Agenda:
1. MISO survey results (Carrie)
2. Ebooks strategies (Rebekah)

Because the meeting was sparsely attended, the notes reflect only the takeaway points from our general discussions, rather than a blow-by-blow account.

1. MISO results
A. We should plan a “Moodle pedagogy” session for faculty to come together and share how they’re using Moodle, with that “show & tell” being the primary purpose for meeting (ie. have faculty, not LIS folks, presenting)
B. Jeff and Louisa both noted that they use their liaisons for their own research needs as well as direct students to them, though they do think faculty can direct students more often to liaisons, and liaisons can do more to remind/encourage faculty about this.
C. Louisa mentioned it may be helpful to have liaisons send emails to faculty if/when there is a good time during the semester for book/serial ordering.

2. Ebooks
A. Jeff was part of the e-textbook pilot, and said it saved students money, but he didn’t have a great experience with it and wouldn’t do it again. He said some students he talked to didn’t like using the e-textbook either, even with the savings.
B. A side question came up of the possibility of storing media and streaming media via institutional support.
C. Louisa was interested if faculty can see the publishers included in LIS’s approval list for both print and ebook automatic purchases. Faculty are indeed welcome to these if they want; Steve and Rebekah will follow up with anyone who asks.

Attending: Carrie Macfarlane, Wendy Shook, Petar Mitrevski, Terry Simpkins (notes), Bryan Carson, Bob Cluss, Rick Bunt, Vickie Backus, Susan Watson, Catherine Combelles, Daniel Scharstein, Hans Raum, Joe Antonioli, Bill Hegman

The topics of this meeting were:

• Analog Sunset
• MISO Survey Follow-up
• Comments from Biology Department
• Update on data management
• Updates from fall meeting

Notes:

Analog sunset (Petar Mitrevski)

• Petar gave an update on the obsolescence of certain media formats and playback devices. Projectors and monitors are starting to only provide digital connections for input (VGA inputs are no longer support, VCR inputs probably on the way out next year).
• Professional models may continue with analog connections for the short-term.
• Middlebury also needs to support multi-region formats, players for which are also becoming scarce.
• We are starting to convert VHS formats needed but not available on DVD to a digital format according to ARL Best Practices for Fair Use in Academic Libraries document of 2012.
• We need to preserve whatever VCRs we can for conversion purposes.
• Plan is to remove VHS players from classrooms starting Jan. 2014.
• Bob asked that, for classrooms being upgraded and losing VCRs, we notify the faculty who are using those classrooms.
• We can digitize personal or dept. copies
• It is technically possible to post streaming files, but they must be password protected, and some attention must be given to file size.
• Request for MBH 216 and 220 to add projectors for the side view screens. Would need to wire in a new projector.

MISO survey followup (Carrie)

• Faculty/student/staff survey about LIS performed in spring 2012.
• Carrie discussed findings about 1) liaison program satisfaction and importance and 2) input into library decisions.
• Surprised by library or tech decisions? What might prompt faculty to contact liaisons, and when would you like to hear from liaisons?
  • Rick: Library side seems well-communicated; technology side seems less-well communicated.
  • Catherine: Better communication about technology changes and options.
  • Daniel: Faculty are need driven. Perhaps more outreach from liaisons would be useful since faculty won’t usually initiate until there is a real need.
  • Bob: could liaisons provide updates to dept. meetings.
  • Susan: dept. meetings with liaisons have been very useful.
  • Bill: the info Hans is sending to Geography seems relevant and appropriate. LIS has a lot of services available that many people aren’t aware of.
  • Discussion about miscellaneous CourseHub and Moodle issues.

Comments from Biology Department (Catherine Combelles)

• Dept retreat in Biology, Catherine gathered LIS feedback
• Videoconference – we need more availability and in larger classrooms. Also having the ability to collaborate with faculty collaborators or off-campus students.
• Perhaps investigate “big blue button” open source product.
• Is there something in between Skype and telepresence? Google Hangout was suggested as a free option.
• Concern about stability of Adobe Connect, especially when used with PowerPoint.
• Bob mentioned the videoconferencing task force is looking at a high quality system.
• Moodle – can it be made more stable? Is there a better way to get training? Help files are frequently out of date, or written for PC and not Mac, or lacking complete steps. Joe is the goto person for advanced Moodle support, and lynda.com (http://go.middlebury.edu/lynda) is very helpful here.
  • Wendy will write up how to link to lynda lessons and classes:
  • Here is a handout with advice about how to get started with lynda.com. It says this about creating links to individual video tutorials within lynda: “Important notes about sharing: You can now share Middlebury-specific course links. I’ve had the best luck using the “copy link” button then pasting the link into my own email message.”
• Bill: Can we control the interface to Moodle?
• We are training help desk on basic Moodle support. Digital media tutors and liaisons are also conversant with Moodle.
• Moodle lunch/training session/discussion among faculty moodle users? Vickie is interested.
• Bob: significant changes from CTLR and hopefully this will help make Ed tech support more visible

Data management

POSTPONED due to lack of time, a separate email is forthcoming.

Updates from fall meeting

Info lit baseline assessment and post instruction assessment – shared draft documents.

(Didn’t share these in the meeting, notes will suffice):

• Journal subscription review: Journal lists have been distributed to Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Computer Science, Math, Psych, Neuroscience. Biology and Neuroscience have reported back, but the rest are still under consideration.
• Weeding in Armstrong: Weeding of monographs is underway at Armstrong, as per our withdrawal policy  . Wendy previews all books on the weeding list, and if there is doubt about the value of a particular item, faculty will be consulted. Questions should be directed to Wendy (wshook@middlebury.edu)
• Tour of Armstrong with Roy and Cluss on 5/16 to consider potential opportunities for repurposing space. Office space is needed.
• LIS staffing: New curricular technologist hired, June 10 start date. New librarian search nearing completion (hopefully)

We spent most of the meeting discussing various aspects of the MISO survey results.1) Only 85% of faculty reported being satisfied with the degree to which they can provide input regarding library and technology decisions that affect them.  Are there any specific instances where you were surprised by an LIS decision?

