Professional Development

The 2009 NCLA Biennial Conference was held in Greenville, North Carolina (home of the ECU Pirates!…arrrrr!). Here is my somewhat-condensed version of the sessions I attended.

Improving Libraries through User-Centered Research (Susan Gibbons, The River Campus Libraries of the University of Rochester, NY)

Susan Gibbons discussed the processes, findings, and outcomes of conducting user-centered research on the campus of the University of Rochester in efforts to improve the mission of and importance of the River Campus Libraries. The libraries focused on four major projects from 2004 to present:

• 2004-2006 Student Paper Writing and Research Project of Undergraduate students
• 2006-2008 Barriers to successful dissertations and improvements to library support for Graduate students
• 2007-2009 How do our library users research and what functionality can be added to improve this process
• 2008-2009 What is the role of the Science Library in the Digital Age?

The River Campus Libraries (RCL) began their user-centered research by seeking grant funding for an anthropologist-in-residence position to work with the volunteer research committee to study, collect, and analyze the anthropological and ethnographic data. In addition to completing the IRB process, the committee developed their research method (question->methods->data gathering->findings->change) and outlined the data gathering step to include surveys, mapping, interviews, and photo displays.

2004-2006 Student Paper Writing and Research Project of Undergraduate students

Librarians wanted to know how undergraduate students conducted their paper research and writing process-from getting the assignment to turning it in- and how the library could assist. Librarians solicited students to volunteer for a semester-long study, in which they were asked to illustrate their process, then shadowed by librarians for the semester, and finally engage in retrospective interviews. Findings of the study emphasized that the paper research and writing process for students was not linear (but they already knew that), parents and figures of authority were often included in the research process and students were not always able to identify where the problem is in their process. Outcomes of this study included the RCLs began co-hosting term paper workshops (around the time of midterms), 7 librarians are now also Writing Fellows, non-librarian Writing Fellows now occupy one end of the Reference Desk, and librarians are now helping with ESL students and advising.

2006-2008 Barriers to successful dissertations and improvements to library support for Graduate students

As a commonly-overlooked patron group, RCLs focused on Graduate students to identify barriers to completing a successful dissertation and how the library could increase support to aide in the task. The research committee conducted InSitU interviews; meaning, “show me where you work and how you work.” Findings ranged from on-campus science lab spaces to a lone desk in an off-campus apartment to a converted closet/carrel in the English Department building. Their findings not only reflected a lack of common experiences across the disciplines, but it illustrated why there is a lack of commonality.

For the Sciences:

• team-member oriented
• research is grant-focused
• rely on collaboration to achieve goal
• lab-oriented dissertations

For the Social Sciences:

• research is article-driven
• dissertation is basically previous articles glued together

For the Humanities:

• lone scholar oriented
• feels isolation from department and thesis advisors
• often forms informal support groups with out Humanities students
• dissertation is pre-book format

Thus, the libraries need to manifest their support down to the discipline level and not try to aim for an “across the board” solution for graduate students. Outcomes of this study included a renovated space in the main library for a Graduate Lounge; however they held design workshops for the grads to draw out their ideal space, select color schemes, and vote on the final results. The current Graduate Lounge mirrors the ZSR Graduate Student Lounge in color, lighting, and furniture, but provides 48 lockers and has plans and funding to renovate an identical space on the opposite side of the building in 2009-2010.

2007-2009 How do our library users research and what functionalities can we add to improve this process?

What features and functionalities of the library catalog are impeding users from successful searches? To answer this question the research committee conducted interviews, usability studies, and a Show and Tell session after implementing the eXtensible Catalog project, which seems like an advanced open-source federated searching system. Their preliminary report can be found at http://hdl.handle.net/1802/6873 and the XC system due out in January 2010.

2008-2009 What is the role of the Science Library in the Digital Age?

With an increase of science information available electronically and the Science Library conveniently located closer to the department, the RCLs wanted to know why the Science students increased patronage to the main library. The research committee divided the library into “observation zones” and asked librarians to monitor these zones three times a day for one week and record activity. Items recorded included any activity occurring (studying, computer use), individual use or group use, academic use or recreational use, and what items did they bring with them (powercords, laptop, coffee). Additionally, the research committee left reply cards on the tables asking the library users “why are you here?” and gathered over 100 responses in 2 days. Next, the committee hosted a design workshop and invited students to illustrate their ideal study space and select furniture and color schemes for the space. This study concluded that the students came to the library as a form of discipline and the physical space of the building created the necessary mindset for academic study, research, and scholarly work.

