Searching for "digital assessment literacy"

Advancing Online Education in Minnesota State

Advancing Online Education in Minnesota State

Advancing Online Education – Full Report-1s94jfi

Defining Online Education
The term “online education” has been used as a blanket phrase for a number of fundamentally different  educational models. Phrases like distance education, e-Learning, massively open online courses (MOOCs),  hybrid/blended learning, immersive learning, personalized and/or adaptive learning, master courses,  computer based instruction/tutorials, digital literacy and even competency based learning have all colored the  definitions the public uses to define “online education.”

online education” as having the following characteristics:

  • Students who enroll in online courses or programs may reside near or far from the campus(es) providing the course(s) or program.
  • A student’s course load may include offering where attendance is required in person or where an instructor/students are not required to be in the same geographic location.
  • Students may enroll in one or more individual online course offerings provided by one or more institutions to that may or may not satisfy degree/program requirements.
  • Student may pursue a certificate, program, or degree where a substantial number of courses, perhaps all, are taken without being in the same geographic location as others.

Organizational Effectiveness Research Group (OERG),

As the workgroup considered strategies that could advance online education, they were asked to use the primary and secondary sources listed above to support the fifteen (15) strategies that were developed

define a goal as a broad aspirational outcome that we strive to attain. Four goal areas guide this document. These goal areas include access, quality, affordability and collaboration. Below is a description of each goal area and the assumptions made for Minnesota State.

  1. Access
    Over twenty percent of existing Minnesota State students enroll in online courses as a way to satisfy course requirements. For some students, online education is a convenient option; for others, online is the only option available
  2. Quality
    The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) accreditation guidelines review the standards and processes institutions have in place to ensure quality in all of educational offerings, including online.
    There are a number of ways in which institutions have demonstrated quality in individual courses and programs including the evaluation of course design, evaluation of instruction and assessment of student
  3. Affordability
    a differential tuition rate to courses that are offered online. If we intend to have online education continue to be an affordable solution for students, Minnesota State and its institutions must be good stewards of these funds and ensure these funds support online education.
    Online education requires different or additional services that need to be funded
    transparency is important in tuition setting
  4. Collaboration
    Distance Minnesota is comprised of four institutions Alexandria Technical & Community College, Bemidji State University, Northland Community & Technical College, and Northwest Technical College) which collaborate to offer student support services, outreach, e-advising, faculty support, and administrative assistance for online education offerings.

 Strategies

strategies are defined as the overall plan used to identify how we can achieve each goal area.

Action Steps

Strategy 1: Ensure all student have online access to high quality support services

students enrolled in online education experiences should have access to “three areas of support including academic (such as tutoring, advising, and library); administrative (such as financial aid, and disability support); and technical (such as hardware reliability and uptime, and help desk).”
As a system, students have access to a handful of statewide services, include tutoring services through Smarthinking and test proctoring sites.

Strategy 2: Establish and maintain measures to assess and support student readiness for online education

A persistent issue for campuses has been to ensure that students who enroll in online course are aware of the expectations required to participate actively in an online course.

In addition to adhering to course expectations, students must have the technical competencies needed to perform the tasks required for online courses

Strategy 3: Ensure students have access to online and blended learning experiences in course and program offerings.

Strategy 4: These experiences should support and recognize diverse learning needs by applying a universal design for learning framework.

The OERG report included several references to efforts made by campuses related to the providing support and resources for universal design for learning, the workgroup did not offer any action steps.

Strategy 5: Expand access to professional development resources and services for faculty members

As online course are developed and while faculty members teach online courses, it is critical that faculty members have on-demand access to resources like technical support and course assistance.

5A. Statewide Faculty Support Services – Minnesota State provide its institutions and their faculty members with access to a centralized support center during extended hours with staff that can assist faculty members synchronously via phone, chat, text/SMS, or web conference

5C. Instructional Design and Technology Services – Establish a unit that will provide course design and instructional technology services to selected programs and courses from Minnesota State institutions.

Quality

Strategy 1: Establish and maintain a statewide approach for professional development for online education.

1B. Faculty Mentoring – Provide and sustain faculty mentoring programs that promote effective online pedagogy.

1C. Professional development for support staff – including instructional designers, D2L Brightspace site administrators and campus trainers, etc.)