• Etextbooks

  • initial email sent in Spring, but actual implementation/training occurred in August, which was too late to really expect Middlebury faculty to engage fully with the technology;

  • the training webinar was unimpressive and not tailored to Middlebury (e.g., expectation that faculty would annotate student texts or keep track of their reading progress);

  • it was not made clear that much of this discussion was around potential ways to use the technology, not expectations for all participants;

  • needed better communication in general – felt too last minute.

  • Ebooks affect pedagogy (ex. to refer to text in class, need to allow laptop use in class)

• moodle

  • similarly, roll-out was too late (August) for faculty to learn and accept a new LMS solution.  Spring appears to be best time to alert faculty about impending changes for the following fall with training offered at various times in the summer, not just at the end of summer.

2) On the other hand, lynda.com seems well-loved.  Brenda mentioned that Lynda.com is working on creating linkable video segments (currently you can only link to full courses).

This led to a discussion about the technological competencies of students.  Many students today do not seem particularly tech-savvy, lacking even basic skills such as using Google Drive effectively (uploading/sharing documents, etc.), or understanding that some web sites are not perfectly compatible with all browsers and students should therefore learn to try viewing sites that don’t display properly with multiple browsers. Some are reluctant to explore applications they are unfamiliar with on their own (ex. Prezi).

Questions from the discussion: What collaborative technology skills do students need to know for technological literacy?  Can we promote the use of workshops or lynda.com for foundational tech skills such as these?  Do we model how to find answers enough to make students self-sufficient?  Are students sufficiently aware of technology security issues?

Possible action items for LIS/Liaisons:

a) Survey (or discuss via focus groups, etc.) faculty about what tech skills they think students ought to know;

b) Provide page of Lynda.com links (or YouTube, other resources, etc.) for most common basic technology questions;

c) Bert Johnson and Barbara Hofer indicated they would appreciate information on screencasting tools in order to create quick tutorials for their students to teach them how to use certain discipline-specific software. Create an LIS blog post with options (easy to sophisticated) so all faculty can be made aware.

3)  The MISO survey suggested that, while the most faculty are satisfied with the liaison program, only 55% say it is important.  Why?  What kind of support or information would faculty like to receive from their liaison?

• Some faculty contact their liaison only at the immediate (usually urgent) point-of-need;

• Others contact liaisons more frequently, especially when the liaison has demonstrated particular skill or expertise.  Carrie M. was cited as an example of someone who provides excellent interactive classroom presentations for students.

• Faculty would like to have mechanism for providing feedback.

Possible action items for LIS/Liaisons:

a) Distribute reminders to all faculty, not just new members, of the various roles/services offered by LIS Liaisons, perhaps something like a most useful “top 10.” Send in early and late (e.g. Aug. 1) summer.  Use email, blog posting, eNewsletter, communication to department chairs.  Over communicate!

b) Provide liaison training for presentation/teaching skills to improve overall quality of classroom sessions

4) Shel asked whether faculty present backed up data.  Most did to varying degrees (external HDs).  Most did not use middfiles, citing the 2012 middfiles failure as reason for lack of confidence in the service.  Other faculty cited the inefficiency of using middfiles (i.e., one needs to make an active choice to save documents there, it is not an automated backup solution).

Possible action items for LIS/Liaisons:

a) Create document/info page/info email on data backup options, identifying various data backup options (including personal subscription options) for faculty.  Send to departments.

b) Should LIS investigate an enterprise automated data back up solution?  There seemed to be support for that among the group.

5) Brief discussion of copyright issues, while initially desultory, revealed some gaps in knowledge about best practices.  Terry talked about a “risk management” approach to using copyright exemptions such as fair use or the face-to-face teaching exemption.

6) Social science faculty indicated the best times for offering workshops during the year are:

• First half of semester;

• J-Term for faculty not teaching.

Thanks for reading,

Terry

Attending:  Bert Johnson (co-convenor), Kemi Fuentes-George, David Stoll, Shel Sax, Joe Antonioli, Richard Jenkins, Carrie Macfarlane, Brenda Ellis (co-convenor/notes)

Topics:

• LIS Liaison Program Effectiveness
• Curricular Technology Support
• Information Desk Replacement

LIS Liaison Program Effectiveness

As leader of the LIS Liaison group, Carrie Macfarlane explained that LIS is currently evaluating the program over multiple years, with this year focusing on communication. LIS will review information already available to us (past surveys, etc.) but welcomed any feedback from the group.

Faculty in attendance noted that most of their communications with LIS deal with technology or with reserves, (Kellam was praised highly).  No complaints about course support; one professor used a blog and middfiles for the first time and found that both worked fine.  Another didn’t know much about middfiles and is interested because uploading files to Moodle is time-consuming.  One professor doesn’t have many questions himself but often sends his students in for help.

Concerns:  Faculty expressed concern re: staffing shortages at the helpdesk and frustration with the level of service at the walk-in help desk.  Specifics have been shared with the appropriate areas of LIS.

Curricular Technology Support

Joe Antonioli, Manager of Web & Interactive Digital Media Technologies, shared usage statistics for the current semester from the Course Hub, which has been in use since Fall 2011.

Fall 2012 Overall:

• 66% (2/3) of classes on the course hub have had something added to them (beyond the standard setup)
• 83% of instructors have added something to the course hub

Usage By type of resource:

• E-res:  25% of instructors (65% of students)
• Link Resource (url link to a web-based resource):   14% of instructors (35% of students)
• Middfiles Class folder:  48% of instructors (86% of students)
• Moodle:  30% of instructors (65% of students)
• WordPress:  9% of instructors (21% of students)
• Syllabus Upload:  30% of instructors (69% of students)
• Syllabus Text:  2% of instructors (6% of students)
• RSS feed:  1% of instructors (2% o students)

Comments:

Kemi uses Moodle.  He noted that uploading files to Moodle is a pain (too many steps).  Joe announced that we are upgrading to Moodle 2 in a month and that will make file uploads easier.

Bert uses a google.com site and E-res for copyrighted readings and classes folder for datasets.  He reported that he can’t add a Twitter RSS feed (as opposed to a link to twitter) to the hub.  Joe will investigate.