The Kaleidoscope of Academic Libraries: Marketing our Services to a Multi Generational Population

The library staff at Gaston College were looking for ways to market the college’s library branches in preparation for opening their third branch in September 2009. The staff were also aiming to market the library as a valuable resource on campus to the diverse student body as well as dispel negative stereotypes of libraries in general. In addition to relying on the college’s Marketing, PR, and HR departments on campus, the library staff created opportunities to work and co-market services and programs with the local public library branches. They redesigned the library’s homepage to include more visual identity and promote their changing foyer displays and monthly contests/programs. Although they never really addresses evaluation of their marketing efforts (other than an increase in gate counts), they did provide the following toolkits they found useful:

http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/marketing/index.cfm

http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/ld/NCLIbraryToolKit.pdf

Doe v. Gonzales: In which Doe, the humble librarian, won and Gonzales, the Attorney General of the United States, lost

National Security Letters (NSL) have been issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation since the inception of the Patriot Act of 2001. Seen as administrative subpoenas, the FBI can issue NSLs without any judicial permission or oversight and each NSL is accompanied with a perpetual non-disclosure mandate (or lifetime gag order). Not only can recipients of a NSL cannot discuss the details of the letter or issuance for the subpoena, but they are also restricted from acknowledging receipt of the NSL, what the FBI is seeking, or even that they have been contacted by the FBI. Out of the 400,000 NSLs that have been issued since 2001, the “Connecticut Four” are the only 4 people in the nation who have the legal right to discuss their ordeal.

George Christian (known as John Doe in the case) is the Executive Director of Library Connection Inc. based out of Windsor, Connecticut. Library Connections Inc. provides telecommunications and ILS-hosting for the area’s 27-branch consortium. In July 2005, the IT Manager for Library Connections Inc. was contacted by the FBI to inform the Executive Director that he would soon be issued a NSL but failed to give any additional information regarding the issuance or what the letter would contain. After arriving in July 2005, Christian noted that the letter was written May 13, 2005 about an incident that occurred on February 15, 2005…and concluded that the information the FBI wanted was not a high priority. After calling an emergency board meeting and gaining the unanimous approval of the Executive Committee to take the Attorney General of the United States to court, Christian proceeded with upholding the ALA’s Code of Ethics and the principles of libraries stance on intellectual freedom and patron privacy. With backing of the ACLU, Christian took the matter to the the New York State District Court, which found the NSL statute of the Patriot Act unconstitutional, specifically the perpetual non-disclosure section and it’s impact on library operations, policies, and patron record information. The district court judge ruled that the FBI did not provide sufficient evidence to enforce non-disclosure aspect of the entire NSL process and lifted the gag order. Not only had the gag order prevented the Connecticut Four from filing the lawsuit with their given names and “appearing” in court via closed-circuit TV, but it also prevented them from discussing the case with their families, library staff members, and the library community at large.

Eventually, after appeals by the district court and judgment by the New York 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, the FBI dropped their case for the NSL, stating they no longer needed the information they were seeking. Christian attributes their win to the unanimous support of the Library Connection Inc.’s Executive Committee and the un-evidenced claim of the Justice Department. Although the Connecticut Four are allowed to discuss the case to highlight the NSL portion of the Patriot Act and their experiences with the FBI in relation to library operations, they feel a mass evaluation of the Patriot Act and the FBI’s unlimited abilities to issue NSLs be conducted. Through this ordeal, they were able to change portions of non-disclosure to allow recipients discussion with attorneys, contest the gag order after 1 year of issuance, and libraries are now exempt from receiving NSLs (although only libraries that do not provide telecommunication capabilities–which, where are you going to find that in the US!?).

In addition to educating libraries and library users about NSLs and library/patron privacy rights, Christian and the other Connecticut Four are charging libraries with creating a policy/plan for library staff to follow if they receive an NSL. Their experiences has proven that it’s best to be prepared and to follow the revisions and reforms of the USA Patriot Act.

Secrets of the Trade

I attended Bill Grimsley’s magic workshop that was hosted by the Public Libraries section of NCLA. Grimsley specializes in magic/comedy routines for libraries, churches, and workshops. I did learn a few tricks that could be adapted to the LIB100 courses, but as the second rule of the Magic Trade is “never reveal the secret to how the trick is done” I can’t divulge that information.

