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)

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?

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: Cluss, Bob; Scharstein, Daniel; Ryan, Peter Crowley; Dorman, David R.; Sandwick, Roger K.; Arndt, Jason D.; Graham, Noah M.; Hegman, William; Darrow, Alison P.; Sax, Shel; Bertolino, Steven J.; Carson, Bryan P.; Raum, Hans L.; Lloyd, Andrea H.; Simpkins, Terry W.; Irwin, Rebekah L.

The topics of this meeting were:

1. Virtual computer labs
2. Specialized software issues
3. Communication between LIS and the Departments
4. Faculty Authors Collection
5. Information Literacy pilots with CHEM and HARC
6. Updates and announcements

1. Virtual computer labs: What are they, and what to do if you’re interested

• Software can be installed on virtual machines, students log in to those machines from their own laptops to use the software
• Purpose is to offset any lack of availability of physical computer labs
• Mac or PC, shouldn’t matter.
• Graphics-heavy, lots of processing – should test in advance.
• Interested? Software survey.

Discussion:

• Virtual lab was discussed at the science heads meeting.  There has been  interest in the sciences, so here’s a recap:  LIS offers a virtual computer option that enables students to access specialized software when not in a specific location.  It also enables faculty to teach in a room that doesn’t have the requisite software.  If interested, faculty can find more information here: Using the Virtual Computer Labs.  If faculty want it for spring 2012, they need to include it in their response to Mary Backus’ recent software survey.
• Virtual software has to be installed on the client machines – it is client independent

2. Specialized software issues: Chem would like to have a single contact person

• Chem Dept uses ChemBioDraw, needs to be renewed each year.
• LIS wants the process to be as easy as possible.
• Renewals are handled completely externally, by the vendor. Works best when the user does the renewal and goes straight to ChemBioDraw with questions.
• LIS is trying to get a single contact point at the vendor.
• Other software requires renewals too, eg Mathematica.
• If other departments have experienced difficulty with annual renewals, please let us know and we’ll see what we can do.

Discussion:

• External renewals seems to be a trend.  
• Noah mentioned that it is important to have someone at LIS be the main contact.  
• Roger reported some frustration with needing to start from scratch each year, especially if get a different person on the Help Desk.  Would like LIS to consider having a specific science contact for labs configuration, teaching space issues, etc. Seems there is some variability in who will respond, the level of service and the response time.  
• Bob will follow up on this request with Mike Roy. 
• Daniel noted that CS has Dave as their sys admin and have expanded support to include Rick and Jim and wondered if something similar could be done for Chemistry. 
• Bill noted that Geography is producing training videos to minimize person-to-person contact needs and wonders if this might be a useful way of reducing demands on the Help Desk. Various folks wanted to see Bill’s training videos.  
• Note also:  We have a new subscription to lynda.com which has many short and helpful training videos.

3. Communication between LIS and the Departments: Are departments/programs adequately informed of changes made by LIS?

• LIS plans for communications regarding major changes to important services, so faculty shouldn’t find themselves surprised about – for example — change from Measure to Moodle.
• Let us know if you encounter a communication breakdown, we’ll try to figure out what happened
  
• There might always be small surprises (that seems to be the nature of technology), but we should be able to avoid the big ones.
• Question: How do you want to learn about changes? One long message or several small messages?

Discussion:

• Dave noted issues with upgrades of software; there have been times when software is updated on some machines and not on others. These inconsistencies cause problems because faculty and students use different versions and therefore instructions for assignments do not always apply. 
• LIS software page (go/software) needs to be current and should include version information
• Noah gave example where Rick maintains a server for him and gives him personalized service when issues arise.
• In response to the question about what types of communication are preferred:  Daniel would like to get frequent smaller emails so that he doesn’t have to scroll through a long email to find the information that he needs.  There was general agreement on this.

4. Faculty Authors:  Science books and articles to Armstrong display/collection?

• Currently, books are on display over at Davis Family Library
• Proposal: Science faculty author works go to Armstrong Faculty Authors Display:  Books and articles are represented (color copy of book jacket or journal cover, eg). Add sign to Davis Family Library Authors Collection (“Science Faculty Authors at Armstrong Library”). 1c of book, housed in Armstrong stacks.

