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.

I. Discuss Information Literacy Standards and Proposals

Brenda introduced the topic and handed out the draft document that outlines Research Skills needed by Middlebury Students prepared by 4 reference librarians, also available online:  http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgjhxcwm_5d9xgfbhs 

She noted there are much longer ACRL (Assoc. of College & Research Libraries) information literacy standards that have been developed for academic libraries, but the group created their own version that  distills a lot of the key concepts much more sucinctly.  Our draft document focuses the most attention on the the first year because the basics are needed early to form a foundation for more discipline-specific work for the upper level classes and departments may decide to articulate their own additional goals for their majors.  The Middlebury document outlines a time frame from the FYSE through senior year for when students would be expected to develop their research skills.  It is clear to the reference librarians that many students start their senior papers or thesis work and don’t know enough about doing research beyond using Google or Midcat. David concurred that in some cases, it is obvious that seniors wrote papers that did not get beyond Google as their research method.

Brenda asked for feedback, in particular, what we may have missed.  As librarians, they are proposing a more active role in the first year seminar which is a good opportunity to introduce research skills, but not all faculty incorporate a research-based assignment into their classes.  Librarians want to give all students a basic foundation that first semester so that upper level library instruction classes don’t have to repeat the basics for those who’ve missed them and can instead focus on more advanced skills or discipline-specific resources.

Librarians want all FYSE faculty to incorporate some sort of research piece into the FYSE so that the librarians could then have an assignment to base an instruction session on.

Brenda shared some of the feedback that the group received from FLAC (Faculty Library Advisory Committee).  They were very positive about the proposal to make a research component part of every FYSE and gave a few tips for improving the skills document.

David thinks that the inquiry-based project needs to be very focused – some research issue that requires them to find data on the web which would guarantee that they’d have to learn the research tools the librarians are recommending.

Bert is concerned that faculty will feel that they would be losing more control of their class if they had to accommodate a research paper.  Many faculty feel that the purpose of a first year seminar is get students to talk, think critically, argue, etc and Bert noted that he can foresee resistance.

It was noted that some departments have a research methods class either in first or second year and is very research-based, but this is not the case for all departments, the the FYSE is the one place to reach all students at the same time.

Brenda asked whether an online tutorial would be a satisfactory substitute for some of the really basic info (how to see if we have a journal, etc).

Bert thinks the intro Pol Sci class is the best place to introduce a research-based assignment rather than a FYS which is supposed to be non-departmental.  However, Brenda noted that not every student takes the same intro course.

David thinks the Soc/Anthro 300 level methods course is the most likely place to have a serious research topic and that in a methods course like this, it would be an appropriate.

There was discussion of research methods courses and the difference between Soc/Anthro and Pol. Sci’s courses. 

Brenda noted the existence of online assessment tests, also pre-tests.

Bert suggested not providing journal articles but making the students find it.  David noted that if these articles weren’t provided, a smaller fraction of students will have read them with consequences for discipline, quality of work, class discussions, etc.

II. Effect of the new printing rules for students on classes.

Printing impact:

Bert noticed that most of his students now bring their laptops to class in order to not have to print the article.  His students are distracted by the computer and internet availability.  He also reported that when others are observing his class (e.g. when under review, adult auditors) they report that the students spend a lot of time surfing instead of participating in the class.

Bert reported that more of his students assignments are submitted electronically and he grades more electronically than previously.  David asks for printed submissions so that he can correct, comment and grade more effectively.

Bert noted that it is difficult to correct rather than comment on line because it requires using the ‘track changes’ features and students can simply accept changes.

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: Bryan Carson, Florence Feiereisen, Brigitte Humbert, Enrique Garcia, Joy Pile, Alex Chapin, Carol Peddie.

The topics of this meeting were:

1. Updates and announcements
2. Impacts of budget reductions on LIS
3. Old items – recapped answers to question from last meeting.
4. New business – questions from faculty.

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 colleagues’ work: Nancy O’Connor and Kyoko Davis) 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 Bryan or Florence 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
• 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.

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, e.g., 18 computers in CFA with very low utilization

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.
• 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.
• We generally don’t try Vermont consortia because there are too few schools; some of our contracts are with Educause, NITLE, etc
• 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. Old items (Bryan Carson)

Questions from last meeting:

• What is the policy on PC to Mac switch (for faculty)?
• What’s the upgrade schedule for XP to Vista?
• What’s faculty equipment replacement schedule going forward in the new fiscal climate?
• Answers reviewed here.

