP to courseware: A strategic alliance for improving student learning outcomes. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(4) Retrieved from .“…failing to achieve this coordination makes ineffective use of important and costly institutional assets: the library and its extensive electronic collections as well as librarians and their knowledge of the library’s collection and resources.”“courseware can be a valuable tool that helps librarians forge collaborative linkages with instructors and allows instructors to connect their courses to the valuable resources available in the library.”“…librarians should have an ongoing role in the administration of the campus courseware system. The library director or other senior library administrator, for example, should serve on the institution’s courseware committee.”Importance of RSS as push technology into courseware including library events, search results, journal feeds, etc. “we believe that as librarians become more integrated into courseware at the courses level, efficiencies in collaborating with faculty through the courseware environment can be achieved” “Faculty members will save valuable class time and also have increased ease in communicating with the librarian”“Librarians will gain increased access to students and instructors , which will lead to enhanced integration in the teaching and learning process”Bell, S., & Shank, J. (2004). Linking the library to courseware: A strategic alliance to improve learning outcomes. Library Issues, 25(2), 1.“Failure to include the library in the courseware equation deprives faculty and students of a convenient access path to valuable library content and services (1).”“From a student and learning-centered perspective on education, making the library visible in courseware is essential to achieving student learning outcomes (2).”OCLC E-Learning Task Force. (2003). Libraries and the enhancement of E-learning. Taskforce Powerpoint .“Currently, vendors market course management systems to academic information technology units or to individual faculty departments. Typically, libraries are left our of the decision-making and implementation processes. This means that libraries have the challenge of deploying their services in a new learning environment using a technology outside of their control.”“The Task Force agreed unequivocally that the faculty, the library, and the IT and instructional design departments need to collaborate in developing sustainable and seamless infrastructure. … very few institutions have systemically attained such a coherent strategic approach, principally because there is no common shared language on which to build strategic initiatives.”Libraries and the Enhancement of E-learning: OCLC E-learning Taskforce 2003. Retrieved from: : ”…have moved swiftly from scattered implementations that support a few online classes to enterprise-wide services that support and extend the entire curricula and related institutional services.” (4)CMS: ”…are becoming a tangible place where the work of teaching and learning can occur” (5)“Currently, vendors market CMS to academic information technology units….Typically libraries are left out of the decision-making and implementation processes. This means that libraries have the challenge of deploying their services in a new learning environment using a technology outside of their control” (5)Integration of Library and Learning Management Systems Environments (or CMS)Technical and Functional Requirements: (partial list)Aggregate access (discovery and exchange) to content in any given learning contextProvide bibliographic tools that permit easy searching and reference completions.Access to tools that render and present content in user-customized formatsTechnical and Cultural Requirements: (partial list)Embed library resources in course management systemsProvide easy access to virtual reference services at the point of needEmbed training modules to assist in information seeking.Included another section on the role of the library as a repository of learning objects.Hanson, C., Nackerud, S. and Jensen, K. (2008). Affinity strings: Enterprise data for resource recommendations. The Code4Lib Journal, (5) Retrieved from “…the myLibrary team envisioned a layout that comprised a number of smaller cells or widgets, some of which would be universal to all users and other of which would be customized to particular affinity string groups.” “The myLibrary team determined that the simplest and most sustainable method for providing relevant information in the myPortal would be to match a user’s affinity string to one of our approximately 250 existing subject guides.”Affinity strings were not useful to recommend resources to undergraduate as they take classes from many departments both before and after picking a major. “MyLibrary now offers recommendations based on each course in which an undergraduate is currently enrolled, showing on a semester-by-semester basis the resources which are most likely to be useful.”Flecker, D. and N. McLean. (2004). Digital library content and course management systems: Issues of interoperability. Washington D.C.: Digital Library Federation. Retrieved from: .“The size, heterogeneity, and complexity of the current information landscape create enormous challenges for the interoperation of information repositories and systems that support course integration.”“The universe of systems containing materials useful in teaching and learning is very diverse….represents a major challenges in creating a coherent and easily useable information environment for instructors assembling resources for a course.”Interesting “Use Cases” include:Appendix 4.1: Use Case Example #1 -- Adding an Online Resource List to a Humanities Seminar Course Website from within a University Library's PortalAppendix 4.2: Use Case Scenario #2 -- University Faculty Using IU Scholar’s Box To Create Reusable Teaching Materials With ImagesAppendix 4.3: Use Case Example #3 – Faculty creates a search criteria box and adds a search criteria box to a CMS assignment914400245745Support for using library repositories for educational content repositoriesHawkins, B., & Rudy, J. (2007). EDUCAUSE core data survey 2007 summary report. Retrieved from of ALL responding campuses reported currently supporting at least one CMS (33)Doctoral institutions more likely to use hybrid of commercial, homegrown, and/or open source CMS64.9% of respondents report that “faculty use selectively” the CMS and 35.1% is “ubiquitous, employed for nearly all courses”. This is an increase of 4% over last year. (34)Sabharwal, A. (2005). Vision and strategy towards the course-embedded library: New possibilities for a "virtual carrel" initiative. MLA Forum, 4(2).