Discussion:

• Rebekah talked about rotating signs – e.g. rotating book cover or journal cover or first page of journal article. At some point, could consider setting up monitors to visualize the location of some of the journal articles.
• Bob thinks this is a great idea, other faculty concurred.  Also wants the Armstrong Library to be called the Armstrong Science Library
• Suggestion that perhaps faculty could send pdf files to LIS and they could then make them part of the display

5. Information Literacy pilots with CHEM and HARC: Update and next steps

• Task: Plan for teaching and assessing intermediate and advanced skills that all majors should graduate with
• Progress: Chem has list of skills and target classes.
• Next: plan for assessment

Discussion:

• Basic skills covered in first year.
• Intermediate and advanced skills should be determined by the department
• Chem Dept. volunteered to participate in the pilot for intermediate and advanced skills
• Chem Dept has worked with Carrie on developing a list of requisite skills
• Next step: how to assess that grads actually have these skills
• History of Art & Archictecure has taken a somewhat different route but they might find it useful to see the model that Chemistry has developed.
• Bob: want to know what the effect of the College Writing courses and the skills developed in research during the thesis process

6. Updates and announcements

• Science Data Librarian request
  > Noah questioned why librarian vs tech support person
  > Carrie clarified that it’s not an either-or situation, several requests will be made
  > Then followed a discussion about what a data librarian is and how it would help principal investigators with their data sets, particular as it relates to NSF grants and appropriately archived data
  > Seems to be the opinion of science faculty that they need both – Andi said that there is a need for tech support but data management and archiving support is also needed
  > Carrie feels that it may be possible for data librarian to to do some of both

• Software survey and Windows 7 - Deadline for software requests (Friday Dec 16, early so that we can test on Windows 7)
  > Jason gave example of his using specialized software for his research but that he uses it his teaching and if his software won’t run on Windows 7, what does he do?
  > Noah says he has the same problem
  >Answer:  Most software should be fine since Windows 7 has been out for a while.  In some cases, an upgrade might be needed. 
• Web of Science (current coverage) ends this month

Leftovers (not discussed at meeting; might be discussed in spring):

• Classrooms and labs: Plans for upgrades: Currently there are 44 “non-smart” classrooms on campus, plus several other spaces used as classrooms during the Language Schools. What is the best method and what should be the schedule and priority for converting them? LIS will convening a group this fall to prioritize upgrade requests, resulting in a budget request for conversion. This group will also be looking at near-future technologies such as small portable projectors that might impact the upgrade decisions.  Question: to provide input into the process regarding which classrooms should be prioritized? Answer: Bob Cluss is making these decisions, so faculty should probably contact him directly if they want to advocate for a specific classroom space
• Ebooks: 44,000 ebooks added to MIDCAT. Can be read online in a browser or downloaded for offline use. We save money by paying only for the books that are used.
• Summon: Your students are using it – do you know what it is? Do you like it? Summon is the Library’s Google-like search box. It’s a single search for books, newspaper articles, journal articles and citations, and more. Summon will try to link directly to full-text if we have it. It searches MIDCAT, the Library’s Digital Collections, and over 90% of our journal articles. For more details see the What’s Summon link next to the search box on the library homepage.
• Scopus: Replaces Web of Science. Similar coverage and easier to use. Thoughts?
• Innovation: Digital humanities, cyberinfrastructure: Three College-wide task forces on innovation have been created, each of which will have LIS representation. Additionally, LIS is forming a group to provide services to the community relating to digital resources and ideas relating to their use in a liberal-arts pedagogy. The LIS group, led by our Head of Collections and Digital Initiatives, is still in its formative stages, but they will be charged with thinking about the services needed and how best to deliver them. This may include an inventory of what is already happening on campus. LIS is investigating how digital resources from special collections, the lecture archive and other sources could or should be integrated. Midd Lab may fit in as sort of a “PR” arm to highlight interesting uses of digital technology in humanities research and pedagogy.
• Moodle and course hub: Is up and running. The number of classes using either Moodle or WorPress is similar in number to the numbers of Segue sites in the past. Segue will become read only by the spring and migration tools, or the ability to archive material on the sites as static HTML or PDF will be available in the spring. Workshops will be offered during J-term, so look for future announcements or see go/lisworkshops. Also short Moodle video tutorials are available on Lynda.com http://go/lynda.
• Google/MSLive evaluation: Shel Sax is heading up an evaluation of moving email hosting from the college to the cloud. LIS will be evaluating two services – Google and MicroSoft Live. There are a number of questions/issues: cost, ease of migration, functionality, service level agreements with the vendors, etc. Should we change mail services, there will be a way of migrating any information stored in our current system and we will retain a middlebury.edu address.