4. New business – questions from faculty.

• Segue Issues-Enrique asked for clarification of Segue shutdown.
  • Segue v.2 will be available for editing and creating new sites at least through summer semester 2010.
  • Edit-only access will be available after a new system is chosen.  (Lack of an alternative system would extend Segue’s availability for creating new sites beyond summer 2010.)
  • Read-only access will be available after that.
  • At some subsequent time, “migrate-only” access will be available until every site has been migrated to the new system for course websites.
  • There will be no shutdown of Segue until a new course website system (or systems) is up and running.
• Audacity
  • some faculty thought this application was too complex.
  • It’s a free application.  There’s no affordable alternative at the moment.
• Language Lab issues were raised by the Spanish Dept.
  • At some point we (LIS) will need to examine this issue more closely.
  • There needs to be some way for professors to listen to students and make corrections.
  • More than just the “iPod” solution is needed.
• Enrique asked if his students’ videos would be examples for Tech Fair and in the spring, and the “Teaching with Technology” blog.  (Yes, these are great candidates for this.)

]]> http://sites.middlebury.edu/lisadvisors/2009/12/10/languages-advisory-group-%e2%80%93-notes-from-fall-2009-meeting/feed/ 0 http://sites.middlebury.edu/lisadvisors/2009/11/20/sciences-advisory-group-notes-from-nov-2009-meeting/ http://sites.middlebury.edu/lisadvisors/2009/11/20/sciences-advisory-group-notes-from-nov-2009-meeting/#comments Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:28:27 +0000 Carrie Macfarlane http://sites.middlebury.edu/lisadvisors/?p=961 Continue reading →]]> The Sciences Advisory Group met on November 16, 2009

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:

• More Q & A re: new website and options besides Segue (and future planning)
• How have budget cuts affected LIS services and resources
• Library print to digital initiative (journals, databases, reference materials, primary sources)

Segue Replacement Update: (Joe Antonioli)

Segue will continue to be available through this summer and probably through next fall as well.  Tools will be in place to migrate Segue content to other platforms.  We will be engaging various groups on campus to via surveys and focus groups to help us determine what features and functionality are most needed for course sites and online curricular resources.

Web Makeover Update: (Joe Antonioli)

The new website will run on Drupal.  Drupal workshops will begin the week of Oct. 12th. The Web Makeover committee has reviewed more designs from White Whale (the company that is designing the website).  The latest presentation from White Whale can be viewed on the Web Makeover Blog, where you can find more detailed updates and mock-ups of department webpage and a faculty page.

Q:  Who has editing ability for department webpages?
A:  This will vary by dept. and is determined by the Primary Contact.  In some cases, multiple people will have editing permission, while in other cases, content changes will go through the Primary Contact.  Some things will be standard across all departments, but there will be many additional options to choose from.  Faculty will have their own pages.

Q:  Will it be possible to upload files such as data sets or articles?
A:  Yes!

LIS Budget Cuts Overview (Carol Peddie)

Carol gave an overview of the various LIS budgets.  The Operating Budget was cut by approximately 9.5 % (-$340,000).  This includes library resources, software, professional development funds – everything but computers and network equipment.  Many cuts were made behind the scenes.  For example, some maintenance contracts were reduced to M-F 9-5 rather than 24/7.  Software packages weren’t automatically renewed (ex. dropped Novell license).

Q: How much is spent on software?
A:  Approx. 1 million, but much of that is administrative (ex. Banner).  Most software is paid on an annual basis and that cost goes up each year.  Faculty software ranges from $100 for site license to $1500 per seat.  No plans to cut faculty software but growth will be slower.

The library resource budget was cut by over $100,000.  More on that later in the meeting. The capital budget was cut by 35%.  This includes classroom equipment, computers, and network infrastructure.  The budget went from $2.5 million (high) to $1.8 million to $1.2 million.  Approx. $900,000 is spent annually on replacing desktop computers. In response, LIS is investigating virtualization of software and thin client computing and concurrent use software.  Also, LIS is analyzing lab and public computers and will reduce computers in underutilized areas.  Classroom upgrades will happen more slowly (comes from facilities budget).

Q:  What percent of students come with their own computers?
A:  Over 90% (mostly laptops)

Comment: There aren’t enough computers in geography to support GIS.

LIS Staffing: Carol reported that by the end of Nov, LIS will be down 22% of staff and there will be no rehiring of frozen positions until January.