“CMSs can provide and effective platform for these services (virtual reference, research assistance, document delivery, library instruction), thus facilitating the process for online faculty and students to access course content and library resources seamlessly.”Nano-level strategy—“would target the information architecture of master courses (coursescape) in order to improve usability and allow the embedding of the library into the coursescape.Shank, J., & Dewald, N. (2003). Establishing our presence in courseware: Adding library services to the virtual classroom. Information Technology & Libraries, 22(1), 38.Advantage of courseware for students, “ability to access much of their course content from one Web location completely independent of, and agreeable to, both their physical location and schedules.”Advantage of courseware for instructors, “ability to extend the classroom (independent of time and location) and the ability to collect and archive class assignments, activities and resources.”Use courseware as resource sharing, communication and assessment Macro-level library courseware involvement (MaLLCI)Virtual reference desk servicesOPAC and database linksGlobal pathfinders and help guidesDocument Delivery including Course reservesMicro-level library courseware involvement (MILLCI)Library instruction outlinePathfinders, bibliographies and webliographiesRecommended databases for the assignmentMLA, APA, or other style sheetsReference Services with subject liaisonTutorials and quizzesFeedback from studentsPyatt, E., & Snavely, L. (2004). No longer missing: Tools for connecting the library with the course management system. Campus Technology. Retrieved from: links in ANGEL CMS“While a link to the library homepage is a good start, many students are easily disoriented by the many layers of resources available at the library Website.”“The Library no longer will live outside the CMS. Instead, the CMS will serve as a door to the library—a most important campus resource.”“Reserves tool allows instructors to generate a pre-programmed link to material posted within the Libraries’ Electronic Reserves System.”McLean, N., & Lynch, C. (2004). Interoperability between library information services and learning environments--bridging the gap: A joint white paper on behalf of the IMS Global Learning Consortium and the Coalition for Networked Information. IMS Global Learning Consortium.“resources have been traditionally organized by supplier interests and sources, rather than by scholarly or pedagogical value or user preference. “ (3)“Library systems and e-learning systems actually will, in our view, need to interact in a rich variety of ways” (5)“From the library perspective the most sensible starting point is to plan both conceptually and practically for the exposing of existing library services into the LMS environment which will include virtual reference services, training modules, access to their party commercial information services and access to bibliographic tools. Perhaps more interesting, and more challenging…are the import and export of objects that…inhabit both the library and learning management worlds.” (7)Overview of IMS digital repositories interoperability framework: (Image from p.9)“This approach requires a conceptual shift away from a traditional systems architecture viewpoint to one where applications become defined by the services provided and the services that can be accessed. Groups of functions or services can then be put together more flexibly and new architectures developed which are not restricted by traditional views of systems applications and services.” (14)“And it is essential that we bring all of the real users and stakeholders – teachers, students, teaching assistants, librarians, records managers, graduates (former students), instructional technologists, course authors, and others – into the design, use and evaluation of these testbeds.” (15)Cohen, D. (2002). Course-management software: Where's the library? Educause Review, 37(3), 12.“CMS programs may lead a student to a range of course-relevant materials from anywhere in the world that the Web reaches—except, it often seems, from the library on the student’s campus.” (12)“Integrating course-management software with the library’s digital offerings is essential for getting the maximum value from the institutional investments of both money and expertise.” (12)Buehler, M. A. (2004). Where is the library in course management software? Journal of Library Administration, 41(1), 75-84.Course Management Systems (e.g. Prometheus, First Class, Blackboard, WebCT) don't include the library as a curricular component in their design. Librarians have to creatively partner with faculty to have library resources included in CMS.Distance learners in particular will benefit from the inclusion of library resources in the CMS because they usually find the library particularly confusing. This will also be a good tool for promoting librarian interactions with students.“It is important for librarians to be knowledgeable about navigating and using courseware to solve occasional student questions and to work with faculty within the online class environment.” (77)“Partnering within our own institutions with faculty and other support departments, such as an Online/Distance Learning or the campus IT department is essential to create optimal learning environments to benefit students.” (82)“Universities and college need to encourage and put pressure on courseware companies to incorporate the Library as a prominent feature for faculty and students to have direct access to library resources and services.” (83) Doan, T., & Ferry, K. (2006). Providing one-stop shopping for the faculty's teaching needs. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserves, 16(4), 57-63.The Kresge Business Library at the University of Michigan has been able to integrate library resources into the business school curriculum. They created a “one-stop shopping” department for faulty teaching needs and leverage that department to promote library services.Faculty support was previously fragmented; creating one department for all curricular needs was successful in integrating the library into curriculum. Ficek, R., & Segovia, J. (2006). Instructional technologies that support learning preferences of today's students. Educational Technology, 46(6), 29-34.Lists instructional technology tools used by educators to support communication: such as email, discussions boards, IM, blogs, conferencing systems, CMS, class websites, web based collaboration systems. To support assessment: online discussion areas, listservs, blogs, online polling sites.To support teaching methodologies: blogs, WebStreaming audio/video, Tegrity Weblearner, podcasts, RSS feeds, interactive whiteboard software and sympodium tablets.George, J., & Martin, K. (2004). Forging the library courseware link. College & Research Libraries News, 65(10), 594-613.Key catalyst to change has been CMS. Eastern Kentucky University got a grant for an initiative for librarians to focus on collaborative relationships to better meet information needs of students. List seven steps to integrate library into CMS: work with CMSP administrator, brainstorm content, network with faculty, integrate resources, teach the sessions, evaluate integration, seek other opportunities. Ideas for integration: external links, assignments, course documents, tools, staff information, announcements, virtual classrooms28. Guess, A. (2008). A widget onto the future. Inside Higher Education. December 8, 2008. Retrieved from: on 2/23/2009.“The portable, Web-based gadgets are an ideal medium, they say, for creating interactive, individualized instructional materials that can live on a course Web site, a personal blog or even an mobile phone.”“While widgets aren’t nearly as ubiquitous in learning circles as are PowerPoint presentations or online quizzes, some educators hope the time is ripe for them to catch on.“As the latest versions of course management packages adopt module-based interfaces and as colleges’ Web portals cull together widget-like boxes for the latest news and email, the objects are becoming more familiar to students—even if they don’t realize it yet.”“The widget itself can be modified and pasted into other environments, like Facebook and MySpace, and Marino encourages students to use and modify the tools to match their learning styles.”29.Jayasuriya, K. P., & Brillantine, F. M. (2007). Student services in the 21st century: Evolution and innovation in discovering student needs, teaching information literacy, and designing library 2.0-based student services. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 26(1), 135-170.The needs of law students is changing as technology and legal publishing evolve.Focus groups and usability tests can illuminate students research skill level and info needs.There should be a minimal level of legal information literacy upon graduation from law school. Law librarians could create literacy tutorials and/or tutorials using Shockwave Flash technology. They could also employ Web 2.0 tools such as IM chat, content creation tools, RSS feeds, and social interaction venues. Social reference managers (SRM) (de.li.ci.ous, etc.) will help students pool research resources. Second Life may be a helpful venue for?reference desk placement. 30. Markgraf, J. S. (2004). Librarian participation in the online classroom. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 9(1), 5-19.New challenges and opportunities exist as distance learning goes increasingly onlineUW-Eau ClaireCollaboration with faculty is critical. One way to do this is "lurking" in online classrooms and monitoring discussion threads regarding library research. Advantages: introduce yourself, broadcast messages, benefit from other’s questions, point-of-need instruction, access to class and students, enhanced collaboration with faculty, rich sources of data, assessment opportunitiesDisadvantages: privacy, changing technology, another communication tool to monitor, time consuming, took many cooks?, volume of reading in online classroom, unrealistic expectations 31. Romero, C., Ventura, S., & Garcia, E. (2008). Data mining in course management systems: Moodle case study and tutorial. Computers & Education, 51(1), 368-384.Data mining in education is an emerging field.Survey of application of data mining in LMS and case study of Moodle. Process described step-by-step in article and how to apply data derived from statistics, visualization, classification, clustering and association rule mining of Moodle data. They used free tools so any group can do data mining in educational systems.32. Stinson, C., & Loveland, G. (2006). Collaborating to improve CMS-based courses. Virginia Libraries, 52(1), 35-37.CMS has changed teaching and librarian work. Facilitate collaboration between librarian, faculty and IT staff. Library staff will have to be more knowledgeable about course content.33. Willett, H. G. (2002). Not one or the other but both: Hybrid course delivery using WebCT. Electronic Library, 20(5), 413-419.Hybrid course delivery is both face-to-face and distance instructionRowan University in New Jersey uses WebCT for graduate classesEach course is password protected and provides access to lecture notes and class discussion, etc. Technical difficulties with WebCT frequent.34. Transforming the University: Final Report of the Knowledge Management Technology Task Force. (2006). University of Minnesota Academic Health Center Knowledge Management Technology Task Force. a knowledge management system for the AHC that is supported by technology, and integrated into learner-centered health professions curricula. System would integrate all pieces of knowledge and technology necessary for learning, teaching and clinical practice.Knowledge management system would be a learner-centered system, accessible to students, faculty, and staff at all times and from all places.Opportunities to work with the AHC to integrate library resources into knowledge management system.Appendix I. Instructor SurveyTo obtain quantitative and qualitative data on instructors’ use of course technology, we focused on instructors we knew were using some version of course technology in their classes. Though this slanted the sample group, we did not feel this was problematic because we are interested in the way instructors are currently using the tools. We obtained a list of instructors who had used E-Reserves or other course management systems in the past, and emailed them a link to a survey we created in Survey Monkey. The survey questions were: What is your department?Are you currently, or have you previously, used online learning tools (including, but not limited to, Moodle, WebVista, blog, wiki, website, e-reserves) as a component of