Errand into the Maze: Results of an Empirical Study Designed to Clarify Whether Works are in the Public Domain

Deborah Gerhardt is the Director of Intellectual Property Initiative and an Adjunct Professor of Law at UNC-Chapel Hill. In conjunction with a Mellon Foundation-funded grant, Gerhardt is studying over 300 cases of copyright publication violation in efforts to idenitfy works that are technically in the public domain. So far, Gerhardt has reviewed 268 district court cases, 106 Court of Appeal cases, and 9 Supreme Court cases and is recording and analysizing her results. Although she did not finish her investigation before the 2009 NCLA conference, she will publish her findings soon along with her Mellon Foundation Report. This session was great for people just starting out with or curious about copyright as it pertains to libraries (Fair Use, sections 108 and 110, DMCA). Random information moment: the next time items will fall into Public Domain will occur in 2018.

As a perk to volunteering during the Inspiration, Innovation, Celebration conference held at UNCG last week, I was able to attend some conference sessions.

• Clemson Connect: Reaching All Incoming Students (Anne Grant and Suzanne Schilf)

Clemson Connect is a program designed to ease the transition from home life to college life for all incoming Clemson students. It includes 4 components that address group work and faculty relationship dynamics (One Clemson: Yours, Mine, & Ours) , an online tutorial of resources and technology available (iClemson), reading comprehension skills (Summer Reading project), and a library workshop (LIB100). Clemson Connect is a one credit, required course that is pass/fail.

Anne and Suzanne discussed the library workshop component, LIB100, and its ties with the larger campus for support, funding, and progress. Before LIB100, the library worked exclusively with the ENG103 and CU101 courses to develop a one-hour bibliographic instruction session. They began with 15 instructors teaching 8 classes each and reached roughly 1943 students in total. As the need for a more solid LIB100 grew, a group of Reference librarians volunteered to develop the program as it is now. Originally the group emerged with 10 outcomes, 43 objectives, and a pre and post workshop assignment/assessment. They collaborated with the Computing and IT department, Undergraduate Studies, multi-cultural programs, and satellite libraries on campus for advertising and program support. In Fall 2008, the 50-minute LIB100 included 19 instructors, teaching 199 workshops, and reaching 3, 681 students in comparison to bibliographic instruction sessions of before.

After a bit of renovation and editing of the 43 objectives, the Spring 2009 version of LIB100 included 10 outcomes, 13 objectives, 5 instructors, 20 workshops, and a new interactive component to aid in the pre and post workshop assessment. As the Reference librarians continue to adapt and evolve the information/resources covered and the overall workshop itself, they learned some valuable lessons for future revisions:

1. a pre and post testing/assessment/assignment does NOT work outside of the workshop. As it is a pass/fail, required course and students required to complete the post assignment through Blackboard many students forgot and ended up with a fall on their transcript (which could not be removed).
2. as the workshop is designed for 50 minutes, the amount of information covered (and deemed important by the librarians) was overwhelming–try to get a student’s perspective on what’s significant for academic research.
3. it is important to maintain relationships and contact with the ENG103 and CU101 courses, as these were the major supporters and collaborators of the original BI sessions.

• Competition for Library Services (Larry Nash White)

Larry Nash White, from East Carolina University, discussed the future of libraries in a world of instant, on-demand information services.

Is there competition? Yes–as seen through a decrease in library statistics, nation-wide library branch closings, and the surge of retail book outlets. We’re in a networked world with access to the internet, email, blogs, and social networks at the “speed of transmission.” Not only are we able to access this networked world through hand-held devices, but we’re an increasingly flattened world with the globalization of goods, services, and communications. Therefore, libraries are increasingly facing tangible and intangible competitors.

Tangible Competitors:

1. Amazon.com
2. Barnes and Noble/Borders/Books-a-Million
3. LSSI (Library Systems & Services, LLC.)
4. independent bookstores

Intangible Competitors:

1. Community literacy programs
2. daycare
3. wifi access hotspots
4. changing demographics of families
5. entertainment (tv, PSP, Wii)

So with all this competition for library patrons and access to information, how can libraries compete? We need to stop being comfortable–let’s step out of our comfort zones and traditional methods of service and see what is really attracting people to this service providers. We need to do something–don’t let mistakes or fear of failure keep us from trying new services, resources, or programs. We need to be proactive towards technology, resources, trends, and what people are using and how they are using it. Finally, we’re librarians–let’s use our research and resources to our advantage.