Present: Roger Sandwick, Terry Simpkins, Bryan Carson, Mike Roy, Jason Arndt, Pete Ryan, Daniel Scharstein, Jeremy Ward, Shel Sax, Rick Bunt, Hans Raum, Steve Bertolino, Carrie Macfarlane

The topics of this meeting were:

1. Information literacy update (research and tech skills development and assessment) [Mike Roy]
2. Course management systems (Segue replacement) update [Shel Sax]
3. Pay-per-view journal articles from Wiley [Terry Simpkins]
4. Armstrong Library: Use of space [Carrie]
5. Developing future agendas: Would all members be willing to poll their departments in advance of our meetings? [Carrie]
6. LIS Priorities list: FYI [Carrie]
7. Updates and discussion [everyone]

Notes:

1.  Information literacy update (research and tech skills development and assessment) [Mike Roy]

• Talked about the expansion of information literacy from being bibliographic centric to expand to include technological fluency as well – group within LIS has been working on a comprehensive list of skills, this group has been consulting with FLAC (Faculty LIS Advisory Committee)
• LIS info literacy initiative needs to be integrated into the curriculum, needs to be a partnership with faculty to integrate into the curriculum
• Other thing we’re looking at is timing, when during the undergraduate career does a student need to develop these literacies – logical places include the FYS and the major (so another question is what skills does a student need in order to be successful within her/his field
• NEASC explicitly asks what we do about information literacy and prove that you have both a systematic approach and an assessment rubric/vehicle (how do you actually know that students have attained proficiency)
• By spring, hope to have some details about approach, pilot projects and this will all need to go to the curriculum committee to investigate its impact on curriculum
• Jeremy notes that many departments already do this type of literacy development, part of what we want to do is to document this and then identify gaps which will likely be assessment related – the group doing this work is looking at how to develop meaningful measures with which to proceed
• Terry noted that external groups have already developed some tools that speak to these things
• If literacies can be related to department learning goals, then to the extent students are successful in their discipline, get a two for one
• Jeremy asked about the possibility of a “PE” type credit where you have to learn these literacies independent of their course of study – Mike said that the concern is that the literacy would take place in a curricular vacuum which has been shown to be inferior , e.g. statistics taught in a vacuum
• Roger, starting to develop learning goals for his department and was wondering if literacy could be the one they focus on first

2.  Course management systems (Segue replacement) update [Shel Sax]

• Shel talked about the current pilot project, Sakai, Moodle and Blackboard, noting that since Blackboard is by far the most expensive and proprietary solution, it is an unlikely choice.
• We currently have 25 or so faculty participating in the pilot, 3 with Blackboard, and the rest evenly split between Sakai and Moodle.
• Hope to have decision in place by the end of March
• Plan on surveying students and faculty in the pilot, sessions for faculty feedback, etc.