a course you teach at the University of Minnesota?What online learning tools have you used for your courses at the University of Minnesota? Choose all that apply.E.g. Moodle, WebVista, E-reserves, etc.Of the technologies that you have used, which do you prefer? Choose all that apply.E.g. Moodle, WebVista, E-reserves, etc.Who puts together your online course components? Choose all that apply.E.g. self, TA/RA, support staffHow do you use online learning tools in your courses? Choose all that apply.E.g. grading, online discussion, posting syllabus, etc.What University of Minnesota Libraries resources do you use in the courses that you teach? Choose all that apply.E.g. RefWorks, Assignment Calculator, E-reserves, etc.How do you provide access to Libraries resources in your courses?Link from online learning tool, listed in syllabus, etc.What Libraries resources would you like to provide within your current course that you currently cannot? (For example, "real-time" librarian chat reference.) Feel free to "think big." How do you imagine them being integrated, ideally?If there were a Libraries "toolkit" of resources you could easily incorporate into your course, would you consider using it? Why or why not?We emailed the instructor survey to a group of 289 and received 84 responses, for a response rate of 29%. 99% of the respondents are currently using online learning tools, but as previously discussed, this was skewed by sample to which we sent the survey. The most commonly used tools are E-Reserves (74%), WebCT Vista (68%), Moodle (51%), and Course Website (33%). The majority of respondents to this survey are using WebCT or Moodle, but a third are using stand-alone course websites. Additionally, though WebVista was the most used Course Management System, other technologies were more strongly preferred. The table below shows the percentage of respondents that use a certain technology (blue bar) and the percentage of respondents that prefer a technology (red bar). Any tools that are designed would ideally be able to interface with any of these platforms, as well as be flexible for future, unknown technologies. Most respondents (89%) build their own online courses themselves, and others have their pages built by teaching or research assistants or support staff. Instructors use the most popular course technologies for posting readings (86%), posting syllabi (82%), posting assignments (69%) and providing access to library resources (56%). The table below shows the distribution of uses.The most common library resources used by instructors in their online classes are E-reserves (71%), online articles or e-journals (62%), MNCAT (56%), and Library indexes or databases (38%). The table below shows the complete dataset.When asked how they provide access to library resources, 42% say they link from an online learning tool and 71% say they list the resources in the syllabus. When asked what library resources they would like to provide but cannot, a number of themes emerged:many thought real-time librarian chat was a good idea, but we mentioned it as an example in the question so that might have skewed results.Instructors liked the idea of having ways to teach students to interact with librarians, and help with finding referencesInstructors want library instruction modules that could be inserted into the course, and tutorials on accessing and using primary sources.Things should be very relevant to the class.Would like the ability to design, through click-and-drag or other easy gestures, a ‘resources’ page for each class.Would like easier access to e-resources (copyright issues, multiple clicks to get to things) If there were a Libraries “toolkit” of resources that could be easily incorporated into courses, 86% said they would consider using it. Feedback reported that anything to simplify the process would help, and if the toolkit were applicable and relevant to the class, it would be used.Overall, we take these results to mean several things:People are seeking an easy way to get the most relevant resources to their students. If a toolkit were available that made this easy, it would be used. The majority of respondents to this survey are using WebCT or Moodle, but a third are using stand-alone course websites. Any tools that are designed would ideally be able to interface with any of these platforms, as well as remaining flexible for future technologies.Ease of access to library resources (readings, databases, journals, etc.) was a common desire, but also access to library instruction and reference services.A useful toolkit would have things like relevant databases that could be dragged and dropped, as well as tools like chat reference, tutorials on finding materials, understanding LC/Dewey etc., library floor plans, plagiarism, etc.Instructor Survey Questions and Responses2. Are you currently, or have you previously, used online learning tools (including, but not limited to, Moodle, WebVista, blog, wiki, website, e-reserves) as a component of a course you teach at the University of Minnesota?Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountYes98.8%83No1.2%13. What online learning tools have you used for your courses at the University of Minnesota? Choose all that apply.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountMoodle51.3%40WebVista (WebCT, Blackboard)67.9%53UThink (or other blog technology)11.5%9Wiki10.3%8Course Website33.3%26Electronic reserves through the Libraries74.4%58Other (please specify)7.7%6Sample responses for “other”:WebAssignListservsWebsites to be researched by the students4. Of the technologies that you have used, which do you prefer? Choose all that apply.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountMoodle42.3%33WebVista (WebCT, Blackboard)28.2%22UThink (or other blog technology)5.1%4Wiki2.6%2Course Website19.2%15Electronic reserves through the Libraries62.8%49Other (please specify)10.3%8Sample responses for “other”:WebAssign?PBWiki5. Who puts together your online course components? Choose all that apply.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountMe88.5%69Teaching Assistant/Research Assistant17.9%14Support Staff24.4%19Other12.8%106. How do you use online learning tools in your courses? Choose all that apply.