Although it was easy to feel overwhelmed or fearful of the future of libraries, the overall message was that although libraries have comeptitors in the information and entertainment services, they are not necessarily a threat. These competitors present an opportunity for collaboration and cooperation which can positively impact the public’s perception of libraries and the profession as a whole.

Late April through Early May, I attended an online course through ACRL titled “Copyright and the Library, Part 2: Library, Classroom, and other Issues.” This course expanded on the basics discussed in Part 1 from this past summer. Taught by Tomas Lipinski, the Co-Director of the Center for Information Policy Research at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, this course focused on sections 110, 112, and 512 in addition to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the TEACH Act. To begin we reviewed sections 108 and 109 which establish Exclusive and Distribution Rights of copyright owners, Fair Use, limitations of use by libraries and archives, as well as penalties and damages. After this brief refresher, we dived headfirst into the following sections. Please note: these are just some of the highlights as they pertain to universities and libraries.

The official copyright law and a breakdown of each section, can be found at the U.S. Copyright Office site.

110(1)–performance and display in the classroom

• protects use of copyright works by a professor in a face-to-face classroom setting.
• “face-to-face setting teaching activities” refers to instruction where the professor is simultaneously present in the same general location of the students. This is to distinguish between traditional and distance education instruction.
• includes audio-visual works and recordings of guest speakers but not guest performers.
• does not cover reproduction of the copyrighted work, only use of a copyrighted work.
• protection is negated if the copy used by the professor has knowingly obtained the work through illegal means or is unlawfully made (through circumvention methods).
• “classroom or similar place devoted to instruction” is defined as a physical space for academic instruction (to include a library or school media center).

110(2)–performance and display in distance-education setting

• this section is now included in the TEACH Act of 2002 and discusses copyright protections for distance education instruction.
• use of a copyrighted work by a professor must be an “integral part of a class.” A professor cannot show the movie Gone with the Wind in a distance education setting/transmitted via a digital network for entertainment–it must pertain to the course study and objectives.
• use of a copyrighted work in this setting must be supervised by the professor and cannot be asynchronous. The movie cannot be posted to a discussion board for students to watch at their leisure. The movie must be shown in real time if transmitted by a digital network.
• must have circumvention methods in place to prevent students from further duplication and dissemination of the work(s).
• copyrighted works used must be limited to officially-enrolled students only and must be removed from a course management system immediately following the last day of instruction.
• does not provide protection for supplementary materials in digital form (such as electronic course packs, digital library resources, or e-reserves).
• does not protect use of copyrighted works that have been knowingly obtained through illegal means or created using encryption circumvention means.
• 110(2) requires that the governing body be an accredited, nonprofit educational institution. The institution must have an institution-wide copyright policy in place, provide copyright outreach opportunities to the campus, and provide notice of copyright to students.

512–limitations to liability related to online materials

Under the DMCA of 1998, an institution can apply to the U.S. Copyright Office to become a “512 Service Provider,” as long as the requirements are met. A 512 Service Provider is “an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications” or “a provider of online services or network access.” Meaning, an entity that offers access to online content, network access, or the transmission of digital communications (such as email). 512 coverage is complex and the requirements are more stringent not only due to institution websites, but student and faculty access to creating content online (in forms such as wikis and blogs) and the potential this access has for linking to, posting, caching, and storing copyrighted materials. Wake Forest University has been a registered 512 Service Provider since 1999.

On Wednesday, March 4th I traveled to Elon University to attend the workshop, Copyright Law in the Digital Age, sponsored by the State Library of North Carolina. Laura Gasaway, Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at UNC-Chapel Hill, led a comprehensive workshop that covered the numerous sections of the copyright law and how these sections impacted libraries and archives. The first third of the workshop was an overview of the law in entirety, breaking down legal definitions and wording, and the history and development of the copyright laws that we use today. The second third of the day was spent examining the sections and subsections relevant to libraries, archives, and other non-profit institutions. This section of the day provided most useful with the question and answer portion. The 30 attendees were broken into 6 groups and given 12 index cards to write on. We were asked to agree on and write down 12 questions concerning copyright; no question too stupid to ask! She then collected them and reviewed the questions and answers throughout the after-lunch portion of the workshop. Finally, the last third of the day was spent on current copyright issues in regards to the digital age. We discussed the current copyright sections pertaining to digital media, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and recent legislation and cases pending (both academic related and big business related).