David uses the classes folder (which now has links from the Hub).  Easy to drop a syllabus and other docs there.

Information Desk replacement

Brenda explained that LIS was looking for suggestions for replacing the round desk in the front of the library (that currently has flyers, staplers, fax, etc.) .   The desk is no longer staffed and other uses for this prominent space may make more sense.  Possibilities that have been suggested include an electronic kiosk, a tree, artwork, or a seating area.   David expressed a strong aversion to an electronic kiosk – no more TV’s and visual pollution. He’d rather see a tree or seating area.  Kemi was neutral.  Bert preferred rotating artwork.

Attending: Carrie Macfarlane (notes) and Daniel Scharstein, co-conveners; Alison Darrow, Bill Hegman, Jeff Munroe, Bob Cluss, Terry Simpkins, Joe Antonioli, Rebekah Irwin, Hans Raum, Rebekah Irwin, Wendy Shook.

The topics of this meeting were:

Updates/questions
Data management
Etextbooks strategy
Curricular technology

1. Updates/Questions (Carrie)

a) Follow-ups from spring meeting:

Library Collection development:

• List of journal subscriptions by subject have been generated for the departments that requested them. When is a good time to review? CSCI reviewed theirs only for IEEE offer, and Daniel would like to review the rest. Jeff Munroe is interested for Geology too. Lists has been generated for Math and for Chemistry already. We’ll send lists to CSCI and GEOL right away; liaisons will contact Math and Chemistry to inquire about timing (department reps weren’t able to make it to this meeting).
• Weeding partial runs of journals: We’ve been doing this at the Davis Family Library. It requires careful review of holdings here and at other libraries. We’ll do this at Armstrong after our current weeding project (see below) is complete.

Information literacy survey:

• Last year, faculty found our one-page summary of findings useful. We’ll produce a one-page summary of this year’s findings too.
• Last year, faculty were concerned that students have trouble with evaluating sources and knowing how and when to cite sources. We’re looking for ways to make our instruction regarding these skills more interesting. For example, librarians can work with faculty to create assignments that present more opportunities to address these issues. In addition, librarians are incorporating more interactive teaching methods into their workshops.

Tech support in BiHall:

• As promised, we have a new Science Data Librarian, Wendy Shook, and she is ready to help with specialized software issues! She already has been looking into the ChemDraw renewal issue.
• We’re still understaffed, with vacancies in the librarian group, curricular technology, and helpdesk.

b) How should we send meeting invites? Some prefer Outlook calendar invites, some don’t use Outlook calendar

Fine to send both.

c) Armstrong weeding

We have lots of overcrowding in Armstrong; books are shelved where they don’t belong because they don’t fit. In January, Wendy will start reviewing lists of books that have never circulated; we hope to remove many. Wendy will contact faculty if she has any questions.

• Question from Bob: Are we considering reuse of the space?
• Answers from Carrie, Terry, Rebekah: Right now, priority is getting the overcrowded areas fixed up, but we’re open to considering changes in the space in future. For example, our most recent MISO survey showed that a top request from students is more group study space.

2. Data management: Relevance to grant funding, and what steps LIS is taking to support new requirements. (Wendy Shook)

Effective January, 2011, the National Science Foundation requires that all applications for research funding include a data management plan to describe how the data created from the funded research will be shared, preserved and described. LIS can assist Middlebury faculty, staff, and students in managing their data to meet this requirement.

For the short term, LIS can provide advice for writing the plan and guidelines for off-site data repositories. Wendy is putting the finishing touches on a web page with links to directorate-specific guidelines and a data management plan tool. It also has suggestions for off-site repositories.

For the long term, LIS will soon consider whether we should build a local repository, especially for data that might not be able to find a better home elsewhere in a discipline-specific repository.
Wendy would like to learn from faculty: What are your needs? How much data? What kinds of data? Would you use a local repository?

Discussion:

• Daniel: Working on a proposal right now. Research is about sharing data sets. Usually puts data on his website. What is the benefit of a repository?
• Wendy: Web pages aren’t permanent; NSF wants permanence. A few side notes: Personally identifiable data can be removed from public view but must be preserved. Some people produce small data sets and publish them in article, but even that is not publicly accessible if the article requires a subscription.

• Jeff: Would we really want to host a repository?
• Wendy: We are willing to consider, especially because some disciplines don’t have viable options. Off-site and discipline-specific repositories are potentially the best option. Inter-library collaboration on off-site repositories is also a possibility.

• Bill: Are there implications for the college as a whole if we don’t have a repository?
• Wendy: No; we just need to at least provide guidance.

• Daniel: Good to think about the issues, but still seems not critical at this point since guidelines still lack detail. Kind of agree that it doesn’t make sense to build our own.

• Jeff: Something to consider: Would there be a bias toward researchers who store their data in a discipline-specific, well-known repository vs a Midd repository?

• Bob: Discipline-specific, well-known repository should be the default. Midd could be for homeless data.
• Wendy: Could do both.

• Daniel: To get more faculty input, send us email and keep following up if we don’t respond. This is important.
• Wendy: Will send email!

3. Etextbooks strategy: We have launched a pilot involving e-textbooks, and would benefit from input and feedback into what direction we might head in based on what we have learned to date. (Terry Simpkins)

This fall, we undertook a pilot project with EDUCAUSE, who was working with McGraw-Hill as an extextbook provider. Approximately 20 faculty participated, with 450-500 students.

We will soon administer an EDUCAUSE survey of students and faculty pilot participants. Similar surveys will go out to other pilot schools. Results will be published in a report by EDUCAUSE.

Anecdotal feedback: Everything from easy to use after setup, to challenging. Some feedback about not being involved in the planning and decision process. Etextbooks can present new opportunities for teaching, but some of these opportunities are not necessarily seen as useful (eg, collaborative tools, annotation capabilities, etc.). Comments that etextbooks also can be problematic (for example, if the textbook needs to be used during class then each student needs to have a laptop in the classroom).

We’re currently waiting for approval to send surveys [1/9/13 UPDATE: they have now both been sent out]. Probably will have results in spring, with EDUCAUSE report to follow. Then we will want more input. EDUCAUSE pilot is continuing at other schools, and additional publishers including Elsevier are beginning to participate.

