This post continues Part 1 of my reflection on a recent shadowing experience at Carnegie Mellon University Libraries.
The second half of my day was spent focusing on library services directed at the Colleges of Engineering and Computer Science. This was my home library at CMU, the E&S Library now named the Roger Sorrells Engineering & Science Library. Situated in Wean Hall, an "award winning" (no, seriously, the plaque is in the library) concrete building with at least 5 ground floors, the library is sort of underground. It has two sets of skylights, one with netting installed since at least one inebriated person has fallen through from above.
Sorrell's will be undergoing major renovations soon. I sat down to talk with Matt Marsteller, the head librarian, about the future of library spaces and the challenges of historic library facilities. The students were heavily using the space, even before noon on a Monday. The group study room was full, they are planning on creating more of those. Group tables and individual study desks were starting to fill up and they are moving books into storage to make room for more of those.
One unique feature was nine recliners. Yes, very comfortable chairs that can be used for napping by students. They were all FULL. Certainly they seem more comfortable than most library seating that is used for the same purpose.
I left the E&S Library, too soon really. I need to come back maybe when the construction is in full swing or afterwards. Just outside of the library is the bridge to the "new" Newell Simon building, where I had a great experience with robotics and human-computer interaction (HCI) courses. It was buzzing with activity and had two great robotics projects directly on display to the hallway. I hurried along to the even newer "Gates Center for Computer Science" which also bridges buildings and departments, this one from computer science to the arts in the Purnell Center. I was less than impressed by the double helix central spiraling walkway (everyone else took the stairwell stairs, which are much shorter). A old friend still with CMU observed to me that it perfectly represents Pittsburgh travel, since when you are on the walkway and want to get to a meeting room you can see (through clear glass) "you can't get there from here".
One thing is clear, CMU is smaller than Penn State. In a number of ways, for better and for worse. The other clear takeaway is the pervasiveness of computing and technology from the Libraries, to the academic buildings, to the very students themselves. This kind of environment just bubbles with the imminent future, and libraries can benefit from this too.
12 years after being a student at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), I returned to visit as an academic librarian. While at CMU I studied Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE), which is based in the venerable Hamerschlag Hall. 
On the early morning of February 18th, 2013 you can see it nestled at one end of the Mall with the University of Pittsburgh's Cathedral of Learning in the background. Appropriately as I went to library school at Pitt only a few years after leaving CMU. A path that lead me right back here.
On the early morning of February 18th, 2013 you can see it nestled at one end of the Mall with the University of Pittsburgh's Cathedral of Learning in the background. Appropriately as I went to library school at Pitt only a few years after leaving CMU. A path that lead me right back here.Here is the Hunt Library, which is the main library of CMU. Encompassing all subjects with the exception of science and engineering (STEM), which I will get to in part 2, this building is also the home to the CMU library administrators. The office of the Associate Dean of University Libraries, Erika Linke, is my destination for a shadowing experience as part of the Penn State Library Leaders program. Hunt has changed a bit since I was a student including a coffee shop, more open areas, and even a napping "pod".
I wasn't just on a sight-seeing tour on that day. I really wanted to see what the "normal" day for a library administrator at a research university like CMU was really like. Erika was amazingly accommodating by allowing me to sit in on meetings with her, follow her between juggling a large number of tasks, and taking up all of her remaining time with questions. Telepresence with the library at the CMU campus in Qatar was a real eye opener for me.
The highlight of the morning, though, was a planning meeting with Gloriana St. Clair, the Dean of the Libraries. Insights into how to prioritize a meeting with the University Provost, budget planning, and how to make beneficial deals with library partners were big takeaways. Also I got to see her bookshelf, including a bobblehead of Pradeep Khosla! (he was a faculty member and administrator in ECE but is now the chancellor of UCSD). I also got to see an early demonstration of the Olive Archive project that is being developed to preserve executable code. My next stop was the Roger Sorrells Engineering & Science Library, which I will talk about in Part 2.
Recently I explored the policies of PSU for the details on employer provided mobile phones, including smartphones with data. Two of the key criteria jumped out at me as a librarian:
- Employee supports...programs, services or systems that necessitate frequent and immediate communications throughout the day...or while away from the office...