+++++++++++
more on online education in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+education

Key Issues in Teaching and Learning Survey

The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative has just launched its 2018 Key Issues in Teaching and Learning Survey, so vote today: http://www.tinyurl.com/ki2018.

Each year, the ELI surveys the teaching and learning community in order to discover the key issues and themes in teaching and learning. These top issues provide the thematic foundation or basis for all of our conversations, courses, and publications for the coming year. Longitudinally they also provide the way to track the evolving discourse in the teaching and learning space. More information about this annual survey can be found at https://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/key-issues-in-teaching-and-learning.

ACADEMIC TRANSFORMATION (Holistic models supporting student success, leadership competencies for academic transformation, partnerships and collaborations across campus, IT transformation, academic transformation that is broad, strategic, and institutional in scope)

ACCESSIBILITY AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING (Supporting and educating the academic community in effective practice; intersections with instructional delivery modes; compliance issues)

ADAPTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING (Digital courseware; adaptive technology; implications for course design and the instructor’s role; adaptive approaches that are not technology-based; integration with LMS; use of data to improve learner outcomes)

COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION AND NEW METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING (Developing collaborative cultures of assessment that bring together faculty, instructional designers, accreditation coordinators, and technical support personnel, real world experience credit)

DIGITAL AND INFORMATION LITERACIES (Student and faculty literacies; research skills; data discovery, management, and analysis skills; information visualization skills; partnerships for literacy programs; evaluation of student digital competencies; information evaluation)

EVALUATING TECHNOLOGY-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL INNOVATIONS (Tools and methods to gather data; data analysis techniques; qualitative vs. quantitative data; evaluation project design; using findings to change curricular practice; scholarship of teaching and learning; articulating results to stakeholders; just-in-time evaluation of innovations). here is my bibliographical overview on Big Data (scroll down to “Research literature”http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/11/07/irdl-proposal/ )

EVOLUTION OF THE TEACHING AND LEARNING SUPPORT PROFESSION (Professional skills for T&L support; increasing emphasis on instructional design; delineating the skills, knowledge, business acumen, and political savvy for success; role of inter-institutional communities of practices and consortia; career-oriented professional development planning)

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT (Incentivizing faculty innovation; new roles for faculty and those who support them; evidence of impact on student learning/engagement of faculty development programs; faculty development intersections with learning analytics; engagement with student success)

GAMIFICATION OF LEARNING (Gamification designs for course activities; adaptive approaches to gamification; alternate reality games; simulations; technological implementation options for faculty)

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN (Skills and competencies for designers; integration of technology into the profession; role of data in design; evolution of the design profession (here previous blog postings on this issue: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/10/04/instructional-design-3/); effective leadership and collaboration with faculty)

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND ADVISING FOR STUDENT SUCCESS (Change management and campus leadership; collaboration across units; integration of technology systems and data; dashboard design; data visualization (here previous blog postings on this issue: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=data+visualization); counseling and coaching advising transformation; student success analytics)

LEARNING ANALYTICS (Leveraging open data standards; privacy and ethics; both faculty and student facing reports; implementing; learning analytics to transform other services; course design implications)

LEARNING SPACE DESIGNS (Makerspaces; funding; faculty development; learning designs across disciplines; supporting integrated campus planning; ROI; accessibility/UDL; rating of classroom designs)

MICRO-CREDENTIALING AND DIGITAL BADGING (Design of badging hierarchies; stackable credentials; certificates; role of open standards; ways to publish digital badges; approaches to meta-data; implications for the transcript; Personalized learning transcripts and blockchain technology (here previous blog postings on this issue: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=blockchain

MOBILE LEARNING (Curricular use of mobile devices (here previous blog postings on this issue:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/09/25/mc218-remodel/; innovative curricular apps; approaches to use in the classroom; technology integration into learning spaces; BYOD issues and opportunities)

MULTI-DIMENSIONAL TECHNOLOGIES (Virtual, augmented, mixed, and immersive reality; video walls; integration with learning spaces; scalability, affordability, and accessibility; use of mobile devices; multi-dimensional printing and artifact creation)

NEXT-GENERATION DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND LMS SERVICES (Open standards; learning environments architectures (here previous blog postings on this issue: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/03/28/digital-learning/; social learning environments; customization and personalization; OER integration; intersections with learning modalities such as adaptive, online, etc.; LMS evaluation, integration and support)