Discussion:

• Jeff: Ordered an ebook for spring class, not McGraw-Hill. Would be strange if we in the future, McGraw-Hill textbooks were free for students and others not.

• Bill: Interested in coursepacks-type usage, meaning portions of several books rather than whole of just one book.

• Bob: What was the procedure?
• Terry: EDUCAUSE approached Mike. They were hands-off about the process.

• Bob: Recommends strongly that whatever we do in the future, we approach faculty council. Some faculty feel it was a rough launch; be aware that might have an impact on the survey findings. Use of eTextbooks should be set up as opt-in, not as opt-out. Would like to keep moving in this direction but should be very careful with the communication.
• Terry: There were some unfortunate misunderstandings. We should err on the side of over-communication in the future. Keeping people in the loop is a big takeaway. Also, the survey was developed collaboratively with other participating schools, so we don’t have full control over the questions.

4. Curricular Technology Direction/Focus: A look at our current approach to support for technology in the curriculum, and a request for input on future directions. (Joe Antonioli)

We looked at statistics on fall curricular technology use. Here they are:

The course hub is one of the most used of web-based resources.

In fall 2012:

• 84% of faculty put something in the course hub; 99% of students had some reason to interact with the course hub.
• Middfiles is still one of the most popular resources.
• 30% of faculty use Moodle. About the same as Segue.
• 9% use WordPress
• 30% faculty add a syllabus to the Course Hub. Would like to see that number go higher.

Discussion:

• Question: What is the benefit of using the course hub vs just the classes folder?
• Answer: Convenience. Students can go to one place to find all online course resources. When we did usability testing, that was one of the top requests we received from students. Students wanted it to be easier to find course sites that happened to be on different platforms.

• Question: What’s the difference between ‘syllabus text’ and ‘syllabus upload’?
• Answer: Text is where you’ve copied and pasted into the hub.

To come:

• Online language lab.
• Moodle 2. Biggest change is that link to allow faculty to see a site as their students would moves from right to left. One benefit: better file management. Also allows adaptive testing, online flashcards
• What is adaptive testing? Different questions are fed to a student based on their answers. The goal is to get them quickly to a score. When available? March.

• Question: Do students like Moodle?
• Answer: Many students come from k-12 schools that used it.

• Bill: Interested in investigating the online quiz feature. Needs to be able to upload diagrams/pictures.
• Joe: Yes, Moodle allows this. Bill should talk with Joe and Wendy. Could also consider clickers?

Agenda:
1. Liaison Program Assessment – Carrie Macfarlane (addressed)
2. Curricular Technology Stats & Future Directions – Joe Antonioli (addressed)
3. Ebooks Stats & Strategies – Rebekah Irwin (tabled to a J-term optional meeting)
4. Digital Scholarship/Digital Humanities Update – Rebekah Irwin (tabled to a J-term optional meeting)
5. Information Literacy Update – Carrie Macfarlane (tabled TBA)
6. Collection Management Standing Orders & Subscriptions Review – Rebekah Irwin (tabled TBA)

1. Liaison Program Assessment – Carrie Macfarlane

A. the assessment is a multi-year project; further, we are still under-staffed, and so this year we are focusing on communication to/with faculty

B. reiterating a point made in the previous meeting: liaisons are most important to faculty when they don’t know who in LIS to contact for a question, issue, or task, though not all communication must go through liaisons if a faculty member already knows who the best person is to help them, though they may also want to keep their liaison in the loop

C. faculty have told us in the past brief email updates from liaisons work best–continued agreement with this from faculty around the table

D. Carrie asked “What do faculty most need to know from LIS?” and mentioned there are no new surveys of faculty planned, as we already have various data from MISO & others done in the past couple of years.
–Mary Ellen: help with, information, and sharing opportunities concerning Moodle. Because the Moodle system is closed, unlike Segue, faculty cannot see what other faculty are doing with the software without being added to classes. It’s harder to share innovation and efficient tips with each other; liaisons should facilitate help with this. Last year, Mary Ellen expressed interest in an online Moodle discussion group; the tool we suggested in response didn’t meet her needs; Carrie will follow up.
–Louisa: agreed with above, wondered if LIS can help facilitate online discussions of how faculty are using/can get the most out of Moodle & WordPress.
–Ellie: agreed with above, expressed satisfaction with her liaison (Steve Bertolino) in providing timely and helpful service even with random questions
–Louisa: would like to see more updates on library collections, and how the collection is growing and being directed for growth. Rebekah responded by giving a brief explanation of the Approval Plan used to guide collection development, and urged faculty to, if they see certain publishers as crucial for their teaching or scholarship and we don’t have many of their volumes, to get in touch with herself or their liaison to suggest adding publishers to the Approval Plan
–Stefano asked if faculty find themselves borrowing a certain volume or type of volume repeatedly from NExpress or ILL, could they order it or work with their liaison to develop the collection in that field. Rebekah and Terry both affirmed that this is encouraged.
–Holly said she sends seniors in regularly for consultations.
–Holly noted that the questions she doesn’t find herself asking are related to the Helpdesk, because she’s generally been frustrated with delayed or insufficient help she and her students have received there historically – the rest of the faculty around the table concurred.
–Holly wondered how much liaisons could assist with exploring new software for curricular technology and lamented how the Curricular Technologist position formerly held by Alex Chapin has still not been filled – Louisa and Ellie concurred. Lynda.com was cited by faculty as a useful learning tool. Mary Ellen asked for an update on the job search for that position and Terry responded.
–This led into a side discussion involving Terry sharing briefly about some of the MISO survey findings: that faculty’s highest general LIS concerns included fixing computer problems, backing up data, interest in graphics software packages, information security, and copyright concerns. He asked if the assembled faculty agreed with those concerns. Ellie, Holly, Louisa, and Stefano all expressed anxiety concerning what they described as “run-around” at the Helpdesk generally and frequent service that was not prompt or efficient. In particular there was frustration at issues relating to their laptops needing to be reimaged or updated and these processes taking more than a day to accomplish, which greatly affects their teaching as they use their laptops every day to teach. Concerns were expressed by the faculty generally that the loaner laptops in Circulation are not a helpful solution due to their age, their slowness, short battery life (age again), and not knowing what kind of shape the previous person who checked them out returned them in. An idea was floated that Helpdesk could put together a webpage about “the five most common things that can go wrong with your faculty laptop and how to fix them.” Due to time restraints we didn’t discuss the rest of the MISO concerns.