3.  Pay-per-view journal articles from Wiley [Terry Simpkins]

• Publisher Wiley Blackwell, journal publisher, they are a major publisher of scientific journals which are among the most expensive journals that the-library subscribes to (some as much as $10000 per year
• Over the last 6 months, Terry has looked at the usage statistics focusing on online access for the last 3 years and has found that for a lot of the journals we subscribe to, we are paying as much as $50-150 per use, where per use is a full text download
• Amount Midd has been spending averages 160-170K per year and he was struck by the possibility to finding a better solution: this would be a pay per view model, the library would continue to subscribe to individual high use journals, but for those journals where the cost per use is greater than cost per view, his estimate is that we could potentially save about 80K per year, cutting our costs in half
• One of the benefits is that faculty and students would not be limited to just those titles that we subscribe, but with the pay per view tokens, could have access to any Wiley Blackwell journal that is available online – this might increase usage but unlikely to double
• Put a deposit with the publisher to buy x number of tokens in advance, about $12.50 per use
• From the library point of view, when we subscribe to a title, we own those titles. – when we go to pay per view, we are ‘renting’ specific journal articles
• Faculty won’t notice a difference, the will see the article and then access it seamlessly [note: as the discussion progressed, we learned that sciences faculty would prefer to know when they are about to access a pay-per-view article, so we will have the publisher activate an intervening screen that informs the reader]
• Daniel Scharstein – how to distribute to class?
  • Terry – can print article, save as pdf and do the same type of thing one currently does with journal articles.  Will have to inquire with publisher, but from talking to other colleges who have done this, they’ve found that they’ve been able to do the same things that they’ve done in the past.
• Jeremy-  wonders if there is a ‘PayPal’ model that would allow him to get any article as pay-per-view regardless of publisher
  • Terry replied that every publisher has a different token system and for some the price of token is so high that this pay per view model doesn’t make sense – also when color images or a high resolution copy is required, LIS can help to pick up the extra expense
  • Wiley publications are attractive for this model because the costs are so high and the usage is so low
• Jeremy noted that getting high resolution color journal articles is critical to his discipline and teaching and that ILL isn’t timely for weekly assignments where students are asked to find an article to discuss, this is a challenge especially during winter term
  • Carrie agreed that the current setup which asks researchers to specify in their ILL request that they need high-res color PDF doesn’t work so well for reading assignments with a short deadline.  The automated request system does work very efficiently for the majority of requests.
  • Jeremy and Carrie have been discussing this issue for a while (and in fact our discussions informed the decision to move to pay-per-view for Wiley), and other faculty have been consulted.  More discussion should follow.
• Terry noted that there is a cap so that if there is enough use on one particular journal and if we hit 115% of what it would cost to subscribe to the journal, then we are in effect, at that point, subscribed but this would raise our subscription costs by 15%
• Jeremy is interested in journals that Midd currently doesn’t subscribe to (and in Biology, where journals are extremely expensive), this is often the case
• Wiley B focuses on biology, chemistry, etc. And Terry hopes that with this pay per view system, faculty would have access to journals that they previously couldn’t access so quickly otherwise.  And if this works, this model could be expanded to other publishers
• Terry would like to get feedback from faculty on this change.  Once the new system is in place, faculty will get a message from their liaisons and we ask that they follow up on whether this has been a successful change.  Should be fewer ILL requests.
• Faculty thought that they should be made aware every time they use a Midd token to access an article and Terry will tell Wiley to implement the scheme so that it notifies the faculty that they are spending Midd money
• Daniel suggested that having an array of choices: e.g. Low cost version for $5; higher resolution pdf for $15 aor very high resolution, color version for $20
• Daniel would like to see a list of what journals the CS department subscribes to – LIS does journal reviews every 5 years or so
• Currently stats from these journals are on a publisher by publisher basis and data is dumped in from multiple sources.  Analyzing it takes some time. LIS is purchasing a product called ‘Counter’ that will enable LIS to do more and better analsysis of usage and patterns.  In addition, LIS is hiring a new collection development librarian who will be doing analyses of how LIS spends its library collections money.
• Journals and databases take ~85% of the library budget and journals are about 50% of total expenses
• Overview of process of subscribing to journals:  Some we get because we want a certain type of journal, but as we approach certain levels of expenditure, publishers offer ‘price breaks’ to expand access for only a little bit more, and now there is the pay per view too.

4.  Armstrong Library: Use of space [Carrie]

• In the past 3 years, have reduced the size of print collection to create more reading and study space for students
• Armstrong has been upgraded in terms of electrical power and data capability so that more computers can be installed
• Group studies have large flat-panel screens so that students can do collaborative work on laptops and/or view movies.  One group study can be reserved in advance.
• 5 carrels added to lower study area
• In terms of use:
  • Circulation (past 5 years): use more journals and fewer books, so circulation is down
  • Visitors has gone up, more people coming in to use the library but fewer books taken out
• Buying fewer books and using ‘profiles’ to automate some collection development
  • Jeremy: question on automated book purchases, do these come out of department funds?
  • Bryan said that they’ve done away with Dept. funds, so when a book request comes in, LIS pays for it.
  • Carrie reminded faculty that while we do purchase books based on published reviews, we also encourage faculty to request books (http://go.middlebury.edu/bookorder)  to further ensure that our collection matches curricular needs.
• If there is interest, we could ask the LIS space committee (recently formed and busy with move from Music Library) to take a look at Armstrong
• Still have the plotter in Armstrong, restricted access, – but the rest of the room that the plotter is in is just wasted space
  • Sean O’Neil, who works at the Circ desk in Armstrong, is the person in Armstrong who is currently supporting the plotter.  Cathy Ekstrom also supports. Mack Roark at the Davis Library can provide assistance if needed too.