ONLINE AND BLENDED TEACHING AND LEARNING (Flipped course models; leveraging MOOCs in online learning; course development models; intersections with analytics; humanization of online courses; student engagement)

OPEN EDUCATION (Resources, textbooks, content; quality and editorial issues; faculty development; intersections with student success/access; analytics; licensing; affordability; business models; accessibility and sustainability)

PRIVACY AND SECURITY (Formulation of policies on privacy and data protection; increased sharing of data via open standards for internal and external purposes; increased use of cloud-based and third party options; education of faculty, students, and administrators)

WORKING WITH EMERGING LEARNING TECHNOLOGY (Scalability and diffusion; effective piloting practices; investments; faculty development; funding; evaluation methods and rubrics; interoperability; data-driven decision-making)

+++++++++++
learning and teaching in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=teaching+and+learning

scsu library position proposal

Please email completed forms to librarydeansoffice@stcloudstate.edu no later than noon on Thursday, October 5.

According to the email below, library faculty are asked to provide their feedback regarding the qualifications for a possible faculty line at the library.

  1. In the fall of 2013 during a faculty meeting attended by the back than library dean and during a discussion of an article provided by the dean, it was established that leading academic libraries in this country are seeking to break the mold of “library degree” and seek fresh ideas for the reinvention of the academic library by hiring faculty with more diverse (degree-wise) background.
  2. Is this still the case at the SCSU library? The “democratic” search for the answer of this question does not yield productive results, considering that the majority of the library faculty are “reference” and they “democratically” overturn votes, who see this library to be put on 21st century standards and rather seek more “reference” bodies for duties, which were recognized even by the same reference librarians as obsolete.
    It seems that the majority of the SCSU library are “purists” in the sense of seeking professionals with broader background (other than library, even “reference” skills).
    In addition, most of the current SCSU librarians are opposed to a second degree, as in acquiring more qualification, versus seeking just another diploma. There is a certain attitude of stagnation / intellectual incest, where new ideas are not generated and old ideas are prepped in “new attire” to look as innovative and/or 21st
    Last but not least, a consistent complain about workforce shortages (the attrition politics of the university’s reorganization contribute to the power of such complain) fuels the requests for reference librarians and, instead of looking for new ideas, new approaches and new work responsibilities, the library reorganization conversation deteriorates into squabbles for positions among different department.
    Most importantly, the narrow sightedness of being stuck in traditional work description impairs  most of the librarians to see potential allies and disruptors. E.g., the insistence on the supremacy of “information literacy” leads SCSU librarians to the erroneous conclusion of the exceptionality of information literacy and the disregard of multi[meta] literacies, thus depriving the entire campus of necessary 21st century skills such as visual literacy, media literacy, technology literacy, etc.
    Simultaneously, as mentioned above about potential allies and disruptors, the SCSU librarians insist on their “domain” and if they are not capable of leading meta-literacies instructions, they would also not allow and/or support others to do so.
    Considering the observations above, the following qualifications must be considered:
  3. According to the information in this blog post:
    http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/06/14/technology-requirements-samples/
    for the past year and ½, academic libraries are hiring specialists with the following qualifications and for the following positions (bolded and / or in red). Here are some highlights:
    Positions
    digital humanities
    Librarian and Instructional Technology Liaison

library Specialist: Data Visualization & Collections Analytics

Qualifications

Advanced degree required, preferably in education, educational technology, instructional design, or MLS with an emphasis in instruction and assessment.

Programming skills – Demonstrated experience with one or more metadata and scripting languages (e.g.Dublin Core, XSLT, Java, JavaScript, Python, or PHP)
Data visualization skills
multi [ meta] literacy skills

Data curation, helping students working with data
Experience with website creation and design in a CMS environment and accessibility and compliance issues
Demonstrated a high degree of facility with technologies and systems germane to the 21st century library, and be well versed in the issues surrounding scholarly communications and compliance issues (e.g. author identifiers, data sharing software, repositories, among others)

Bilingual

Provides and develops awareness and knowledge related to digital scholarship and research lifecycle for librarians and staff.