- The employee performs the majority of his/her job duties "in the field", where business either cannot be conducted by a lineline telephone or it would be inefficient to use a landline telephone
The last part I put in bold this could apply to almost any modern job! With regards to librarians, who are information professionals dealing more with electronic media and providing services in multiple location, the other requirement seem to fit as well. We answer questions on the street, on the bus, in meetings, at lunch, and we do it promptly.
For example, I spend about 17 hours a week outside of my office in meeting, providing research consultations, or working at a reference desk. In addition since I work in a branch library, I spend 2.5 hours a week walking between those tasks. This is not even taking into account my 30 minute (1 hour round trip) commute by bus each day. That is almost or more than half of my work week depending on how you look at it.
In my personal life I have a non-contract phone that costs as little as $100 a year, while smartphone plans probably run you that PER MONTH. I answer text message questions from some students, but I do that on a flip-phone. Mobile phones are at 89% saturation of the U.S. population and smartphones are up to 46%. Seton Hall has given a smartphone to all their freshmen.
At least I have a wireless tablet, though at the moment it is my personal iPad that I use for work. It was a Christmas gift, and apparently the percentage of U.S. citizens with a tablet jumped from 10%-20% just last holiday season (Pew).
So is a smartphone expected to be owned librarians, but the burden of cost falls on the employee?
I have decided to blog my activities and reflections while reading Char Booth's Reflective Teaching, Effective Learning: Instructional Literacy for Library Educators. Partially to keep with the theme of the book and also so I don't write in this copy; it's on loan from IUP.
Continue reading reading Reflective Learning, Effective Teaching.
I have created an online teaching portfolio as part of the Penn State Teaching with Technology certificate program. In additional to serving as a record of my teaching, it also has example documents and learning objects I have created as a science librarian.
Overall I would say that my teaching has followed a strategy of rapid prototyping and iterative design that I learned as a computer engineering student. This concept involves swift design decisions and the willingness to take chances and has often been called the "perpetual Beta test." I believe that as a research practitioner, it is my professional responsibility to experiment and refine my teaching techniques toward effective student outcomes.
My online teaching portfolio shows a few examples of this, but this approach runs throughout my teaching. I have used post-instruction assessments of students to find areas to work on and adapted my instruction before teaching that class again. Even if there was no feedback to go on I have integrated a new technology, example, or teaching technique in each class in order to improve my teaching effectiveness. I have had to be willing to try new things, even if failure is a real possibility, in order to move forward or even keep up with changes in higher education and information technology.
I have been tortured by the need to find ways radically change some of the ways librarians as researchers handle research, authorship, peer-review, and publication. As information professional we should be innovating in these areas and yet at least tenure-track librarians are in the same or worse boat as other faculty members in the Titanic of scholarly communication. Sure there are bright lights, but in general and in practice we aren't practicing what we preach. So perhaps we need to pick some low hanging fruit in the library literature.
One "easy" thing to do in the library literature involves surveys. Boy do librarians love surveys, it is so much a staple of our research that my only MLIS research methods course was basically all about surveys. So I recently read an article in an old issue of College and Research Libraries on "Librarians' Attitudes Toward Knowledge Management" published and concerning librarians in Israel (there are over 5,000 there!) The author suggests replicating the study in other countries and given the methodology is explained in detail and the instrument is published in the paper this should be "easy."
But should one librarian in each country or state/province or each large institution or subgroup of librarians repeat the study and republish the results in another scholarly journal? Doesn't the technology exist to do this in scale? Don't librarians love SurveyMonkey? We need to accept that there are scales of scholarly accomplishment and that something can be worthwhile and still only exist on a blog post or open data set.
But should one librarian in each country or state/province or each large institution or subgroup of librarians repeat the study and republish the results in another scholarly journal? Doesn't the technology exist to do this in scale? Don't librarians love SurveyMonkey? We need to accept that there are scales of scholarly accomplishment and that something can be worthwhile and still only exist on a blog post or open data set.
Yeah, so this entry has been "A Long Time Coming", but I am using Penn State's spring break 2012 to catch up on research and that means reading (though soon I may rant about that "practice of information literacy")
Guest Editorial "Distinctive Signifiers of Excellence": Library Services and the Future of the Academic Library by Scott Walter - How could I miss this? Not only does it address a core belief I share, that libraries can no longer be measured by collection size and other collection metrics for 'excellence' but it also gives a shout out to ODSP. Points off Scott for linking to a non-public ARL wiki in his Notes.