5.  Developing future agendas: Would all members be willing to poll their departments in advance of our meetings? [Carrie]

• For future agendas, Carrie invited faculty to solicit agenda items and she could provide a block of text for department reps to circulate amongst their departmental colleagues.
• Requests for agenda items also can be parked here:  Sciences Advisory Group – Requests for Future Agenda Items

6.  LIS Priorities list: FYI [Carrie]

• Now a new LIS page that describes LIS priorities so if curious about priorities, check it out

7.  Updates and discussion [everyone]

• Pete asked about Scopus, a competitor to Web of Science.  We had a trial subscription this fall.
  • Bryan Carson (on behalf of Collection Development Advisory Committee) reports that some researchers preferred Scopus or were amenable to a change because of the cost savings.  We’ve already paid for Web of Science and we’re working on related negotiations.

Next meeting:

• Since we met in the middle of the school year instead of the fall, we’ll poll the group in the spring to find out if another meeting is in order.

Attending: Carrie Macfarlane, Jason Arndt, Bob Cluss, Alex Chapin, Hans Raum, Roger Sandwick, Pete Ryan, Matt Dickerson, Shel Sax

The topics of this meeting were:

1.  Update on Segue replacement – 10 min. [Alex Chapin]
2.  Other updates – 5 min. [Carrie -- and anyone else]
3.  Review draft goals for research skills program (see explanation below*) – 15 min. [Carrie]
4.  What impact has the new student printing system had on your classes? – 10 min. [Carrie]

1.  Update on Segue replacement:

• Alex talked about the survey and feedback gathering by the Curricular Technology team:  Why we’re moving away from Segue; We’re still talking with Language Schools, Bread Loaf, MIIStaff.
• Alex thinks that the most likely solution is a ‘best of breed’ model with the idea of a course ‘hub’:  Every course will have a site (Drupal) created for it with course number, name, profile page, instructor, students registered, basic course page to which additional pages can be added.  This might meet the needs of a lot of faculty.  These basic pages will be augmented with links for blog, wiki, online assessment, etc.  In addition, we would add ‘Measure’ to this buffet which has support for grading, assignments, etc.
• Matt D. asked if Measure will provide a way to display grades or support online grading.  Alex says that the biggest tools are the assignment module and online testing (e.g. online multiple choice exam)
• Google Apps for Education: We’re considering it for the College.   It includes Google Docs, Google Sites (so, Google apps could augment course sites too).
• Faculty still find course folders very useful – Google Docs is somewhat analogous but hard to say just yet if it will eventually be able to substitute.
• Our solution is most likely to be an ‘open source’ solution in that the code is freely available
• Timeline:  Initial recommendations by end of month about course management system.  End of summer will make final recommendations and then over fall, implement the ‘course hub’ in Drupal. Pilot projects in winter term.  Next spring begin migration of content from Segue 2 to new solution.
• Matt D. asked about the details of the migration and what to use instead of Segue for new courses or courses that haven’t been taught in a long time.  [Note from Carrie:  this page provides recommendations regarding when (and if) to use Segue vs. other options such as WordPress:  Technologies for Teaching, Learning and Research:  Course Sites).
• WordPress suggested as the best interim tool for creating web sites until this solution is in place – Computer Science has issues with students writing code and instructors wanting to run it, Bob Cluss suggested asking other institutions like Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, etc. basically anyplace with a computer science program has this issue.

2.  Other updates:

• Carrie:  new online subscription to Scientific American because of recent price incentive, back issues from 1993 will soon be available
• Carrie:  invite feedback on potential switch to gmail [Note from Carrie:  You can get updates on the evaluation at Google Apps @ Middlebury, and you can read and comment on recent dialogue at the LIS Blog)
• Shel:  2nd annual Pedagogy and Technology Fair is next week