Experience developing for, and supporting, common open-source library applications such as Omeka, ArchiveSpace, Dspace,

 

Responsibilities
Establishing best practices for digital humanities labs, networks, and services

Assessing, evaluating, and peer reviewing DH projects and librarians
Actively promote TIGER or GRIC related activities through social networks and other platforms as needed.
Coordinates the transmission of online workshops through Google HangoutsScript metadata transformations and digital object processing using BASH, Python, and XSLT

liaison consults with faculty and students in a wide range of disciplines on best practices for teaching and using data/statistical software tools such as R, SPSS, Stata, and MatLab.

 

In response to the form attached to the Friday, September 29, email regarding St. Cloud State University Library Position Request Form:

 

  1. Title
    Digital Initiatives Librarian
  2. Responsibilities:
    TBD, but generally:
    – works with faculty across campus on promoting digital projects and other 21st century projects. Works with the English Department faculty on positioning the SCSU library as an equal participants in the digital humanities initiatives on campus
  • Works with the Visualization lab to establish the library as the leading unit on campus in interpretation of big data
  • Works with academic technology services on promoting library faculty as the leading force in the pedagogical use of academic technologies.
  1. Quantitative data justification
    this is a mute requirement for an innovative and useful library position. It can apply for a traditional request, such as another “reference” librarian. There cannot be a quantitative data justification for an innovative position, as explained to Keith Ewing in 2015. In order to accumulate such data, the position must be functioning at least for six months.
  2. Qualitative justification: Please provide qualitative explanation that supports need for this position.
    Numerous 21st century academic tendencies right now are scattered across campus and are a subject of political/power battles rather than a venue for campus collaboration and cooperation. Such position can seek the establishment of the library as the natural hub for “sandbox” activities across campus. It can seek a redirection of using digital initiatives on this campus for political gains by administrators and move the generation and accomplishment of such initiatives to the rightful owner and primary stakeholders: faculty and students.
    Currently, there are no additional facilities and resources required. Existing facilities and resources, such as the visualization lab, open source and free application can be used to generate the momentum of faculty working together toward a common goal, such as, e.g. digital humanities.

 

 

 

 

measuring library outcomes and value

THE VALUE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
A Comprehensive Research Review and Report. Megan Oakleaf

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf

Librarians in universities, colleges, and community colleges can establish, assess, and link
academic library outcomes to institutional outcomes related to the following areas:
student enrollment, student retention and graduation rates, student success, student
achievement, student learning, student engagement, faculty research productivity,
faculty teaching, service, and overarching institutional quality.
Assessment management systems help higher education educators, including librarians, manage their outcomes, record and maintain data on each outcome, facilitate connections to
similar outcomes throughout an institution, and generate reports.
Assessment management systems are helpful for documenting progress toward
strategic/organizational goals, but their real strength lies in managing learning
outcomes assessments.
to determine the impact of library interactions on users, libraries can collect data on how individual users engage with library resources and services.
increase library impact on student enrollment.
p. 13-14improved student retention and graduation rates. High -impact practices include: first -year seminars and experiences, common intellectual experiences, learning communities, writing – intensive courses, collaborative assignments and projects, undergraduate research, Value of Academic Libraries diversity/global learning, service learning/community -based learning, internships, capstone courses and projects

p. 14

Libraries support students’ ability to do well in internships, secure job placements, earn salaries, gain acceptance to graduate/professional schools, and obtain marketable skills.
librarians can investigate correlations between student library interactions and their GPA well as conduct test item audits of major professional/educational tests to determine correlations between library services or resources and specific test items.
p. 15 Review course content, readings, reserves, and assignments.
Track and increase library contributions to faculty research productivity.
Continue to investigate library impact on faculty grant proposals and funding, a means of generating institutional income. Librarians contribute to faculty grant proposals in a number of ways.
Demonstrate and improve library support of faculty teaching.
p. 20 Internal Focus: ROI – lib value = perceived benefits / perceived costs
production of a commodity – value=quantity of commodity produced × price per unit of commodity
p. 21 External focus
a fourth definition of value focuses on library impact on users. It asks, “What is the library trying to achieve? How can librarians tell if they have made a difference?” In universities, colleges, and community colleges, libraries impact learning, teaching, research, and service. A main method for measuring impact is to “observe what the [users] are actually doing and what they are producing as a result”
A fifth definition of value is based on user perceptions of the library in relation to competing alternatives. A related definition is “desired value” or “what a [user] wants to have happen when interacting with a [library] and/or using a [library’s] product or service” (Flint, Woodruff and Fisher Gardial 2002) . Both “impact” and “competing alternatives” approaches to value require libraries to gain new understanding of their users’ goals as well as the results of their interactions with academic libraries.
p. 23 Increasingly, academic library value is linked to service, rather than products. Because information products are generally produced outside of libraries, library value is increasingly invested in service aspects and librarian expertise.
service delivery supported by librarian expertise is an important library value.
p. 25 methodology based only on literature? weak!
p. 26 review and analysis of the literature: language and literature are old (e.g. educational administrators vs ed leaders).
G government often sees higher education as unresponsive to these economic demands. Other stakeholder groups —students, pa rents, communities, employers, and graduate/professional schools —expect higher education to make impacts in ways that are not primarily financial.

