Committee Home

Attendees:

Absent: Amy Limpitlaw

Agenda

• Meeting schedule
• E-classroom use policy (need a couple of people to draft a revision)
• Web follow-up (please review these project descriptions; we can suggest people to serve)

• Instruction Forum update
• Reference Forum update
• Training Needs Survey response

• Center for Research Libraries records in ACORN?

Meeting Notes from Melinda

Attending: Jason Battles, Leslie Boyd, Melinda Brown, David Carpenter, Sue Erickson, Teresa Gray, Janet Hirt, Robert Rich, Flo Wilson

1. Meeting schedule. Flo asked that anyone who has not resubmitted their recurring schedule conflicts to her, to please do so. She will let us know what date(s) seems to work best.

2. E-classroom use policy. Flo indicated that there is a need to update the use policy for the e-classroom and asked for volunteers. Melinda and Teresa volunteered to look at it. They will send a draft to Kitty and Amy (as representatives of other main user groups for the space), and then after receiving feedback from them, send a more finalized draft to the Research Services Committee for approval.

3. Web follow-up. After our meeting last month, the Digital Library Steering Committee proposed two projects that they are looking for additional members for, the Website Update Project and the Library Testbed Project. After some discussion of the merits of both projects, Flo turned the conversation to potential members.

Flo had extracted a list of potential participants from the Staff Skills/Interest database, and asked us to consider the list. Several people were recommended for one or both projects. Flo will initiate contact through the appropriate channels.

4. Center for Research Libraries records in ACORN? Flo began the discussion by stating she thought we had considered doing so at some time in the past, possibly before we got the SIRSI system.

The conversation then turned to the pros & cons of adding CRL records to ACORN. The pros:

• Patrons could more easily find these resources
• Which in turn would mean that these expensive resources would be utilized

The cons:

• Our patrons expect that ACORN only holds items that could be found here on campus -- it might be confusing/disappointing to have to wait for ILL
• LITS is concerned about possible technological upkeep problems
• There would probably be authority issues/cataloging issues
• It brings up the issue of what exactly ACORN is there for, if we include outside resources

The group identified other entry points. There is a direct URL for the CRL catalog, though it's not very visible (one or two screens below the main homepage). KUDZU provides search access, though search result problems and the fact that CRL isn't automatically searched were brought up as potential barriers to easy access. World Cat is another entry point to CRL records, and seemed to be a good alternative access point.

Sue suggested that there might be an option in ACORN to have World Cat show up as a "Try Your Search in World Cat" type of button. Investigating this alternative seemed agreeable to the group. Also determining if there was a way to increase visibility of the direct CRL database link was also mentioned.

Sue noted that ICPSR will soon be offering MARC records for its holdings, though these will provide a direct link to the data.

5. Instruction Forum report. Melinda started by asking about emails to the Instruction Forum list. What kinds of things did members want to see? How much was too much? It was decided that she would send workshop announcements as they were made available, and try to batch emails for instruction related articles and information (such as culling useful material from the ILI-L list) and putting the information up on the WIKI.

Melinda committed to getting an instruction project document out to the group by Monday.

Melinda and Janet then reported briefly about the Center for Teaching¡¦s recent workshop on clicker technology. There were several different types of clickers or classroom response systems presented. Janet had the opportunity to discuss clickers with a student who has used one of the systems, and got feedback that it was expensive technology -- about $60 per class. Melinda reported that other systems were less expensive. The workshop presenters also discussed how their teaching styles had changed. If there is interest, Melinda will investigate arranging a presentation on classroom response technology for library staff.

6. Reference Forum report. Sue has gotten several volunteers for the Reference Forum planning group. Currently Amy, Kitty and Amia Baker will be part of this committee. Sue envisions providing workshops similar to the one Amia presented on business resources (which will be repeated).

Sue also asked Celia to arrange a showing of the ACRL Webcast: Successful Reference Interview Strategies: At the Desk, Chat Reference, or on the Phone to be held on February 23, 2006, 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm, in the Electronic Classroom. She invited all units to send any public services staff as reference questions are often answered there, as well.

7. Training Needs Survey response. Flo asked that we indicate the training that we felt was most important in order to meet the needs of the Research Services Committee. The areas that were identified were Time Management, Setting Priorities/Goal Setting, Technology Training (Wiki training at the next meeting, Blackboard skills), and Service Assessment.

Leslie mentioned that Peabody is offering Blackboard training by Cindy Franco that is geared toward faculty, but open to library staff. It will be held on March 6 at 2pm in the Peabody Learning Commons, and seats must be reserved.

8. Flo asked if there was anything else to report. Sue mentioned that one of the projects that she hoped the Reference Forum would work on was to do a Question Point review. This would included looking at the possibility of standardizing some components of answers (such as whether or not people sign their answers), extracting commonly asked questions (with their answers) and possibly creating a patron FAQ available online.

Melinda mentioned the recent email from Chancellor Gee about the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) portion of the SACS accreditation review. She will repost this information, and asked that members think about any possible ways the libraries can participate in this plan ¡V especially in collaborative ways.