Overall, I highly recommend anyone remotely interesting in copyright law or recent copyright cases attend this course! Ms. Gasaway does a wonderful job breaking down the legality of the sections into everyday examples and scenarios. Additionally, this workshop provided many suggestions for libraries interested in developing copyright policies and taking proactive, precautionary measures. Laura Gasaway will be doing this same presentation/workshop through a webcast on July 29, 2009 if interested. If anyone would like to borrow the workbook provided, please stop by!

Heather

In late July, early August I attended a three week e-learning course hosted by ACRL titled “Copyright and The Library, Part 1: The Basics Including Fair Use.” In addition to discussion board postings and online readings, class members participated in weekly homework and library assessment assignments, audio lectures, and question and answer AIM sessions. I have summarized the basics of the copyright law and sections that pertain to libraries below.

Summary

The copyright law and code is found under Title 17 of the United States Code and is broken into several sections that affect libraries and archives.

• Section 101: Definitions of terms commonly used throughout copyright law and sections
• Section 106: Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works
• Section 107: Limitations of Exclusive Rights, Fair Use
• Section 108: Limitations of Exclusive Rights, Reproductions by Libraries and Archives
• Section 109: Limitations of Exclusive Rights, Effect of Transfer of Particular Copy or Phonorecord
• Section 504(a)(b)(c): Remedies for Infringement and Damages

Categories of Works of Authorship include:

• Literary works (including computer programs)
• Musical works (non-dramatic)
• Dramatic works (including music)
• Pantomimes/Choreographic works
• Pictorial/graphic/sculptural
• Motion pictures and other AV materials
• Sound recordings
• Architectural works
• Compilations/collective and derivative works
• Three requirements for copyright to attach to a work:
• Must be original
• Work of Authorship
• Fixed in a tangible medium

Exclusive Rights:

The owner of a copyright has the exclusive rights to do and authorize the following:

• Reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords
• Distribute copies or phonorecords to the public by sale or transfer of ownership (by rental, lease, or lending)
• Prepare derivative works based on the original copyrighted work
• Perform the copyrighted work (in the case of literary, musical, pantomime, choreographic, motion picture, or any audio-visual work)
• Display the copyrighted work (in the case of literary, musical, pantomime, choreographic, motion picture, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, or any audio-visual work)
• Perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission (in the case of sound recordings)

Fair Use and the Four Factors:

A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright holder if its use meets the four factors of Fair Use.The Four Factors, that are mandatory, include:

1. The purpose of and character of the use of the copyrighted work is non-commercial vs. commercial, substitute/superseding vs. transformative.
   1. Is the use of the copyrighted work for commercial gain, to substitute paying for an original
2. The nature of the copyrighted work with regards to published/unpublished, thick/thin
   1. Unpublished works are still open to Fair Use but tend to be a little more protected by the Government through Orphan Works rights
   2. Thick/thin argument-if the work is a newspaper that is being used, Fair Use can be applied since the majority of a newspaper issues is factual information with a minor amount of “original work”
3. The amount and substantiality of the work taken
   1. Quantitative-how much of the copyrighted work is being used
   2. Qualitative-what is being used of the copyrighted work
   3. Will the amount of the work taken impact the quality of the work/will the amount taken impact the market?
4. The effect of the use of the work on potential markets or the value of the work is evaluated by primary, secondary, derivative and educational markets.
   1. While the use of a copyrighted work may not directly impact the primary market or value, misuse under Fair Use can affect secondary or derivative markets and values.
   2. Infringement of work may not directly affect a journal subscription but its use would affect the secondary market of individual article downloads offered by the journal publisher

Types of Copyright Infringement:

Direct Infringement (Primary Liability)

• Direct infringement must be established before secondary infringement can be determined
• “ignorance of the law” is not an excuse in defining direct infringement, but can be used when determining/setting penalties
• EXAMPLE: the student who knowingly photocopied a copyrighted material.

Contributory Infringement (Secondary Liability)

• definition based on CONDUCT
• Definition includes intermediary causes or substantially contributed to the direct infringement OR knows of the infringing nature of the copyrighted material
• Courts typically examine the guidelines of Fair Use before determining contributory infringement occurred.
• EXAMPLE: in academic settings, contributory infringers are students pirating movies, illegally downloading audio files, plagiarized text.