p. 29

Because institutional missions vary (Keeling, et al. 2008, 86; Fraser, McClure and
Leahy 2002, 512), the methods by which academic libraries contribute value vary as
well. Consequently, each academic library must determine the unique ways in which they contribute to the mission of their institution and use that information to guide planning and decision making (Hernon and Altman, Assessing Service Quality 1998, 31) . For example, the University of Minnesota Libraries has rewritten their mission and vision to increase alignment with their overarching institution’s goals and emphasis on strategic engagement (Lougee 2009, allow institutional missions to guide library assessment
Assessment vs. Research
In community colleges, colleges, and universities, assessment is about defining the
purpose of higher education and determining the nature of quality (Astin 1987)
.
Academic libraries serve a number of purposes, often to the point of being
overextended.
Assessment “strives to know…what is” and then uses that information to change the
status quo (Keeling, et al. 2008, 28); in contrast, research is designed to test
hypotheses. Assessment focuses on observations of change; research is concerned with the degree of correlation or causation among variables (Keeling, et al. 2008, 35) . Assessment “virtually always occurs in a political context ,” while research attempts to be apolitical” (Upcraft and Schuh 2002, 19) .
 p. 31 Assessment seeks to document observations, but research seeks to prove or disprove ideas. Assessors have to complete assessment projects, even when there are significant design flaws (e.g., resource limitations, time limitations, organizational contexts, design limitations, or political contexts); whereas researchers can start over (Upcraft and Schuh 2002, 19) . Assessors cannot always attain “perfect” studies, but must make do with “good enough” (Upcraft and Schuh 2002, 18) . Of course, assessments should be well planned, be based on clear outcomes (Gorman 2009, 9- 10) , and use appropriate methods (Keeling, et al. 2008, 39) ; but they “must be comfortable with saying ‘after’ as well as ‘as a result of’…experiences” (Ke eling, et al. 2008, 35) .
Two multiple measure approaches are most significant for library assessment: 1) triangulation “where multiple methods are used to find areas of convergence of data from different methods with an aim of overcoming the biases or limitations of data gathered from any one particular method” (Keeling, et al. 2008, 53) and 2) complementary mixed methods , which “seek to use data from multiple methods to build upon each other by clarifying, enhancing, or illuminating findings between or among methods” (Keeling, et al. 2008, 53) .
p. 34 Academic libraries can help higher education institutions retain and graduate students, a keystone part of institutional missions (Mezick 2007, 561) , but the challenge lies in determining how libraries can contribute and then document their contribution
p. 35. Student Engagement:  In recent years, academic libraries have been transformed to provide “technology and content ubiquity” as well as individualized support
My Note: I read the “technology and content ubiquity” as digital literacy / metaliteracies, where basic technology instructional sessions (everything that IMS offers for years) is included, but this library still clenches to information literacy only.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) http://nsse.indiana.edu/
http://nsse.indiana.edu/2017_Institutional_Report/pdf/NSSE17%20Snapshot%20%28NSSEville%20State%29.pdf
p. 37 Student Learning
In the past, academic libraries functioned primarily as information repositories; now they are becoming learning enterprises (Bennett 2009, 194) . This shift requires academic librarians to embed library services and resources in the teaching and learning activities of their institutions (Lewis 2007) . In the new paradigm, librarians focus on information skills, not information access (Bundy 2004, 3); they think like educators, not service providers (Bennett 2009, 194) .
p. 38. For librarians, the main content area of student learning is information literacy; however, they are not alone in their interest in student inform ation literacy skills (Oakleaf, Are They Learning? 2011).
My note: Yep. it was. 20 years ago. Metaliteracies is now.
p. 41 surrogates for student learning in Table 3.
p. 42 strategic planning for learning:
According to Kantor, the university library “exists to benefit the students of the educational institution as individuals ” (Library as an Information Utility 1976 , 101) . In contrast, academic libraries tend to assess learning outcomes using groups of students
p. 45 Assessment Management Systems
Tk20
Each assessment management system has a slightly different set of capabilities. Some guide outcomes creation, some develop rubrics, some score student work, or support student portfolios. All manage, maintain, and report assessment data
p. 46 faculty teaching
However, as online collections grow and discovery tools evolve, that role has become less critical (Schonfeld and Housewright 2010; Housewright and Schonfeld, Ithaka’s 2006 Studies of Key Stakeholders 2008, 256) . Now, libraries serve as research consultants, project managers, technical support professionals, purchasers , and archivists (Housewright, Themes of Change 2009, 256; Case 2008) .
Librarians can count citations of faculty publications (Dominguez 2005)
.