2. Curricular Technology Stats & Future Directions – Joe Antonioli. Joe shared various stats concerning use of the Course Hub this semester (Fall 2012):

A. 83% of faculty have uploaded something to the Hub. 99% of the students have at least one class with some link on its Course Hub that’s more than the basic catalog and scheduling information. Literally 22 students have a course configuration this fall where none of their courses use the Hub at all.

B. 47% of faculty have added a link to MiddFiles. 85% of students have at least one class with a professor using MiddFiles.
–Mary Ellen asked if that meant almost half of the faculty are still using our oldest in-use curricular technology, which Joe confirmed.

C. 30% of faculty have added a Moodle link. 65% of students have at least one class with a Moodle link.
–Louisa commented that she’s considering using the Course Hub as the focal point for curricular technology for her classes next semester as opposed to Moodle, which she currently uses. Her reasons include a frustration with the layout of Moodle, its aesthetic qualities, and that she feels without a staffer in the Curricular Technologist position, LIS has not been able to move forward with faculty support for Moodle in an acceptable way. The rest of the assembled faculty generally concurred with Louisa’s statement about the Curricular Technologist position. Mary Ellen mentioned that liaisons aren’t able to address “nuanced questions” about Moodle – Louisa added the term “back-end questions” as well – and it’s why a hire in the Curricular Technologist position soon is important.

D. 9% of faculty have added a WordPress link. 21% of students have at least one class with a WordPress link.

E. 30% of faculty have uploaded a syllabus to the Hub. 69% of students have at least one class with an uploaded syllabus.
–Holly brought up the idea of having departmental coordinators upload syllabi for all courses in their department each semester, since they collect syllabi for record-keeping each semester already. LIS staff agreed to look into this.
–Louisa mentioned a technical issue with Moodle: that students can’t easily tell when they’re not logged into the Hub, and if a professor uploads a syllabus but doesn’t make it public, students don’t understand they’re not logged in and that’s why they aren’t seeing it. To deal with this she’s made her syllabi open to public viewing, which she’s not comfortable with as a long-term solution.

F. Joe talked about how LIS will be upgrading to Moodle 2.0 very soon, and will send out a date for the conversion once he knows it. Everything in everyone’s sites will be upgraded automatically and backups will be kept if they are any issues. Very few cosmetic changes will occur as a result of this, but back-end mechanics will run more smoothly.

1.    Update on the Information Literacy Pilots  - Brenda Ellis began by giving the address go/link (go/infolit), which describes the information literacy initiative at Middlebury and handing out a printout from the site. Currently there are two departments building out the specific set of research skills students are expected to master for graduation – chemistry and the history of art and architecture.  She reiterated the long term goal is to build out information literacy learning goals embedded within each department on campus.

 2.    Update on the changes with the implementation of Moodle 2 Adam Franco demonstrated the few changes/upgrades to Moodle that will be implemented in January. The changes are minor, and in most causes limit the number of “clicks” for several operations – such as adding files to a Moodle site have been decreased. Joy will be updating the Moodle guide (http://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/LIS/Moodle) to reflect the changes.

3.    Update on the Virtual Language Lab  Joe Antonioli explained that this last year, a team invited demonstrations from several vendors for replacement of the old tape driven language labs in Sunderland. The team evaluated several, and was specifically looking for a virtual solution which would not be tied to either a specific space on campus or specific equipment. The group has engaged a vendor and will be running a pilot project this spring, with an eye towards having it fully in place by this summer’s language school.

4.    Demonstration/Discussion of MarkIn Faculty in the German department and the director of the German School abroad have been looking for a piece of software which would assist them in standardizing essay grading, help students see patterns in their mistakes – such as adjective endings, allow the students to understand how to correct their grammatical errors themselves and improve their writing skills. Roger Russi demonstrated how he and several other faculty in the German Department are using MarkIn for that purpose.

Currently, MarkIn uses a Windows platform. It is possible to run the program on a Mac using the Parallels Desktop Program which creates a “second desktop” running the Windows operating system.

LIS purchased 20 seats for this software. Faculty who are interested in using it should contact Lisa Terrier.

If the creators/owners of MarkIn moved the software to a “virtual environment” then machine platform wouldn’t matter. Joy will contact Creative Technology and ask if they have any plans to move the program to a virtual space.

5.    Discussion about etextbooks Terry Simpkins explained that Middlebury was approached by Educause last year and invited to take part in an etexbook pilot with publisher McGraw Hill. Educause and McGraw Hill were interested in adding the participation of a liberal arts college, since most of the usage of etextbooks to date has been by large research institutions. LIS worked with the bookstore to identify faculty using the textbooks offered by McGraw-Hill and contacted those faculty members directly. Terry apologized to any departments who felt that the request to use an etext should have been directed to the department as a whole and to department chairs in particular. LIS doesn’t have any plans at the moment to participate in any more pilot projects – but would do so if there is further interest and would consult more closely with departments before signing on to such an experiment. If LIS were to participate it would be with a project that included multiple textbook publishers so that there would be a broader number of courses/departments participating. Students particularly are hoping for ways to lower their expenses. Depending on the pricing model that publishers use, it is possible that ebooks may be a partial solution to mitigate some of the cost.

Agenda:
- Moodle and Course Hub Review (Shel)
- Liaison program (Brenda &/or Shel or Carrie?)
- Help Desk Assessment (Shel)
- information literacy survey (Brenda)
- library collection development issues (Brenda)
- anything faculty want to raise

Purpose of meeting:  Get feedback from faculty about what needs are being met, and where we need to improve our services.  Also to get word out about what we’re working on.

Moodle and Course Hub Review (Shel)
Question about course hub:  How does link to e-res get added to course hub?  Reserves adds it.