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountGrading38.5%30Online discussion41.0%32Posting syllabus82.1%64Posting readings85.9%67Posting assignments69.2%54Turning in assignments38.5%30Group work/collaboration16.7%13Accessing media files (e.g. video; audio)38.5%30Journaling/blogging16.7%13Providing access to library resources56.4%44Other (please specify)9.0%7Sample responses for “other”:Posting slides from lectureCourse listservSchedule updates, communicate with students?Posting lecture notes and handouts; using SafeAssign?Mapping / field trip guides7. Which of these online tools have you used in your coursework? Please choose all that apply. Do not choose items that you have used in your job but not in courses.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountRefWorks6.5%5Assignment Calculator6.5%5Electronic reserves71.4%55MNCAT55.8%43Undergraduate Virtual Library6.5%5Library indexes or databases37.7%29Online articles or e-journals62.3%48Archives and Special Collections finding aids2.6%2CourseLib13.0%10Subject-specific Libraries page3.9%3Do not use any9.1%7Other (please specify)10.4%8Sample responses for “other”:Make up reading packets?Have used subject specific page.?Walter Reserve/Smart Commons DVDs . . .?Handouts about how to use various library resources; how to tell popular from scholarly texts, etc.?Smart learning library for videos, hard cover reserves8. How do you provide access to Libraries resources in your courses? Choose all that apply.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountLink from online learning tool41.6%32Listed in syllabus71.4%55Course-specific page created by a librarian15.6%12Other19.5%159. What Libraries resources would you like to provide within your current course that you currently cannot? (For example, "real-time" librarian chat reference.) Feel free to "think big." How do you imagine them being integrated, ideally?I didn't realize that it's an option to have a librarian designed web page. This might be very helpful.?I'm not really sure, although I love the idea of a real-time librarian chat reference.?Having a "real-time' chat might be interesting conceptReference librarian for foreign language questions.?This does not apply to a language course, even if I would like to "think big".?Some way of helping students distinguish reputable from dubious sources of information on the webI'd love it if UThink Blogs could be more easily restricted to the class onlyI think the "real-time" librarian chat reference mentioned above sounds useful, especially because my class requires students to use library resources to write a research paper.I'd love to teach my students how to interact with reference librarians, how to use on-line article databases more effectively, and how to search books in other (non-U) libraries.Online help for undergrads in finding references--guidance on searches for specific topics?I would love to have everything, every book accesible [sic] online!?More readings on line. Copyright limits what I can put online and my course is one that most students do not need to own the books for. I hate to push them to buy them. I put multiple copies on reserve, but it's 2 hr and several students. And I only put hard copy when there's too much to ethically put on e-reserve.?A more updated subject page with specific 'undergraduate' resources (dictionaries, interdisciplinary indexes, full-text indexes/databases) The ability to design, through click-and-drag or other easy gestures, a 'resources' page for each class (thinking medium-big here!). Integration of the e-reference resource with moodle, Integration of French-language resourcesA virtual bookshelf of books the library owns (i.e. a representation from the PQs to show students what they would find if they went to the library.)?Library chat?I wish there were a page with all the periodical holdings from the 18th and 19th century. It would be wonderful if they were listed separately by what we had in text and what we had in microfilm. Wouldn't it be great if I could click on the title and learn what the bias of the newspaper/periodical was and who wrote/edited it? Right now, I teach students myself about how to search for references, how to avoid plagiarism, how to navigate a scientific paper. I like tailoring those things to my students' specific needs, so I'm not sure that I can think of other resources I need. I LOVE e-reservesWould love a 24/7 AI monkey to search the Web for me and my students. Soon plan to have each of my students construct a personal wiki for knowledge production, invention, and innovation purposes. Need some help with thatStudent portal to task-based links; the "real-time" chat with a librarian is a good idea, alsoSomething as easy to use as wikipedia, but with considerably more depth. An on-line, available librarian would be one possibility. Something that would walk students through the process of doing a thorough periodicals search would be another possibilityI think the Library has lots of great ways to find info, but there may be too many for students to navigate--the undergrad virtual library is a good start--students use Google Scholar because it is easier than navigating around the library websiteWould love to be able to do E-Reserves on the fly - i.e. not sending them through the E-Reserve request system to get posted. This takes time, and I feel like I am bothering the E-Reserve staff if I want to add something at a later dateIdeally, it would be *much* easier to link to electronic journals. As it is, I almost always just upload the PDF, which undermines student research skills10. If there were a Libraries "toolkit" of resources you could easily incorporate into your course, would you consider using it?Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountYes85.7%66No14.3%11Sample responses:I would use this, especially if it could be specific to Humanities courses or research papers, or Humanities research papers, because I think students will be more likely to use all of the resources available through a "one stop shop."