+++++++++++++

Tenopir, C. (2012). Beyond usage: measuring library outcomes and value. Library Management33(1/2), 5-13.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d70921798%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

methods that can be used to measure the value of library products and services. (Oakleaf, 2010; Tenopir and King, 2007): three main categories

  1. Implicit value. Measuring usage through downloads or usage logs provide an implicit measure of value. It is assumed that because libraries are used, they are of value to the users. Usage of e-resources is relatively easy to measure on an ongoing basis and is especially useful in collection development decisions and comparison of specific journal titles or use across subject disciplines.

do not show purpose, satisfaction, or outcomes of use (or whether what is downloaded is actually read).

  1. Explicit methods of measuring value include qualitative interview techniques that ask faculty members, students, or others specifically about the value or outcomes attributed to their use of the library collections or services and surveys or interviews that focus on a specific (critical) incident of use.
  2. Derived values, such as Return on Investment (ROI), use multiple types of data collected on both the returns (benefits) and the library and user costs (investment) to explain value in monetary terms.

++++++++++++++++++
more on ROI in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/11/02/roi-of-social-media/

embedded librarian qualifications

qualifications of the embedded librarian: is there any known case for an academic library to employ as embedded librarian a specialist who has both MLIS and terminal degree in a discipline, where he works as embedded librarian.

I also think that we need to be more welcoming to people who may not have come through a traditional education program (i.e., the M.L.S.) but who bring critical skills and new perspectives into the library.
The Changing Roles of Academic and Research Libraries – Higher Ed Careers – HigherEdJobs. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.higheredjobs.com/HigherEdCareers/interviews.cfm?ID=632

“Embedded librarian” is understood as librarians presence in traditional classroom environments and or through LMS.
Then opinions vary: According to Kvienlid (2012), http://www.cclibinstruction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CCLI2012proceedings_Kvenild.pdf

  1. “Their engagement can be over two or more class sessions, even co-teaching the class in some cases. This model provides in-depth knowledge of student research projects during the research and revision process.” This is for first-year experience students.
  2. Embedding with project teams in Business and STEM programs involves:  “in – depth participation in short – term projects, aiding the team in their searches, literature review, grant preparation, data curation, or other specialized information aspects of the project. This level of embedment requires a heavy time commitment during the length of the project, as well as subject expertise and established trust with the research team.”
  3. embedding in departments as a liaison. 
    “They are usually closely affiliated with the departme nt (maybe even more so than with the libraries) and might be paid out of departmental funds. These librarians learn the ways and needs of their patrons in their natural environment. They often work as finders of information, organizers of information, and taxonomy creators. Embedding within departments provides in – depth knowledge of the users of library services, along with potential isolation from other librarians. It involves a high degree of specialization, co – location and shared responsibility”

best practices, new opptunities (video, screencasts, social media. Adobe Connect) , Assessment

here is Kvenild 2016 article also

Kvenild, C., Tumbleson, B. E., Burke, J. J., & Calkins, K. (2016). Embedded librarianship: questions and answers from librarians in the trenches. Library Hi Tech34(2), 8-11.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d124513010%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

utilizing technology tools; and providing information literacy and assessment. Technology tools continue to evolve and change, and most librarians can anticipate using multiple learning management systems over time. There is an ongoing need for professional development in online library instruction and assessment

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tumbleson, B. E., & Burke, J. (. J. (2013). Embedding librarianship in learning management systems: A how-to-do-it manual for librarians. Neal-Schuman, an imprint of the American Library Association.