Library Materials budget: (Joe Toth).  Last year the budget was cut 5% mid year (i.e. -$78,000) then was level-funded this year.  But because our subscriptions go up (this year it was less than usual because some publishers held the line), it resulted in the need to cut $100,000 from the materials budget.  In response, book selecting by librarians was shut down early last year, database usage stats were examined and low use databases were cancelled, and the book/media budget for this year was reduced.  LIS will rely more on NExpress for borrowing and reduce duplication with those libraries and will do more strategic purchasing in the future.  Overall book circulation is declining and statistics show that overall, there is higher circulation of materials selected by librarians, followed by approval books (profiles) followed by faculty selections.  Ann commented that faculty need to be made aware of these cuts and be asked to reduce their ordering.  However, there is great variation in ordering by faculty,  so only those faculty who do heavy ordering may need to pull back (selections should support the curriculum in any case) and liaisons can contact those faculty if needed.  Joe responded that he will soon be sending out a collection development newsletter that will help explain all this to the rest of faculty. [This newsletter has since been sent out via email as Library Collection News and parts of it can be found here.]

Q:  Is Middlebury going to participate in consortial buying plans?
A:  Colby, Bate, and Bowdoin (some of our NExpress partners) are already doing this and Middlebury would like to do something similiar with 1-2 other NExpress partners, if they are willing.

LIS Responses to all  cuts: (many of these are detailed in the campus letter from the Dean of LIS that came out the following day).  LIS has stopped staffing the info desk (except 1st week of semester); may reduce helpdesk hours; may revisit ILL policies; may reduce support for screening DVD’s; public printing reductions; stop providing phones in student rooms (hallways instead – $50,000 savings); 2 weeks notice for reserves; Exams – close the library at 1 am (not 24/7); stopped retrieving books from stacks (unless disabled); More reliance on borrowing materials from NExpress; changes in reference service (will have 3 fewer librarians) – Sat and Thurs. evening hours cut – the rest of time ref service offered from offices or special collections so librarians’ time will be used more efficiently. For details see http://go/refhours.  Also, the number of library subject guides have been reduced (some consolidated – mostly will use existing ones rather than create new specialized ones).  In general expect that projects requiring a lot of staff time will be prioritized and some won’t be approved.

Q: David asked why there was no announcement about dial-up access ending.
A:  Carol explained that it broke and it took awhile to cobble together a limited fix.  However this will probably be discontinued altogether in January.

Library Print to Digital Initiative (Brenda)

LIS has been moving a number of library resources from print to electronic access.  Where possible, we have changed journal subscriptions to electronic only and have expanded journal access through electronic packages of current journals.  Packages allow us to greatly expand the titles we get from a publisher for a small additional sum.  LIS has also purchased more digital archive packages of historical journal issues (JSTOR, PAO, American Periodicals Series).  Also digital archives of primary source materials (newspaper collections, Archive of Americana, etc.)   In addition, other areas where digital has been preferred to print are reference materials (ex. online encyclopedias), and statistical compilations (statistical databases such as World Development Indicators).  In the future, LIS will investigate which areas or disciplines might be appropriate for expanding E-books via E-book packages or individual selection.   Among the many advantages digital access provides, is 24/7 access to our local Middlebury users as well as Middlebury users who are abroad.  For a list of recent electronic purchases and subscriptions see this list by title and this slightly different list:  Major New Library Databases last 3yrs. To access any of these databases, see http://go/librarydatabases.  To access any of these journals or newspapers, see http://go/journals.

Announcements:

LIS and the CTLR are looking for examples of innovative uses of technology to feature on the new “Teaching with Technology Blog” (http://sites.middlebury.edu/teachwithtech/) and in next year’s Pedagogy and Technology Fair. Please consider sharing your ideas for technology use with others. Let me know if you’re interested.

May 2009

1. We’ll try to meet two weeks into the fall semester in order to get right to work. Pathik will contact Mike when he arrives to work on scheduling and agenda.

2. Proposed Agenda topics for next year:

a) print management: How to establish policy? What sorts of controls are possible? What to do about coursepacks? How to handle students who print for departments or student groups? We’ve set up a website at http://go.middlebury.edu/printproject/ to keep track of issues and encourage discussion.

b) gmail: We’ll want to engage the community right away in the discussion of whether or not we want to move to google apps for students. We have most of the technology in place for this; we need to think through the policy implications. We’ll set up a site soon to allow people to better understand what we’re thinking.

c) bannerweb improvements: It would be interesting to hear more from students about what they don’t like about bannerweb. There are limited options because of the constraints of the system, but as long as everyone recognizes that, it would be useful to find out what’s bugging people.

d) dvds in the library: We can continue to talk about how we can improve access to this collection.