Library on the Go: A Focus Group Study of the Mobile Web and the Academic Library by Seeholzer and Salem at Kent State - great study and well presented. It makes our mobile site fit the basics (at least for KSU students) but has implications for our next step: a total mobile site. I wonder if it is possible to have a Rapid Prototyping lab of library services complete with structure for user focus groups. Currently we have a great Website Usability team, but right now they mainly do individually monitored usability studies. Minor negative, there did not need to be 3 pictures of basically the same KSU Libraries website in the article.
Unheard Voices: Institutional Repository End-Users by St. Jean, Rieh, Yakel, and Markey - 21 pages! I am going to have jackflaps read this one.
Knowing Where They Went - Six Years of Online Access Statistics via the Online Catalog for Federal Government Information by Christopher Brown at the University of Denver - "users prefer online content over print for both newer and older documents" Done! I mean, I trust the editors of C&RL and the author for a nice abstract.
Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy by Mackey and Jacobson - may seem an abstract thought piece, but winds up being a pretty good review of the literature and summary of various "literacies" out there (visual just got its own ACRL standard). I am concerned about a move away from skill based approaches, but as long as we as a librarian profession can set real learning outcomes based on the ocean of metaliteracy skills, we'll be okay. Note that does not mean it is necessarily possible.
Facebook as a Library Tool: Perceived vs Actual Use by Terra Jacobson - not sure I am on board with the methodology of this paper, but it does bear out reality in the conclusion that a library page on Facebook needs regular attention and is best used for announcements and marketing. Personally the literature review helped me figure out my research in the use of Facebook FOR research by librarians is undiscovered country.
These are some thoughts about a book I am reading for the Penn State Library Leaders group. The book Reframing Academic Leadership by Bolman and Gallos is relatively short and focuses on the dissection of higher education leadership using a model of environments and roles for administrators.
One of the early points that has stuck with me is how leaders can take one of two approaches to interactions and communication: advocacy (where you speak to convince) or inquiry (in which you speak to discover). Advocacy is easier for me than inquiry though I am getting good at active listening. It would be great to learn more skills that combine advocacy and inquiry at same time or in same situation.
The first framework of academy that seems appealing to me at first is the structural approach. That problems can be addressed by changing organizational structure and roles. Maybe because I am an engineer.
The second structure uses a confusing "jungle" metaphor, limited resources and many independent groups competing for it. This chapter does introduce politics in higher education is a very understandable way, but the example is off putting (President Quixote?) and they forget to mention what the resources administration controls that is useful in deal making.
Servant and caregiver is also a favorite metaphor, perhaps due to the role of the libraries on campus. But moreso I think because it focuses most on individual job satisfaction and the work environment. I have seen in my short career MUCH more effective work out of a happy and content unit than a demoralized and confused one. This may seem obvious, but I think leaders often write off personal feelings and experiences in the face of professionalism and privacy.
One of the early points that has stuck with me is how leaders can take one of two approaches to interactions and communication: advocacy (where you speak to convince) or inquiry (in which you speak to discover). Advocacy is easier for me than inquiry though I am getting good at active listening. It would be great to learn more skills that combine advocacy and inquiry at same time or in same situation.
The first framework of academy that seems appealing to me at first is the structural approach. That problems can be addressed by changing organizational structure and roles. Maybe because I am an engineer.
The second structure uses a confusing "jungle" metaphor, limited resources and many independent groups competing for it. This chapter does introduce politics in higher education is a very understandable way, but the example is off putting (President Quixote?) and they forget to mention what the resources administration controls that is useful in deal making.
Servant and caregiver is also a favorite metaphor, perhaps due to the role of the libraries on campus. But moreso I think because it focuses most on individual job satisfaction and the work environment. I have seen in my short career MUCH more effective work out of a happy and content unit than a demoralized and confused one. This may seem obvious, but I think leaders often write off personal feelings and experiences in the face of professionalism and privacy.
I am most intrigued by the problems a community of experts creates. I see librarians as educated generalists, which she mentions as key to higher education.
Here is my proposal just submitted for a 20 minute webcast in the spring of 2012 to the ACRL Spring Virtual Institute (with a significant finding in bold)
Traditional one shot information literacy sessions when only one class period is devoted to the library is still common. Librarians try to fill most of this time with the dissemination of information even though some active learning techniques are incorporated, it is still the smaller portion of time used. This presentation showcases a method of "flipping the classroom", changing a standard information literacy session into a ten minute lecture and a forty minute hands on activity. This can be done with no additional access to students before or after the session as long as the class can be held in a hands-on computer lab.