Course Hub (http://go.middlebury.edu/hub):

Overview:  Even if you do nothing, description and time shows up.  E-res link is added if you have e-res.  Can add additional resources.  Hub was created for the students, based on feedback.  Course sites can be on many different platforms.  Hub can bring them together for the student.

How broadly is this being used by faculty?  In fall 2011 (keep in mind, there was insufficient time for faculty to make transition from Segue to new platforms), there were 599 sites:  112 had e-res, 135 used moodle, 29 used wordpress, 129 uploaded syllabus.

Discussion:
·     All 3 faculty in attendance are using the hub.
·     Useful?  No students have asked for syllabus!
·    One hangup:  Wanted to upload a document to supplement the syllabus (eg, a writing prompt), but course hub does not allow this.  Reason:  We wanted to avoid creating another Segue.
·     Another issue:  Wanted to upload PowerPoints.  Alternative:  classes folder (eg, handouts folder or public_html folder), Moodle, e-res.  Just have to get used to the idea that the course hub just directs students to material in other places; it doesn’t house all materials.
·     One faculty member is tweeting, would like to stream tweets to hub, but can’t set hub to display anRSS feed; hub will only link to Twitter page.  Can’t seem to display RSS feed in moodle either.  WordPress will allow though.
·     Suggestion:  Could create a Facebook group.  But do students think this is a good idea?  In some cases, students have created the group for a class.

Liaison Program
Going well.  It’s so easy to get information; seamless; we wouldn’t know how much work you’re doing to keep us connected til you’re out.  Kudos to Kellam, she’s great.

Communication via email good, sending smaller targeted messages rather than one large update is preferred.

Comment:  Need to find a better way to deal with assignment submission.  Right now, using email.

Suggestion:  Could use the classes folder on middfiles.  Or could use Moodle, which allows you to respond.

Question:  When to do Moodle workshop?  Right after classes end (Senior Week), with lunch.  Late August?  Perhaps not, many faculty not back on campus yet.

Comment:  Faculty miss having students do screenings.  Some faculty don’t live near campus.  Question:  What service would faculty be more willing to give up?  Can’t think of anything.  Faculty understand that cutbacks hit LIS hard and feel like this is the “lifeblood” of the campus and shouldn’t have been cut.

Helpdesk Discussion:
·     Most would say they’ve received excellent help.  There are great people working in the helpdesk.
·     Feeling that helpdesk is understaffed, people are stretched thin.
·     Walk-in is closed at the middle of the day (lunch).
·     One recent issue:  Library printer was printing jobs that weren’t released from print release station.
·     Just get the sense that we’re overworked, spread thin, since the budget cuts.  Numbers went from (~100) to (~80).
·     Loaner laptops don’t have printer drivers installed on them.  (Matters because when faculty laptop fails, they use a loaner.)
·     When a person experiences a failure, they avoid the service in the future.  For example, one prof had a laptop failure and it took a long time to get it, so he bought his own.
·     Network in this building seems “wacky.”  Recent?  Yes.  One potential reason is that Sophos roll-out has created some issues.  Another potential reason is firewall, our attempts at protection.
·     Some have reported missing email messages—sometimes message isn’t received here, sometimes message isn’t sent out.  Email will go to gmail but not Midd email. Not in junk mail folder.  Can add a person to a “Safe sender” list (in Outlook 2007:  Actions>Junk email>Add to safe senders list…).
·     Question:  What is the upgrade schedule?  Every 4 years. People will be contacted.  Can check status by filling out form at http://go.middlebury.edu/upgrade.

 Information Literacy Survey
We performed a baseline assessment of research and technology skills of first-year students this fall.  Brenda shared the summary report.  Later, we’ll be able to compare our students with students at other schools.  If you read nothing else, read the last page.

Some of the findings:  Students don’t know when to cite.  Students don’t know what “scholarly” means.  Students don’t know where to go for help; they’re used to going to their teachers but don’t know they can get help from a librarian (they more often go to friends and parents).  We’ll share with all faculty.

Library collection development
Rebekah Irwin, Head of Collections and Digital Initiatives introduced herself.

go/requests:  Easy way to make purchase requests.

News:  If you want a new journal subscription, you may request through the go/requests form.  The one-for-one policy no longer applies; we no longer need to drop a subscription to add a subscription.  We’re more cautious in making decisions about journal subscriptions since they are an ongoing expense, but we now can consider them throughout the year and we can add a title even if we don’t cancel a title.  Please do request journal subscriptions if you see a need.

Planning to do a journal subscription review for each department in the next 1-2 years.

Discussion:  Can we revisit decisions about purchases?  For example, our China Data Online subscription doesn’t include data from the local level (it’s expensive).

Attending: Carrie Macfarlane, Terry Simpkins, Bryan Carson, Brenda Ellis, Carol Peddie, Steve Bertolino (notes), Rebekah Irwin, Hans Raum, Roger Sandwick, David Dorman, Daniel Scharstein, Rick Bunt, Bill Hegman, Bob Cluss, Jason Arndt, Pete Ryan.

The topics of this meeting were:

1. Library collection development updates
2. Information literacy survey
3. Tech support
4. Updates

1. Library collection development updates – Requests for journals, other new processes (Rebekah)

Change in collection development policy: the “1-for-1” requirement for journal considerations is no more. History and Film/Media volunteered to go through their full list of journals in their area and see what they don’t need anymore. We’re not asking other departments to do this at this time, but that may happen in a few years. We’ve also changed our workflow so that the time between requests and purchasing of new journal subscriptions is shorter.

Discussion:

–Daniel mentioned it might be worth it to have occasional emails to chairs listing journals for their department and prices
–Rick mentioned for himself that trading cost for online access is something he’s interested in and perhaps others in the sciences would be interested too. Roger agreed and said we could even go further and, for journals we have online and paper access for (ie. bound journals), possibly withdraw the bound journals.
–Rebekah pointed out the dozen bound journals that Steve and the Physics faculty have agreed to weed out; Steve added a few specifics including that around 38 shelves will be freed as a result of the physical weeding, with no loss in online access to content.
–David agreed with Roger’s idea and suggested doing it for all science departments regardless, saying the Math department at least would like to do this.
–Bob asked if Armstrong is gaining space naturally; Carrie, Rebekah and Terry said no, but there should be an increase in space, to some extent, over the next 5 years because of weeding processes which will likely include bound journals as well as some monographs. More space becoming available upstairs in Armstrong is more likely than downstairs.
–Rick mentioned journals we have, for example, bound from 1960-74 but nothing previous or subsequent – should we get rid of those too, just because of the incomplete run?
–Generally, faculty are unsentimental and want to withdraw/cancel in favor of online.