Attending: Carrie Macfarlane, Matt Landis, Jason Mittell, Steve Sontum, Bill Hegman, Pete Ryan, Matt Dickerson, Shel Sax, Stephen Ratcliffe, Bill Peterson, Roger Sandwick, Jason Mittell

The topics of this meeting were:

• Web Makeover
• Segue
• Research and technology instruction for students

Web Makeover: Jason Mittell shared information relevant to faculty.

Conversion:

1. each department will need to identify a ‘lead’ for each unit, department or office to spearhead the effort of converting content to the new site.
2. there will be no direct transfer of old pages – someone will have to go through the existing content and identify what is important that needs to be transferred and what doesn’t.
3. the inventory of existing content needs to take place over the summer (this is an issue and coordinators need to be informed now about this timetable and whether this can be undertaken in early June or late August
4. an inventory of pages will be generated by LIS in each department and this will include faculty pages (may also be pages to middunix pages) if it is not hosted by your departmental url, it will not be listed.
5. Carrie needs to find out when LIS will provide this inventory of pages  (Check Sciences Items for updates)
6. question raised as to whether we can get data on utilization of pages as a guide to utilization. Jason said that it is possible might not be useful given how pages are accessed (Check Sciences Items for updates)
7. question about who the point person should be – it should not be the departmental coordinator but rather someone who has a better sense of the discipline-specific content and/or a ‘vision’ for the new website
8. new faculty profile pages will be dynamic so that things that are tagged to an individual faculty member will show up on the faculty member’s page – the idea is to enter data once and then have it migrate to the appropriate locations on the new web site – so, for example, publication information and course information will show up in multiple locations
9. important to have a faculty member involved in the process who is sufficiently familiar with content to make decisions – some discussion as to whether the departmental coordinator can be the point person
10. question about whether faculty would be willing to take this on.  Consider that academic coordinators are cut down to 10/12ths time. The idea of revisioning a departmental web site did not fill the group with enthusiasm.
11. The new system is called Drupal
12. will take energy and effort to meet the timeline requirements
13. Jason noted that one can start with a very lean web site that has minimal content and add to it.  As people realize how easy it will be to develop and add content, and increased use of images, multimedia, etc. they may become excited by the possibilities
14. Question as to whether the archived old system’s data will be available so that at a subsequent time it will be accessible in order to transfer content from old site (Check Sciences Items for updates)
15. There will be a variety of design templates to choose from but the basic relevant categories will be there so that one will know if missing something
16. Question about intellectual property:  Will someone be checking content to be sure it can be shared? For example, PDFs of articles, names of students.  LIS should provide specific information about these issues in the workbook to be distributed to faculty and academic offices.  (Check Sciences Items for updates)
17. Idea of being able to share events brought up the question of someone tagging inaccurately in order to more broadly publicize an event – this will be checked but it is not in place yet and since the work flow process is as of now not yet sufficiently clear, we can’t answer now how this will play out.

Stories:

1. Jason went on to the 2nd point which is that we do not have  easily portable content and there is no opportunity in our existing web sites to highlight the interesting things that are students are doing
2. So the ‘story’ form is a web-based form that enables anyone to fill out a story to identify an interesting thing that people might want to know about (either internally or externally) and we will be building up collection of such stories
3. This is a way to make one’s program known – we want more students to know, for example, to know what is going on in Bi Hall in the sciences and want to publicize the work of our students and their levels of activity in the real world
4. the web will enable us to generate a collection
5. How to submit stories?  For now, go to http://go.middlebury.edu/webstories.

Segue: Shel shared updates on Segue.