Vicarious Infringement (Secondary Liability)

• Definition based on RELATIONSHIP
• An intermediary has ability to control the conduct of the direct infringer AND receives direct financial gain from the activity of infringement.
• EXAMPLE: a faculty member has a student copy book chapters/journal articles for a workbook, then sells that workbook to his/her enrolled students.

Trials:

There are two types of trials for cases of copyright infringement and the type is established by copyright owner.Copyright cases can either be handled as a bench trial by a judge OR a jury trial of peers.

Damages:

Once the Court has determined and identified all actors of infringement and their liability roles, the next step is setting damages.Although you may be identified as a direct, contributory, or vicarious infringer, you can impact the amount or cost of damaged enforced.

Damages

• Actual financial damages suffered by the copyright holder (any profit made on part of the infringer)
• Ranges from $750.00 to $30,000.00 per infringing work, NOT per copy

Injunctive Relief

• Acts a probationary period before monetary damages are enforced; includes cease and desist orders, seizure and destruction of infringing material, and disabling access.
• If above actions are not taken or enforced, then monetary penalties will be set and imposed.

Fees

• Instead of damages or injunctive relief, courts may only impose court costs and attorney fees
• Fees are set at the discretion of the court, not by a jury or prosecutor
• Typically these fees are NOT cheap

Penalty Enhancement

• Court can enhance the penalties imposed for “willful violations” and “reckless disregard for the law” meaning ignoring cease and desist orders, infringement notices…etc.
• Enhancement fees enforced can be as high as $150,000.00

Miscellaneous-ness:

U.S.C. section 507: The statute of limitations for any copyright infringement is 3 years for civil actions and 5 years for criminal actions.Criminal actions are defined as “actual intent” of infringement such as bootlegging movies for profit.

U.S.C. section 408: Before a copyright lawsuit can be filed a work must be registered.However, registration is no longer required under law; it is permissive, not a prerequisite.

U.S.C. section 410(c): A work can be registered within 5 years of publication and the validity of copyright is considered “prima facie” evidence when used in copyright cases.

U.S.C. section 411 and 412: Registration.Although registration of a published work is no longer required, it is a prerequisite to infringement litigation.For unpublished works, registration must occur before infringement AND within 3 months of publication in order to gain statutory damages and/or attorney’s fees.

For additional readings:

Crews, Kenneth and Georgia Harper. “The Immunity Dilemma: Are State Colleges and Universities Still Liable for Copyright Infringements?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Vol. 50(1999): 1250-1352.

Burningham, Bradd. “Copyright Premissions: A Pilot Project to Determine Costs, Procedures, and Staffing Requirements.” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply. Vol. 11(2000): 95-111.

Circular 21

Thursday, June 19 was a beautiful day to attend the Third Annual Information Literacy Conference. Heather and Bobbie represented ZSR at the one-day conference that was held in the downtown Charlotte campus of Johnson and Wales University. The conference was well organized and allotted ample time for each breakout session. All of the sessions were in one building at Johnson & Wales except for the registration and continental breakfast which was held in the Johnson & Wales Library.

The morning session featured an interesting presentation on “Learner-Centered Approaches to Instruction.” During the session, the instructors (Susan Whyte and Beth Woodard) incorporated several interactive learning activities into their presentation. Both Whyte and Woodard are ACRL Information Literacy Immersion instructors and based many of the active learning exercises on the 2002 work by Maryellen Weimer, entitled Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice, which ZSR has available for checkout (call # LB2331 W39 2002).

At the beginning of the session, Whyte passed out crayons to the audience and asked us to draw a picture of our best and worst learner. We shared our drawing with another conference participant and talked about characteristics of each type of learner. Some drawings were mere stick figures with descriptive words while other participants really honed in their creativity. My favorite example of a worst student was from one of the conference organizers who depicted Oscar the Grouch from Sesame Street. During a brainstorming activity with the entire audience, Whyte and Woodard recorded the audience’s responses to some of the characteristics of our best and worst learners. My favorite morning activity was analyzing 8 quotes about learner-centered instruction from different authors and discussing what struck us as important and what we felt was lacking. Due to the fact that our instructors kept us engaged with other learning activities, the morning flew by very quickly.

Even thought there were over 100 people who attended the conference, the catered lunch line moved very quickly, and we were given ample time to enjoy our lunch and to talk with individuals from other institutions. It was also interesting to meet face-to-face several online classmates from the LIS program at UNC-Greensboro and discuss their take on the conference.