2. Information literacy survey – Share results and ask for input (Brenda) 

The survey we used is composed of 30 questions and is also used by several other liberal arts colleges we compare ourselves with. It was given to students coming into Middlebury as first-years this past fall to get a sense of where they’re coming from in terms of information literacy. Brenda shared a one-page list of results that was felt were most significant. We intend to repeat the survey again this fall with the new class of first-years, with slight revisions for more tech questions and a slightly different method of administering the survey so we might hopefully get a higher response rate. Brenda remarked that because students used to not know where to start their research, they started at the library with a librarian, but now they just jump on an online search engine, but they don’t know how to refine results or understand when they have found good results. They’re frequently not sure when to cite sources. They don’t tend to understand peer review. We’re sharing these things to educate faculty as to some of the things they may be dealing with in first-year seminars, and how we as librarians can help. For more information, see http://go.middlebury.edu/infolit.

Discussion

–Jason asked about surveying seniors; Brenda talked about how we’d like to expand the survey to seniors in the future. At the moment we’re focusing on first-years so we can get baseline data.
–Bob mentioned his opinion that a one-page summary is an excellent idea in order to get faculty to look at the results. He also said that survey fatigue is a concern for juniors and seniors, and perhaps a good way to gain additional data would be to survey the first-years again at the end of the first-year seminar or the end of the freshman year.
–Brenda mentioned that around 85% of this year’s first-year seminars have a librarian coming into their seminar, which is great, but we’d love to work on that 15%, plus it means that the 15% are going on to other upper-level classes unprepared; Roger mentioned that 85% is pretty good in terms of participation; David said his opinion was that professors should be referring unprepared students to librarians directly at any stage. He said we should treat learning to research in college like it was learning to ride a bicycle, with multiple opportunities given to students to work at it.
–Rick mentioned another concern, that College administration would like to see many things incorporated into the first-year seminar experience, and information literacy, while having a strong argument for itself, is competing with those other things, some of which are not explicitly academic. Terry brought up that there’s work being done by librarians in other instruction-related areas, such as tutorials and more varied support for Reference questions including texting and online chat.
-Generally, faculty are concerned to hear that students don’t know how to evaluate sources effectively, or how and when to cite sources. We should be sure to emphasize these points when we talk about research instruction for students, especially in the first-year seminar.

3. Tech support – BiHall followups, HelpDesk initiatives (Carrie, Terry)

–Carrie talked about how the new Science Data Librarian position has a strong tech component and we’d like the successful candidate to have a direct connection with the Helpdesk, and perhaps also provide some specialized software help. We’re still in the hiring process and hope to have the new employee in place this summer.
–Carrie highlighted that a Drupal work session and a Segue Migration workshop were offered this semester in Armstrong with little to no attendance, and asked when holding workshops in Armstrong would be most profitable for faculty.

Discussion:

–Rick expressed that one difficulty is that there’s an impression among faculty that LIS is always changing the website software, and there’s less impetus to learn new programs when there’s a belief that we’ll just change it in a few years anyways. Certainly some of this is inevitable with the pace of technology growth and change, but a balance should be worked at to encourage the most value for constant investment on the faculty’s part.
–Terry added some notes from the Helpdesk. Service Level Agreements are being created in order to help both faculty and staff know what kind of support is expected in all situations. There will be a table of response times that Helpdesk will adhere to, and this will give everyone realistic expectations of the times needed to address issues. Issues involving teachers currently teaching in a classroom always get immediate priority. Currently there are a few senior specialist positions open at Helpdesk, and interviews are being set up right now, with the hope that new staff will be added this summer. A new ticketing system to replace HEAT is being looked into, with the goal to have a more flexible system including more opportunity for faculty to check up on their requests, and we hope to have that in place by the end of calendar year 2012.
–Bob asked about whether faculty are satisfied with Helpdesk’s support, and Terry and Carol responded that we hope to have some clear results from the MISO survey. Bob opened the question to the room. Jason and David both said they or other colleagues had experiences with immediate need in a classroom and Helpdesk responded immediately.

4. Updates (Carrie)
–Carrie asked if there’s a good time to offer Segue Migration Workshops since Segue will be turned off August 31. Carol added that about 90% of sites haven’t been migrated; Bryan added that many sites are old and can simply be checked off as not needed anymore, but faculty need to choose that option. He reiterated that migrating a Segue site is easier than creating one, and that faculty will continue to get monthly reminder emails until they migrate or delete sites or dump them into MiddFiles. Carrie noted that iaisons are available to help one-on-one, but is worried that come crunch time there won’t be enough liaisons to help everyone one-on-one. Bob volunteered that right after Commencement would be a good time to remind faculty again and offer workshops.
–Carrie mentioned that our 3 Science Data Librarian candidates are coming in May and all science faculty are invited to their presentations in order to provide input to the search committee. Invites to presentations will be forthcoming from Carrie.

Attending:  Faculty: Holly Allen (AMST, Co-Chair), Claudio Medeiros (THEATRE), Elizabeth Morrison (for Ellie Bagley, RELI), Louisa Burnham (HIST), Mary Ellen Bertolini (Writing Program/CTLR), Jeff Buettner (MUSIC), Eddie Vazquez (HARC), Ian Sutherland (for Marc Witkin, CLASSICS), Brett Millier (ENAM), Stefano Mula (COMPLIT), Jenn Ponder (DANCE), Matty Woodruff (PHIL) ; LIS: Andy Wentink (Co-Chair), Carrie Macfarlane, Steve Bertolino, Jess Isler, Joy Pile; Absent: Louise Stein (FMMC); Representative from Studio Art (to be appointed)

Meeting was called to order at 12:15 by LIS Co-Chair Andy Wentink, who welcomed the group, reviewed meeting protocols, and requested members to introduce themselves. He announced that there was a change in the agenda. Video Recording/Storage Issues would be discussed first, since Claudio Medeiros, who proposed the agenda item, needed to leave early.