3.  Review draft goals for research skills program:

• Draft goals for research skills development: Carrie explained the context for this initiative and in particular the impact of re-accreditation on assessment outcomes:
  As part of the reaccreditation process, groups of librarians and technologists have been looking at information literacy standards with an eye towards addressing these more concretely in the curriculum and LIS instruction.  Departments are also examining how they are prepared to meet accreditation and senior work needs.  LIS would like faculty feedback on our work thus far and how it fits in with department objectives.  We seek feedback on this document which pertains to the research skills needed by our students:
  http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgjhxcwm_5d9xgfbhs
• Carrie noted the major difference between status quo and this proposal: this explicitly states what skills students need to have at various levels within the curriculum and incorporates assessment
• This draft document is the first step (the assessment component will come later)
• Perhaps as we go beyond the FYS stuff, we can integrate this into the departmental goals
• Pete said that in his experience, the quality of research improves dramatically with the use of library and technology staff
• Carrie noted that Bowdoin has a research component in each of their first year seminars, led either by librarian or by faculty
• Matt D. suggested that FYS should not satisfy any requirements which would liberate resources, but some courses do fit very well with requirements
• Bob’s feedback on draft document in which 200- and 300-level courses are mentioned:  College Writing courses are other possible courses into which research skills can be incorporated. He thinks that courses that have a CW within the major are courses that are likely candidates for developing research skills – anything that is a course that all students in a major go through (methods course) should have the literacy component built into it.  Bob clarified that he was talking more about methods courses than College writing courses in the Sciences although both types of courses could be appropriate
• Bob thinks that incorporating research skills will enhance and improve the quality of writing
• Pete thinks the FYS is a natural place to integrate these research skills into the curriculum and that it would pay dividends in upper level courses
• Pete’s students wanted more research skills built into the FYS

3.  What impact has the new student printing system had on your classes?

• Matt D: In a College writing class, he moved heavily towards a paperless class, allowing students to turn in drafts electronically.  Writing class submitted a Word document and Matt electronically marked it up. Matt also had all thesis drafts submitted as pdf.  He enabled them for comments using Adobe Pro, then other faculty could use Reader to comment.  Matt thinks it is slightly slower to respond electronically but more effective – saved a lot of paper, was more streamlined – for Matt alone it was 6 senior theses about 60 pages each.
• Pete did all the rough drafts of his 300-level class electronically.  He thinks the days of students’ automatically handing in printed work are coming to an end
• Matt D.:  In college writing class, his students brought their laptops to class and each student used laptop for referring to their readings
• Jason: Has asked students to print out all their paper for his class of 26 students – he finds it difficult to read students papers online.  He thinks he would lose a lot of time.  Pete had 16 students in his class and Matt had 10. Pete thinks he put fewer comments in electronically. Matt simply highlighted passages.  Everyone agreed that commenting in a pdf file is slower than doing it with a hard copy and red pen.
• Pete wondered if there is an application that would facilitate comments  (mentioned that Allison Darrow uses something that would be helpful) – is there a pdf commenting application.
• Some students have asked their professors to print for them (theses, especially)

4.  Topic for future meeting: Bob suggested discussing how changing use patterns have influenced the configuration of library space (see Requests for future meeting topics)

5.  Post-meeting postscript: Matt Landis is sorry he wasn’t able to make the meeting.  In addition, Matt announced that he will be on leave next year.  We will miss him!  We’ll need a new co-convener and a new Biology Department representative.

Attending: Carrie Macfarlane, Matt Landis, Bill Peterson, Bryan Carson, Pete Ryan, Jason Arndt, Bill Hegman, Bob Cluss, Matt Dickerson, Steve Sontum, Shel Sax, Hans Raum, Carol Peddie, Carrie Macfarlane, Dave Dorman, Roger Sandwick

The topics of this meeting were:

1. Announcements
2. Impacts of budget reductions on LIS
3. Updates from previous meetings
4. Follow-up on discussion about research and technology instruction for students
5. Feedback on our meetings

1. Announcements:

• LIS and the CTLR are looking for examples of  innovative uses of technology to feature on the new Teaching with Technology Blog (see some of your BiHall colleagues in the Interviews section) and in next year’s Pedagogy and Technology Fair.  If you or any of your colleagues might be interested in sharing how you’ve been using technology in the classroom, please let Carrie or Matt know.

2. Impacts of budget reductions on LIS (Carol Peddie)
Operating budget reduced by 9.5% or $340,000

• This includes library resources, software, professional development funds – everything but computers and network equipment.  Many cuts were made behind the scenes.
• LIS pays over $1 million in software contracts for existing software, and inflation rate 5% – 15%, so the reduction hits hard.
• Faculty software ranges from $100 for site license to $1500 per seat.
• The library resource budget was cut by over $100,000.