?Because of the quality of the U of M Library and its resources, I would guess the toolkit would be a valuable resource to include.?It's a great idea.?I am relatively low-tech.?I only use what I know and I do not have time to learn more.?A "menu" of options would be useful; I'd probably select from the menu and list only things I wanted students to use or refer to.?A kind of Library resources Onestop would be convenient for me and my students.I like using things that are easily accessible for the students that don't have extra and hidden costs.Anything to simplify the process would help me (and the students).If the toolkit was easy to use and had remote access, I would consider using it.Part of the joy of liberal education is learning to find resources, not just use the ones handed to you.It would never be specialized or specific enough for our courses; already the 'resources' page for our field is too general.Current resources are working well.?I think students should have more exposure to the library and the resources it offers. That said, I would use the Libraries "toolkit" if it was applicable to my class. So, I think I would use it, but it would depend on what was in the "toolkit."Research is difficult to teach. Anything that would make it potentially easier would be welcomeIf there was something that was relevant to my class that I could make easily available, I wouldIf it were germane to the nature of the course, it would be extremely helpful for the students, certainly as regards researching the subject being taughtDepends - it may not apply to our clinical course.?I waste a lot of time reinventing the wheel for basic research skills for my students. I have been really grateful for all of those handouts (I've used almost all of those that are out in Wilson -- the e-versions), and for the links on the undergrad virtual library.Appendix J. Student SurveyFor the student survey, we elected to focus on a group we knew we had easy access to: library student employees. Although the range was clearly not as broad as it would have been with a more general sample from the student body, it did allow us to gain an “insider” perspective that was helpful for several of the questions. Many of these students work with patrons and are familiar with common trends in “problem areas” that other students face in accessing information. It also had the added advantage of preventing us from spending too much time on acquiring a list of email addresses rather than actually administering the survey. We obtained a list of work-study students who work in the Libraries and e-mailed them a link to a survey we created in Survey Monkey. The survey questions follow. Please see Appendix C for detailed questions, including multiple choice options, and responses.What year are you in?Have you taken a class that has had an online component (e.g. Moodle, WebVista, blog, wiki, website)?How have you used these online course components? Please choose all that apply.e.g. Checking grades; Online discussion; Viewing syllabusWhich of these did you find the MOST useful? Please choose all that apply.e.g. Checking grades; Online discussion; Viewing syllabusWhich of these online tools have you used in your coursework? Please choose all that apply. Do not choose items that you have used in your job but not in courses.e.g. MNCAT (library catalog); Assignment Calculator; Electronic ReservesWhich of these online tools is MOST useful? Please choose all that apply.e.g. MNCAT (library catalog); Assignment Calculator; Electronic ReservesWhat do you think are some common problems that students run into when using the Libraries (in person or online)?We emailed the student survey to a group of 129 Libraries work-study student employees and received 51 responses, for a response rate of nearly 40%. 90% of the students who responded have taken courses that included some form of online course technology. This data confirmed the findings of other reports and articles that reported that online course technology has become an increasingly significant component to university instruction. We were able to conclude from the survey results that there is a real need to make the Libraries more relevant within online course technology. Although 61% of students stated that they use their online course technology to access Libraries resources, only 30% found it to be particularly useful to use course technology to access these resources. The drop-off indicates that there is work to be done in making course integration more seamless and user-friendly. In the chart below, the green bars equal the number of respondents who used online course technology for a given function, and the red bars equal the number who found that function most useful.Another interesting result was the overwhelming number of respondents who, when asked about library tools that they have used in their coursework and which ones they found useful, chose MNCAT (at a rate of about 80% for both questions, compared with about 55% for the next highest rated tool). This result may indicate a number of things (the fact that all respondents were Libraries employees may have drastically skewed the responses) and demonstrates the great potential value of including a MNCAT search box within the course pages that we create. Finally, the question we posed about common problems that students face when using the Libraries provided us with information on trends that were useful in putting together our recommendations. As a whole, our respondents believed that students find the Libraries overwhelming and confusing. The most common issues cited were finding books within the LC Classification system, physically navigating the Libraries, understanding how to search for materials online, not being overwhelmed by the universe of information that exists, and understanding what help is available to them as library users. These problems could be improved through the creation of a suite of tutorials on the above topics mentioned above that would be available for embedding into individual course pages.Student Survey Questions and ResponsesWhat year are you in?Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountFreshman11.5%6Sophomore28.8%15Junior21.2%11Senior32.7%17Graduate student0.0%0Other (please specify)5.8%3Have you taken a class that has had an online component (e.g. Moodle, WebVista, blog, wiki, website)?Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountYes90.2%46No9.8%5How have you used these online course components? Please choose all that apply.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountChecking grades87.2%41Online discussion48.9%23Viewing syllabus91.5%43Accessing readings91.5%43Accessing assignments85.1%40Turning in assignments59.6%28Group work19.1%9Accessing media files (e.g. video; audio)48.9%23Journaling/blogging14.9%7Accessing library resources61.7%29Other (please specify)2.1%1Which of these did you find the MOST useful? Please choose all that apply.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountChecking grades69.6%32Online discussion8.7%4Viewing syllabus58.7%27Accessing readings65.2%30Accessing assignments52.2%24Turning in assignments34.8%16Group work4.3%2Accessing media files (e.g. audio; video)15.2%7Journaling/blogging4.3%2Accessing library resources30.4%14Other (please specify)2.2%1Which of these online tools have you used in your coursework? Please choose all that apply. Do not choose items that you have used in your job but not in courses.