Agenda Items:

1. Video Recording/Storage issues
2. Moodle and Course Hub Implementation
3. LIS/Faculty communications
4. Liaison Program
5. Need for more faculty carrels in library

1. Video Recording/Storage issues

Claudio voiced concern about the organization and storage of performed work by Theatre majors, including senior projects, performances, etc.

• To date, most work has been recorded by faculty or students with equipment within the department, resulting in inconsistent, often poor, quality recordings with limited pedagogical value
• Even with equipment borrowed from Media Services recordings made by Theatre students/staff/faculty with limited experience resulted in poor quality
• What he wants from LIS is: the technical equipment and qualified personnel to create high quality recordings of enduring pedagogical value
• The ability to store, catalog. And provide access (including online delivery) to these resources
• An organizational workflow for scheduling tapings and arranging for professional equipment and qualified staff to operate it
• Other faculty at the meeting agreed with the potential pedagogical value of producing recordings of student work across the curriculum

Jenn Ponder: The Dance Program has developed an efficient workflow for recording procedures; they would be happy to discuss with Theatre (interdepartmental communication)

• Dance has made arrangements with Special Collections for depositing those sections of their archives not currently being used in the curriculum, where they will be cataloged and archived; plans for digitizing these recordings

Andy Wentink: Special Collections already archives Theatre, Dance, FMMC ; SC would be pleased to work out an archiving schedule for analog media recordings; digital files currently are not the purview of SC; at present, MiddMedia is most probably the appropriate place for archiving digital recordings;  will have to check with IT

Other questions raised:

• Method of online delivery of media resources – iTunes–type streaming coming, but not yet available
• How to transfer already existing analog recordings to digital
  • student assistants in DANCE and FMMC currently render this service
  • LIS offers training for faculty/staff/students from digital media tutors

Question of intellectual property/copyright was raised

• Discussion of where fair use ends and copyright infringement begins
• Creating archival copies was discussed: copyrighted analog recordings no longer in any other currently supported formats are transferred to DVD
  • These recordings are available for research and teaching with the proviso that the archival DVDs are used only in the Library, although exceptions to the rule might be considered under extraordinary circumstances
  • Carrie Macfarlane said she would look into this practice and report back to the Group
  • The question was raised regarding limited access (e.g., campus only) not only to the above resources but to student-generated works as well

Conclusions: 1) The discussion confirmed the value of enhanced inter-divisional communication in these Group meetings; 2) the role of LIS in resolving these issues will be raised; 3) these detailed minutes will be reported to FLAC and posted to the Blog for other Divisional Groups to review

2. Moodle and Course Hub Implementation

There was consensus that other than for the Faculty Test Group in the Spring, faculty was not happy with the Moodle/Course Hub implementation process; Faculty felt that they were not given the appropriate tools to implement new course sites in time for the Fall 2011 Semester

Librarians in attendance agreed that the training timeline, complicated by schedule conflicts for faculty and LIS staff,  and that addressing the challenge of training for faculty at different levels of preparedness, was problematic. Faculty was reminded that ongoing Moodle training was available in workshops offered by Alex Chapin and Bryan Carson and in tutorials offered by Lynda.com.  Carrie Macfarlane acknowledged the scheduling challenges.

Question was asked: when would be a good time for training? One complicating factor was the late finalization of the contract with Remote-Learner the Moodle vendor.

3.  LIS/Faculty communications

The above segued into a discussion of LIS/Faculty communications

Mary Ellen Bertolini questioned the efficacy of LIS faculty communication with faculty. There was consensus among the faculty that

• the “language” used by LIS in attempting to reach everyone who needs to be reached;
• faculty are not likely to respond to generic subject lines, e.g., “Updates from LIS”
• Louisa Burnham suggested and others concurred that faculty prefer subject lines that directly address important issues, e.g., “Are you reaching all students in Moodle?” or. “New Research Sources Available”

Mary Ellen Bertolini suggested creating a Moodle listserv to improve communication between LIS and Moodle users. There was wide approval of this recommendation among the group.

Nevertheless, most members of the group agreed that old habits/routines/lines of communication are hard to break, and many still bypass new procedures instituted by LIS and go directly to LIS staff they have worked with over years for LIS updates

4. Liaison Program

A discussion of the efficacy of the Liaison program ensued.

Continuing from the above discussion, Holly Allen initiated a discussion in which there was consensus that faculty appreciate and have had rewarding experiences with the Liaison program, especially in regard to the pedagogical value of librarians providing library orientation and research methods classes for FYSE, Jr. & Sr. thesis students, collection development, course page and, in some cases, syllabus creation.

There was agreement, however, that many faculty members have difficulty understanding the value of the “Primary Liaison” model, especially regarding technology issues, which they see as an impediment to direct and immediate access to expert LIS staff who have proved helpful in the past.

Librarians responded that contacting Primary Liaisons is not mandatory.  Faculty should be aware of these contacts especially for circumstances in which they don’t know whom to contact.

There was a recommendation for Librarians/Primary Liaisons to put other members of Liaison teams on departmental Subject Guides. Librarians recommended in turn, that faculty include their liaisons on their departmental pages

5. Need for more faculty carrels in library

Matty Woodruff raised the following issue:

“There is an urgent need for more faculty carrels in the library. Faculty members are always under pressure to ‘publish or perish.’  The expectations for publishing to get tenure have increased here. Hence the need for faculty members to have library carrels has also increased.

In my experience, a library carrel for a Humanities professor can be as important as a lab is for a Science professor: the essential space for research that leads to publishing that is required for tenure and promotion. A library carrel is far less expensive than a full lab. Yet there is a shortage of faculty carrels in the library and a waiting list of professors trying to get one.

By adding a door to a suite of already existing desks on the upper level of Davis Library, one could efficiently and inexpensively add another room of much needed faculty carrels. I’d be glad to show you what I have in mind.”

There was broad support among faculty for this suggestion.

6. Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.