Some reductions in LIS so far:

• library resources cut by $100K:  bought fewer books, put money toward increasing costs of electronic resources and journal subscriptions
• maintenance contracts reduced from 24/7 to Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00
• going through software packages on a case by case basis
• eliminated Novell service contract
• changes in telephone services including eliminating phones in student rooms
• Comment from Matt Dickerson:  a lot of journals are bundled and therefore we can’t save money by canceling a specific journal, but getting print journals is no longer critical.  Matt sometimes gets papers that he needs by going to the web site of the author or requesting the paper directly from the author.
• Question from Bob Cluss:  Should sciences departments/heads meet to determine if there are any journals that can be cut?
• Answer from Carrie and Bryan:  That could be helpful.  Carrie will follow up on this in the spring.  Keep in mind that savings might not be huge since we reviewed all science journal subscriptions just a few years ago. Also, students may need access to journals that faculty don’t need.  For electronic journals, we can assess use stats.

Capital budget (classroom equipment, projectors, computer labs, network infrastructure):

• cut by 35% – $650,000 — a major hit — almost a 50% reduction in 2 years ( $1.3 million in 2 years)
• desktop replacement will have to be reduced
• looking at computer virtualization
• looking at data on all public stations to identify the lowest-utilization machines, and retire them from service, eg 18 computers in CFA with very low utilization
• Comment from Bob Cluss has instruments budget that supports equipment for teaching and is replacing computers that are tethered to scientific equipment. This budget also purchased some laptops for Biology.   LIS cannot replace existing stock of computers on a one-for-one basis
• Comment from Bob Cluss:  teaching labs are a priority, as is maintaining the quality of our classes

Changes to services (some still under consideration):

• one impact for everyone will be reduced services; LIS has lost 23 people and probably will lose another 5 for about a 30% reduction in staff.  Our staffing is at about the same level that it was 10 years ago but demands for support are increasing.
• reduced support for showing of DVD’s in class; still support 16 and 35 mm showings
• restrictions in printing –  print release in library and public labs, started charging guests for printing
• reducing student telephone services – phones in common areas but mostly relying on student use of their own cellphones
• possibly a different process for requesting new equipment (still in process)
• we don’t have funds to buy multiple software packages that do roughly the same thing, so we might have to standardize
• film rental – change in process
• reduction in inter-library loans or some delay in service, e.g. no ILL over the weekend, etc.
• videotaping of campus events – needs to be reduced since media services has lost a number of staff.   Requests for taping lectures, special events, etc. are increasing but staff has been reduced.
• Comment from David Dorman:  it is difficult to find the events that have been taped.  Carol asked for examples which Dave will forward.
• Help Desk – temporary coverage plan to shore up for staff losses but we may have to reduce hours in evenings and weekends.  We will keep in mind that Monterey folks, in a different time zone, still need help
• Question from Steve Sontum:  Are there any possibilities for consortial contracts?
• Answer from Carol:  We generally don’t try Vermont consortia because there are too few schools; some of our contracts are with Educause, NITLE, etc
• Question from Matt Landis: any way to minimize the number of licenses by using a key server?
• Answer from Carol:  yes, we are implementing a key server to accomplish just this but some applications don’t work with key server technology.  There’s also the possibility of virtualization.  We look at each software package and ask how it is licensed, how it is paid for and are there any potential savings to be realized
• LIS has been supporting language schools and schools abroad for years – our staffing is at about the same level that it was 10 years ago but demands for support are increasing

3. Updates from previous meetings:

Some users found that Tigercat was slow.  Answer was that things should be faster DFS.

• Comment from Bill Hegman:  getting rid of Novell is a big improvement.  much smoother, faster now.

Software updates and license expirations happen unannounced and at inopportune times.

• LIS will work on calendar for software expiration dates – and will try to make this public?
• Another issue is the changing of versions in the middle of semester – DON’T DO THIS – we need to advise and consult before upgrading

Network registration problems for fixed-IP computers

• Problem is that sometimes a fixed-IP computer is bumped off the network and because it needs to be re-registered
• Solution is that Howie McCausland invites faculty who have this issue to contact him so that they can find a solution together.