After lunch, we could pick two breakout sessions to attend in the afternoon. One of the breakout sessions introduced SchoolPad, which is a hand-held mini version of the Smart Board. The SchoolPad, currently being used by Information Instruction Librarians at UNC-Chapel Hill, allows the instructor to access computer files, surf webpages, mark-up documents, and paint without being confined to the front of a room or a stationary computer terminal. I volunteered during the presentation to give it a test drive and found that, which much practice and steady hand precision that it was really quite easy and fun to use. Although this was an interesting educational tool, Bobbie decided to stick with the clickers.

The second part of this breakout session was the most entertaining one. David Weeks at Winthrop University discussed his approaches in adapting to needs and opportunities in a constantly changing IL program. He said Winthrop has a long history in providing library instruction to students but have never been officially a part of the Freshmen Orientation Week program. In 2007, though, University Administration asked the Library to participate in the Freshmen Orientation program, providing their event last no more than 30 minutes and it must not be held in the Library. So, given these restrictions the library staff at Winthrop developed an 18 minute movie based on the structure of the t.v. show, 24. The plot for their movie, entitled 24/7, was based on a freshman student needing to find sources for her paper due in 4 hours. Her friend, who just happens to be a student library worker, suggested she go to the Reference department for assistance. Following a very funny bit involving a “Wikipedia alert” and the acting ability of the Dean of the Library, the movie was quite effective in getting their point across while still engaging the students. Their first showing had 22 students in attendance, but with word-of-mouth advertising their next showing had 95! He showed some clips from the movie including outtakes and a gag reel, and the audience found it to be both entertaining and informative. I have contacted Mr. Weeks and he has agreed to send us a copy in case we want to try something similar.

The last breakout session that Heather and Bobbie attended was a panel discussion that focused on “Librarians: Teaching Partners across the Curriculum.” Steve Cramer was one of the speakers, and he discussed his experiences partnering with business faculty at UNC-G. Susan Keely (NC School of the Arts) shared her experiences working with ESL instructors. All in all, it was a very productive and informative conference and it did show that the Library Instruction here at ZSR is quite unique with offering course credit. Many people that I talked with were very impressed that ZSR offers 11 sections of Library Instruction and they are always full.

Day two turned out to be jammed packed with informative sessions from Atlas Systems and ILLiad presenters.  To start off the day’s events, Jay Jordon, President and CEO of OCLC, gave the opening remarks geared toward “Building Web-Scale for Libraries.”  As of January 31, 2008 OCLC has cataloged over 97 million records and 1.21 billion holdings.  In addition to discussing OCLC’s relationship with Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft and highlighting it’s release of www.worldcat.org, Mr. Jordan discussed their efforts and initiatives geared at building this web-scale for libraries.  Such initiatives include a new Facebook widget, WorldCat Local, WorldCat Delivery (pilot program), WorldCat Lists, and WorldCat Identities.  Finally, Mr. Jordan debuted a new logo for OCLC; three circles linked together, Local, Group, and Global, each connected to next.

I next went to a session entitled, Give the People What they Want: How to Use Surveys, Focus Groups, and Usability Studies to Modify your ILLiad Interfacepresented by Jon Mark Bolthouse from the University of Wisconsion Colleges.  This presentation focused on how to conduct successful surveys, focus groups, and usabilitues studies to improve the ILLiad web interfaces and thus improve customer services and relations.  Bolthouse discussed the differences, advantages, and disadvantages to each method of data collecting. 

Another session, given by Kevin Ford of Atlas Systems, highlighted the new features, functions, and error messages of ILLiad 7.3.  While ILLiad 7.3 interfaces, both public and staff views, will not change in this upgrade, 7.3 offers many new features aimed at streamlining the staff processing workflows.  Upgrade features include automatic email delays, Odyssey delivery enhancements, and expanded “stop sign” error messaging (stop sign icon indicates errors in record maintenance). 

My last session for the day was an interesting and highly-emotional round table discussion concerning Copyright Compliance and Interlibrary Loan policies and practices.  Round table leaders included Amanda Henk (DePauw University), Michelle Foss (University of Florida), John Brunswick (Atlas Systems), and Dru Zuretti (Copyright Compliance Center).  Most of the discussion focused around issues with the Copyright Compliance Center, Section 108 of the copyright policy, and managing copyright permissions in ILLiad, and royalty fees and ILL budgets. 