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountMNCAT (library catalog)83.3%40Assignment Calculator4.2%2Electronic reserves37.5%18Undergraduate Virtual Library10.4%5RefWorks16.7%8Zotero (or other software to create a bibliography or collect sources)8.3%4Library indexes or databases to find articles47.9%23Libraries OneSearch to find articles18.8%9Citation Linker8.3%4Google Scholar27.1%13Email a librarian2.1%1Chat with a librarian8.3%4Online articles; e-journals54.2%26Archives and Special Collections finding aids14.6%7Course reserve catalog16.7%8Interlibrary Loan to borrow materials not available on campus16.7%8myLibrary tab in myU18.8%9myLibrary tab on Libraries homepage4.2%2Libraries instructional workshops10.4%5What other tools have you used?4.2%2Which of these online tools are MOST useful? Please choose all that apply.Answer OptionsResponse FrequencyResponse CountMNCAT (library catalog)81.3%39Assignment Calculator4.2%2Electronic reserves29.2%14Undergraduate Virtual Library4.2%2RefWorks10.4%5Zotero (or other software to create a bibliography or collect sources)4.2%2Library indexes or databases to find articles27.1%13Libraries OneSearch to find articles10.4%5Citation Linker8.3%4Google Scholar8.3%4Email a librarian0.0%0Chat with a librarian10.4%5Online articles; e-journals35.4%17Archives and Special Collections finding aids6.3%3Course reserve catalog10.4%5Interlibrary Loan to borrow materials not available on campus8.3%4MyLibrary tab in MyU8.3%4MyLibrary tab on Libraries homepage4.2%2Libraries instructional workshops2.1%1Other (please specify)2.1%1What do you think are some common problems that students run into when using the Libraries (in person or online)?Sample responses:Lack of knowledge. I think most students do not realize how much could be at their fingertips if they used the library effectively. There are a lot of resources that most haven't even heard of.I think in general students are unfamiliar with the LC filing system and get intimidated when looking for materials on their own.It is surprising the number of students who don't know how to navigate the library either in the physical building of the library and/or online.They don't know where to start and can't understand the information that is given to them. i.e. call numbers.Students don't know how libraries work. Using call numbers to find books, performing general topic or specific searches for materials (i.e. book title / author), and printing all seem to give students pretty large headaches. Many seem confused and aggravated when some, but not all, journal articles are available online and wont [sic] bother using the journals if the one they want is only available in print.Students don't realize how much information they can really find and how much the librarians really knowThey get confused on where to find the books, so they don't even bother to go in person. They just use on-line sources then.I don't think they know everything that is available to them. Working at the library I am always telling classmates about different options they have to get what they need.It can be confusing if you've never done it before, but the reference librarians are always very helpful. I think that most students don't know what is available for them to use.Bibliography21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities(2007). Digital Media Center (DMC), Office of Information Technology. Aviles, K., Phillips, B., Rosenblatt, T., & Vargas, J. (2005). If higher education listened to me. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 16-18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28. Bales, A., Taylor, C., Havert, M., & Lehman, T. (2001). Electronic reserves and WebCT: Using courseware to implement electronic reserves at the University Libraries of Notre Dame. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 11(4), 37. Bell, S., & Shank, J. (2004). Linking the library to courseware: A strategic alliance to improve learning outcomes. Library Issues, 25(2), 1. Black, E. L. (2008). Toolkit approach to integrating library resources into the learning management system. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(6), 496-501. Brunvand, A. (2004). Integrating library reference services in an online information literacy course: The internet navigator as a model. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 9(3), 159-178. Buehler, M. A. (2004). Where is the library in course management software? Journal of Library Administration, 41(1), 75-84. Case study: A linked open data resource list management tool for undergraduate students. Retrieved 1/14/2009, 2009, from Cheung, O., & Patrick, S. (2007). E-reserve in Blackboard: Chalk it up to collaboration. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 17(3), 129-143. Cohen, D. (2002). Course-management software: Where's the library? Educause Review, 37(3), 12. Collard, S., & Tempelman-Kluit, N. (2006). The other way in: Goal-based library content through CMS. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 11(4), 55-68. Costello, B., Lenholt, R., & Stryker, J. (2004). Using Blackboard in library instruction: Addressing the learning styles of Generations X and Y. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(6), 452-460. Cox, C. (2002). Becoming part of the course. College & Research Libraries News, 63(1), 11. Cubbage, C. (2003). Electronic reserves and Blackboard's course management system. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 13(4), 21. DaCosta, J. W., & Jones, B. (2007). Developing students' information and research skills via Blackboard. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(1), 16-25. Doan, T., & Ferry, K. (2006). Providing one-stop shopping for the faculty's teaching needs. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 16(4), 57-63. Ficek, R., & Segovia, J. (2006). Instructional technologies that support learning preferences of today's students. Educational Technology, 46(6), 29-34. Flecker, D. and N. McLean. (2004). Digital library content and course management systems: Issues of interoperability. Washington D.C.: Digital Library Federation. Ganster, L. A., & Walsh, T. R. (2008). Enhancing library instruction to undergraduates: Incorporating online tutorials into the curriculum. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 15(3), 314-333. George, J., & Martin, K. (2004). Forging the library courseware link. College & Research Libraries News, 65(10), 594-613. Gibbons, S. (2005). Integration of libraries and course-management systems. Library Technology Reports, 41(3).Gladstone, R., & Kenausis, V. (2006). Creating an electronic toolkit: From discovery to delivery. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 16(4), 73-83. Golderman, G. M., & Connolly, B. (2007). Infiltrating NetGen cyberculture: Strategies for engaging and educating students on their own terms. The Serials Librarian, 53(3), 165-182. Guess, A. (2008). A widget onto the future. Inside Higher Education. December 8, 2008. Retrieved from: on 2/23/2009.Gulbahar, Y., & Yildirim, S. (2006). Assessment of web-based courses: A discussion and analysis of learners' individual differences and teaching-learning process. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(4), 367-378. Hanson, C., Nackerud, S. and Jensen, K. (2008). Affinity strings: Enterprise data for resource recommendations. The Code4Lib Journal, (5) Retrieved from Hawkins, B., & Rudy, J. (2007). EDUCAUSE core data survey 2007 summary report. Retrieved from Holobar, J. C. (2006). Electronic reserves and course management software: A collaborative model for large institutions. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 16(4), 65-71. Jackson, P. A. (2007). Integrating information literacy into Blackboard: Building campus partnerships for successful student learning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 454-461. Jayasuriya, K. P., & Brillantine, F. M. (2007). Student services in the 21st century: Evolution and innovation in discovering student needs, teaching information literacy, and designing library 2.0-based student services. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 26(1), 135-170. Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from , S. S. (2006). Integrating academic library resources and learning management systems: The library Blackboard site. Education Libraries, 29(1), 5-11. Kearley, J. P., & Phillips, L. (2004). Embedding library reference services in online courses. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 9(1/2), 65-76. Kraemer, E. (2003). Developing the online learning environment: The pros and cons of using WebCT for library instruction. Information Technology & Libraries, 22(2).Lau, S., & Woods, P. C. (2008). An investigation of user perceptions and attitudes towards learning objects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 685-699. Lawrence, D. H. (2006). Blackboard on a shoestring: Tying courses to sources. Journal of Library Administration, 45(1/2), 245-265. Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873. Marino, M., & Metros, S. (2008). Widgets: The slicing and dicing (and splicing) of sharable learning content. EDUCAUSE Webinar. Retrieved from . Markgraf, J. S. (2004). Librarian participation in the online classroom. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 9(1), 5-19. McLean, N., & Lynch, C. (2004). Interoperability between library information services and learning environments--bridging the gap: A joint white paper on behalf of the IMS Global Learning Consortium and the Coalition for Networked Information. IMS Global Learning Consortium. Morgan, G. (2007). Faculty use of course management systems. ECAR, Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from Net Generation of Students at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities: Student Educational Technology Survey 2007 (2007). Digital Media Center (DMC), Office of Information Technology. OCLC E-Learning Task Force. (2003). Libraries and the enhancement of E-learning.Poe, J., & Skaggs, B. (2007). Course reserves: Using Blackboard for E-reserves delivery. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 18(1), 79-91. Pyatt, E., & Snavely, L. (2004). No longer missing: Tools for connecting the library with the course management system. Campus Technology. Retrieved from , H. G., & McMillen, P. S. (2008). Using courseware discussion boards to engage graduate students in online library workshops. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(4), 363-380. RIT D2L library integration project. (2003). Retrieved from , C., Ventura, S., & Garcia, E. (2008). Data mining in course management systems: Moodle case study and tutorial. Computers & Education, 51(1), 368-384. Sabharwal, A. (2005). Vision and strategy towards the course-embedded library: New possibilities for a "virtual carrel" initiative. MLA Forum, 4(2). Retrieved from , G., Caruso, J. B., Nelson, M. R., Ellison, N. B., & EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008. Boulder, Colo.: ECAR, Educause Center for Applied Research. Scruton, C. (2007). The U of M learning technology platform: Integrating online tools to support hybrid education Retrieved from Shank, J., & Bell, S. (2006). A_FLIP to courseware: A strategic alliance for improving student learning outcomes. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(4) Retrieved from Shank, J., & Dewald, N. (2003). Establishing our presence in courseware: Adding library services to the virtual classroom. Information Technology & Libraries, 22(1), 38. Stinson, C., & Loveland, G. (2006). Collaborating to improve CMS-based courses. Virginia Libraries, 52(1), 35-37. Teixeira, C., Pinto, J. S., & Martins, J. A. (2008). User profiles in organizational environments. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(3), 128-144. Transforming the University: Final Report of the Knowledge Management Technology Task Force. (2006). University of Minnesota Academic Health Center Knowledge Management Technology Task Force. , Y., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Mitropoulou, V., & Nickmans, G. (2007). The use of e-learning course management systems to support learning strategies and to improve self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 2(1), 64-74. Willett, H. G. (2002). Not one or the other but both: Hybrid course delivery using WebCT. Electronic Library, 20(5), 413-419. Witte, B. (2006). Electronic reserves at Columbia University: A technical overview of automation and integration. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 16(4), 135-142. Young, J. R. (2008). Blackboard customers consider alternatives. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(3), A1, A17-A18. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download