Web makeover

• Question was whether the CMS data will be archived.  Answer is that there is no fixed date as to when the old website will be mothballed; depends in part on how the work progresses in the next month.  Will be archived, but not indefinitely.
• Question was about intellectual property issues – does LIS check websites for illegal content?  Answer is that LIS doesn’t go to that level of detail; College handbook covers these issues.
• Steve Sontum asked about the content of new web site.   Do faculty need to check the new website to review any associated intellectual property?  Answer is that whatever an individual faculty member puts up on his/her page is his/her responsibility.
  

Segue transition

• Visit the Segue from Segue blog for updates on our move to a new course management system

4. Follow-up on discussion about research and technology instruction

• Summary of our May discussion is here (orientation-summary)
• Based on the May discussion, Carrie asked if faculty would like to recommend that their colleagues teaching first year seminars incorporate research and technology instruction.  This part of the meeting was hurried, but a “recommendation” didn’t seem controversial.   Pete Ryan spoke in favor or having tech and lib. instruction as part of the  course.  He thinks that it is beneficial and ultimately a time saver.

5. Feedback on our meetings

We ran out of time for this but Carrie really does want to know:  Are these meetings useful?  Attendance seems to indicate that they are.  But still, there’s always room for improvement.

When we started these groups, we promised that meeting agendas would be set by the groups.   We tried to vote on discussion topics early on, with minimal response.  How about we ask you for agenda items before each meeting?  LIS will probably have agenda items too, but it would be great if discussion topics were determined at least in part by you.  I’ve started a list of requested agenda items.  I’ll send you all a reminder to add to it in the spring.

How else could these meetings be improved? Please send your thoughts to Carrie or Matt, or post them as a response here (anonymous is fine!).

Agenda:

1. Announcements [5 minutes]

• LIS and the CTLR are looking for examples of  innovative uses of technology to feature on the new Teaching with Technology Blog and in next year’s Pedagogy and Technology Fair.
• Other announcements?

2. Effects of budget cuts on LIS services and resources (Carol Peddie) [20 minutes]

3. Updates and followup from previous meetings: [15 minutes]

• Is DFS/middfiles faster than Tigercat?
• Calendar for software updates:  coming.
• Network registration issues for fixed-location computers: contact Howie.
• Web Makeover:
  • Still haven’t determined date when old system will be unavailable.
  • Intellectual property:  The copyright guidelines in the college handbook are there to assist people to make this determination.  The handbook also has guidelines on sharing student records.  It is not our policy to review posted material unless we are notified that there is a problem.

• Segue blog for updates.  And, Alex Chapin is interested in coming to a future meeting.

4. Next steps for our May discussion on research and tech instruction [10 minutes]

5. Feedback, please:  Are these meetings useful?  How could they be better? [5 minutes]

6. Next meeting:  March? [5 minutes]

These are questions and suggestions that were raised in the Sciences Advisory Group’s May meeting.

Web Makeover:

1. When will LIS will provide each department with its inventory of pages?
   Outcome: We are reviewing and sorting the inventory lists of more than 50,000 url’s from the current web site, and will be asking each department to review our lists and edit them so that we have an accurate inventory by the third week in June.

2. Will departments get usage data (# of visits, eg) to assist with decisions on what to transfer to new site?
   Progress: Carrie is finding out to whom this question can be directed.
3. Will the archived old system’s data be available so that at a subsequent time it will be accessible in order to transfer content from old site?
   Outcome: We have not yet determined for how long we will archive the old system’s data, but we will archive it for some period to be determined.
4. There was a question about intellectual property.  Will someone be checking content to be sure it can be shared? For example, PDFs of articles, names of students.
   Outcome: The copyright guidelines in the college handbook are there to assist people to make this determination.  The handbook also has guidelines on sharing student records.  It is not our policy to review posted material unless we are notified that there is a problem.

5. There was a recommendation that LIS should provide specific advice about whether and how to post PDFs of articles, names of students, etc. Perhaps put this advice in the workbook to be distributed to faculty and academic offices.
   Outcome: See answer to #4, above.  Carrie is inquiring about the “workbook,” too.

Segue:

1. There will be a blog for updates on the Segue transition. The URL will be shared when it’s available.

Student Research and Technology Orientation Discussion

1. Carrie and Matt will meet to discuss next steps, and share recommendations with group. Next steps might include gathering and sharing impressions with other advisory groups.
   Progress: Carrie and Matt met, Carrie will write a summary to share with the group.