Before you get any ideas about attending a conference held at Virginia Beach, VA let me just tell you that it’s 57 degrees, overcast, and completely indoors (and supposed to rain on Friday).  Now, onto the highlights of Pre-Conference events.  This year’s OCLC International ILLiad Conference is being held at the Oceanfront Hilton Hotel, sponsored by Atlas Systems.  In addition to some very nice registration goodies and trolley service up and down the Boardwalk area, Atlas Systems and The Copyright Compliance Center have sponsored a pre-conference social in one of the hotel ballrooms.  This provided a relaxed setting to meet-and-greet as well as run into some old ILL buddies.  In addition to serving local foods and beverages, the CCC sponsored a photo booth and four Wii game stations.  What a great way to meet new people and break the ILL ice than to rip a few cords on the Guitar Hero or play a few frames on Wii Bowling?   Tomorrow promises a full day of education, discussion, and previewing of new products and features for ILL users and software programs.  In addition to previewing the upgrade features of ILLiad 7.3 and a Round Table discussion on Copyright Compliance and ILL, I am most excited to preview two new products available from Atlas Systems…Ares 2.4 (an automated system for e-Reserves) and Aeon (a special collections circulation and workflow automation software).  Although these two programs do not specifically address Interlibrary Loan, it looks like a neat demonstration to end the day on.

More tomorrow!

Heather

As a current LIS student taking Library Administration and Management, I thought it would be beneficial to attend the afternoon session Managing Multiple Generations in the Workplace. Lynn Unsworth, of Capital Associated Industries, Inc. (based in Raleigh, NC) lead the workshop “Four Generations Working Together”, which identified the varying characteristics among the diverse pool of professionals in today’s work environment.

Unsworth highlighted the following work styles and values of each generation:

Traditionalists (born between 1925-1942)

• Loyalty
• Dedication, hard work
• Respectful of rules and authority
• Conservative
• value tradition

Baby Boomers (born between 1943-1960)

• Work is a priority
• Optimistic
• Competitive
• Value meaning
• Strong professional networks

Generation X (born between 1961-1981)

• Self-Reliance
• Desire flexibility
• Skpticism
• Technology
• Informal
• Value balance of work and life

Generation Y (born between 1982-2002)

• Fast paced (multitasking/multimedia)
• Tenacity/Directness
• Entrepreneurial
• Global diversity
• Technologically savvy
• Value fun

In order to merge these varying characteristics, values, and work ethics to create a productive and positive work environment, Unsworth proposed taking “The M.E.E.T. Approach.” The MEET Approach will help with the multigeneralional workforce but improving teamwork, productivity, and customer satisfaction through communications, conflict resolution, and problem solving.

M-Make time to discuss (Do you have a minute? Can we talk for a few minutes in private?)

E-Explore difference (This is important because…The way I look at this is…)
E-Encourage respect (I’ve had a similar experience…I really appreciate the way you…)

T-Take responsibility (How about we agree to…I’ll try to…I’m glad we talked.)

Finally, since much of this session brought my class readings to light, the two most important statements I took away from this session were

• the way others perceive us is often different from the way we perceive ourselves
• Organizations must turn diversity into a strength and become fluid and flexible to meet marketplace demands

This year’s President’s Endowment Dinner was held at the Lake Hickory Country Club and sponsored by Solinet and Webfeat. All funds raised from the dinner admission goes to the NCLA Endowment fund in efforts to fund future NCLA events and conferences. As a guest at the Webfeat table I was able to discuss the functionality and capabilities of the federated search engine among fellow library professionals. We also had an opportunity to discuss opportunities for improvement for current functionality and possible upgrade features for future versions of Webfeat.

The evening’s main event was a musical cabaret by EbzB Productions entitled WAR BONDS: The Songs and Letters of World War II. The two-hour production incorporated popular tunes from the late 1930s to mid 1940s, including Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree, Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy, I’ll Be Seeing You, and As Time Goes By. In between musical numbers (and an appearance from Marlene Dietrich), the performers read actual letters from U. S. servicemen, women, Churchill, and Roosevelt. The letters, along with the deeper meanings of the song lyrics, highlighted the intensity of society and the world at that time. As a student of History, I was greatly appreciative for the opportunity to experience this event.

WAR BONDS has recently finished taping their production to air on UNC-TV and a scaled-down version will be included in a forthcoming documentary by Ken Burns entitled THE WAR. The UNC-TV version is set to air this coming December (but word at the conference said it may be in January 2008).