1. Segue will fade away.  No replacement has been recommended yet, and there is no timeline
2. If you are currently using Segue, continue to use it.
3. If you have not yet used Segue, may wish to learn another system, for example WordPress
4. question as to why we’re making the shift – answer: too expensive to maintain,  new tools have sprung up since Segue first released and we can no longer compete
5. Shel noted that there is no alternative CMS selected, we’re hoping that Drupal will fit the bill, timeline is not yet firm and we are counting on extensive conversations with faculty to develop a timeframe that will accommodate their needs
6. 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. Notes for Discussion document was distributed to participants as the basis for discussion
2. Goal of discussion:  Consider requesting that tech and library orientation be mandatory for students.
3. Carrie noted that the current situation is that FYS instructors have the option to have an orientation of either library or tech or both but does not provide universal coverage.
4. Matt circulated this document to his department and 7 faculty responded thinking that this should be mandatory.  Some of the feedback he received is to include a tour of the library, show students how to find print material and to provide a FAQ about the tech stuff on the home page of the website.  Clear sense that this information is not well known by first year students as it should be, hence the need for making it mandatory
5. Steve Ratcliffe had feedback that we already have orientation overload and that orientation should be ‘in context’ that is, should be connected to an actual research assignment – Matt said that if this was a required part of a first year seminar, it would help to customize the orientation to fit the specific research needs of the FYS assignment
6. Carrie said that some skills could be taught in an online handout or tutorial, some could be taught in a core class for a specific discipline instead of a first year seminar.  Might want to discuss how best to teach each skill.
7. Steve R noted that it should be up to the instructor if he/she wants to include this as part of the course
8. Steve S noted that way back when, there was a universal obligatory orientation for each FYS and that worked well
9. Matt Dickerson said that FYS are sufficiently crowded with other responsibilities that it is already difficult to add content
10. General agreement that the basic technological skills are essential but could be part of a general orientation rather than as part of FYS
11. General sense that targeted bibliographic instruction should continue to be part of the FYS and could be useful orientation within the FYS
12. Several said they had found research instruction in their first-year seminars valuable.
13. Several said it was difficult to imagine that a first-year seminar instructor wouldn’t feel it was important to teach students research skills. Perhaps some topics don’t lend themselves to research.
14. Bill Hegman thought that web-based instruction would solve a lot of the tech issues
15. Carrie said that some students won’t learn to use servers, etc., if they’re not exposed to them in the classroom.  Hands-on experience is meaningful to many.
16. Carrie said that most first-year seminars do request a support team, and the support team includes a librarian.
17. Steve R suggested that even if a student learns these skills in the first-year seminar, they might forget them by the time they’re a junior or senior
18. Ultimately doesn’t seem to be a consensus as to whether this should or should not be mandatory but there was consensus that the tech stuff doesn’t have to be part of the actual seminar
19. Depending on what (if anything) the group decides to recommend, we may wish to check with Katy Smith-Abbott to see if it would be possible to get tech stuff incorporated in general orientation
20. 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. (Check Sciences Items for updates)

Business:

1. next time to meet: after the 5th week of the semester, perhaps late October
2. Carrie will send url of list with updates on “Items for consideration” (questions and concerns) that were raised in our February meeting).  Progress has been made on all items, and some items even have answers.

Attending: Co-conveners Bryan Carson (LIS) and Brigitte Humbert (French), Tom Beyer (Russian/FLAC Rep.),  Kyoko Davis, Enrique Garcia (Spanish), Larry Yarbrough (Religion/Arabic), Alex Chapin (LIS).

Topics for this meeting were

• College Web Makeover information and discussion
• Future Plans for Course Management Systems (Segue)
• Follow-up on Previous Action items
  • Web-based recording (Wimba/Clear)
  • Moodle/Measure demo and discussion

Alex Chapin was the guest star of the meeting giving a short presentation and answering questions about Moodle/Measure, our online testing system for languages.

Bryan started of the meeting with a brief explanation about how the web site makeover project is conceived and what the College hopes to achieve.  He touched on the collaborative nature of the project, how the new site is meant to be more participatory, more Web 2.0.  He asked how the language departments envision their web sites and if they could identify people who would be willing to be that contact persons in the departments.  We projected the Web makeover site and talked about the “400 stories”, what that meant and how to submit them to White Whale.  We also discussed the timeline of the project a bit.

The discussion of the sunsetting of Segue followed.  Alex and I explained that Segue was being phased out, but that it would still be fully functional this year and realistically into the next.  Furthermore, Segue would exist as read only for longer than that.  Alex discussed possible migration tools.  We mentioned that support for Segue was not broad-based (Alex and Adam) and that in we would investigate other systems in the future.  In the meantime, new faculty should consult with liaisons to establish what they want to do, and let LIS recommend the best tool for the job (WordPress or other applications.)  We stress that nothing would just disappear during the Segue sunsetting process and that content would not be a complete “do-over.”

They second half of the meeting was Alex’s presentation of Moodle/Measure online testing and Wimba and Clear web-based audio -video capture.  There was general discussion afterwards, especially about how Wimba was expensive, didn’t integrate well, and  as Tom pointed out, was not as easy as YouTube.  Clear represented an easier (and open source) solution.  Tom also encouraged Alex to go to the Dept. of Education about access to application, since in his experience, the Dept of Ed. is more open about open access than are some of its partners.  Alex said he’d check this out.

Action Items

• Alex will check on getting Clear set up locally.
• Bryan will find out
  • Upgrade schedules for XP to Vista
  • Policy on PC to Mac switch for faculty
  • faculty equipment replacement schedule going forward in the new fiscal climate

Next Meeting

Fall Semester.  Location and Time: TBD