The information literacy lab was conducted by introducing only one library information resource, the discovery search tool (Summon). to the students. Its features were showcased and critical evaluation of information sources was also introduced as a concept. The remainder of time is devoted to a group assignment on evaluating information sources both on the Web in comparison to the information resource.
Students worked in groups of two to complete the assignment which was handed out on paper. The first part explained again criteria for evaluating information sources while the second part gave 4 example sources from a Wikipedia article. Students were asked to identify the type of information source (scholarly journal, news, book, website) and the authors with their credentials. Then the students were asked to infer the intended audience for the information source and the usefulness of the information for their coursework later in the semester. Finally, the students were asked to located an item in the library's discovery search interface that was of high quality in the characteristics they had explored.
Student outcomes were assessed at the end of the semester following library instruction in different sections of the same class. A survey was administered in three sections where traditional instruction was delivered, in another a more hands on approach was used, and in another the class was "flipped". The questions assessed:
Did students use library resources in the class and which databases were used?
Were they more critical of information sources on the World Wide Web?
Did the library instruction help them with their assignments?
Were library resources easy to find and use?
Did the library help to improve their grade in the class?
Results of the survey were similar for a few questions, but there was a dramatic increase in positive student response in two area for only the class with the hands-on instruction lab. 71% of those students indicated that they were more critical of information on the web compared to only 48% in the traditional information literacy class. Also 96% of students responded that the the library instruction helped them with their assignments compared to 70% in the traditional sessions. This clear improvement in two areas with no loss in others is strong data to support the hands-on information literacy lab approach.
Traditional one shot information literacy sessions when only one class period is devoted to the library is still common. Librarians try to fill most of this time with the dissemination of information even though some active learning techniques are incorporated, it is still the smaller portion of time used. This presentation showcases a method of "flipping the classroom", changing a standard information literacy session into a ten minute lecture and a forty minute hands on activity. This can be done with no additional access to students before or after the session as long as the class can be held in a hands-on computer lab.
The information literacy lab was conducted by introducing only one library information resource, the discovery search tool (Summon). to the students. Its features were showcased and critical evaluation of information sources was also introduced as a concept. The remainder of time is devoted to a group assignment on evaluating information sources both on the Web in comparison to the information resource.
Students worked in groups of two to complete the assignment which was handed out on paper. The first part explained again criteria for evaluating information sources while the second part gave 4 example sources from a Wikipedia article. Students were asked to identify the type of information source (scholarly journal, news, book, website) and the authors with their credentials. Then the students were asked to infer the intended audience for the information source and the usefulness of the information for their coursework later in the semester. Finally, the students were asked to located an item in the library's discovery search interface that was of high quality in the characteristics they had explored.
Student outcomes were assessed at the end of the semester following library instruction in different sections of the same class. A survey was administered in three sections where traditional instruction was delivered, in another a more hands on approach was used, and in another the class was "flipped". The questions assessed:
Did students use library resources in the class and which databases were used?
Were they more critical of information sources on the World Wide Web?
Did the library instruction help them with their assignments?
Were library resources easy to find and use?
Did the library help to improve their grade in the class?
Results of the survey were similar for a few questions, but there was a dramatic increase in positive student response in two area for only the class with the hands-on instruction lab. 71% of those students indicated that they were more critical of information on the web compared to only 48% in the traditional information literacy class. Also 96% of students responded that the the library instruction helped them with their assignments compared to 70% in the traditional sessions. This clear improvement in two areas with no loss in others is strong data to support the hands-on information literacy lab approach.
Recent Comments
Marcy Bidney on Reframing Academic Leadership (first 100 pages): interestin
RUSSELL HALL on November C&RL with my impressions and thoughts: Thanks Joh
JOHN MEIER on Reference trends from 1970s to 2000s: Neither Wi
CHRISTOPHER WALKER on Reference trends from 1970s to 2000s: Test "Wiki
RUSSELL HALL on May 2008 C&RL articles at a glance: Ok, that m
Russ Hall on Quick post about myself: Congrats!
Lisa German on Quick post about myself: John, cong
Russ Hall on January 2008 C&RL articles at a glance: As always,
podblack on 2 Quick Questions: Hello! You