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/05/04/lms-and-embedded-librarianship/

read in red my emphasis on excerpts from that book

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Monroe-Gulick, A., O ’brien, M. S., & White, G. (2013). Librarians as Partners: Moving from Research Supporters to Research Partners. In Moving from Research Supporters to Research Partners. Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/GulickOBrienWhite_Librarians.pdf

From Supporter to Partner

++++++++++++++++++++++
Andrews, C. (2014). An Examination of Embedded Librarian Ideas and Practices: A Critical Bibliography.

http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=bx_pubs

emphasis is on undergraduate. “a tremendous amount of literature published addressing library/faculty partnerships.”

“There will never be one golden rule when it comes to way in which a librarian networks with faculty on campus.”

++++++++++++++++
Bobish, G. (2011). Participation and Pedagogy: Connecting the Social Web to ACRL Learning Outcomes. Journal Of Academic Librarianship37(1), 54-63.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d57844282%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232382226_Participation_and_Pedagogy_Connecting_the_Social_Web_to_ACRL_Learning_Outcomes

requested through researchgate

++++++++++++++++++++++

Cahoy, E. S., & Schroeder, R. (2012). EMBEDDING AFFECTIVE LEARNING OUTCOMES IN LIBRARY INSTRUCTION. Communications In Information Literacy6(1), 73-90.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d84110749%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

attention must be paid to students’ affective, emotional needs throughout the research
process. My note: And this is exactly what comprise half of my service of. The relatively small amount of research into affective learning, as opposed to cognition, remains true to this day.

p. 78  As the 50-minute one-shot session is still the norm for library research sessions on the
majority of campuses, behavioral assessment can be problematic.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cha, T., & Hsieh, P. (2009). A Case Study of Faculty Attitudes toward Collaboration with Librarians to Integrate Information Literacy into the Curriculum. (Chinese). Journal Of Educational Media & Library Sciences46(4), 441-467.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d502982677%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

Meanwhile, different attitudes were revealed between teaching higher order thinking skills and lower order thinking skills. Librarian Domain Knowledge, Librarian Professionalism, Curriculum Strategies, and Student Learning were identified as factorial dimensions influencing faculty-librarian collaboration.

two major concerns of “Students Learning” and “Librarian Professionalism” from faculty provide insights that understanding pedagogy, enhancing instructional skills and continuing progress in librarian professionalism will contribute to consolidating partnerships when developing course-specific IL programs.

this proves how much right I am to develophttp://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/

++++++++++++++++++

COVONE, N., & LAMM, M. (2010). Just Be There: Campus, Department, Classroom…and Kitchen?. Public Services Quarterly6(2/3), 198-207. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.498768

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d53155456%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

p. 199 There is also the concept of the ‘‘blended librarian’’ as described by Bell and Shank (2004) to merge the assets and abilities of a librarian with those of one versed in technology. Academic librarians are obligated and privileged to merge several strengths to meet the needs of their user population. No longer is the traditional passive role acceptable. Bell and Shank (2004) implore academic librarians ‘‘to proactively advance their integration into the teaching and learning process’’ (p. 373).

p. 200 first year experience

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey, B. I. (2004). The Embedded Librarian: Strategic Campus Collaborations. Resource Sharing & Information Networks17(1-2), 5-17.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deric%26AN%3dEJ835947%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

p. 6 the imperative for academic librarians to become embedded in the priorities of teaching, learning, and research in truly relevant ways. Embedding as an effective mode of collaboration will be explored through examples relating to the physical and virtual environment. An analysis of current approaches and next steps for the future will be addressed, with the goal of providing food for thought as librarians assess programs and activities in terms of positive collaboration and effectiveness

p. 9  new academic salon,
p. 10 the pervasive campus librarian
The fact that we are generalists and devoted to all disciplines and all sectors of the academic user community gives us a special insight on ways to advance the university and achieve its mission

this contradicts Shumaker and Talley, who assert that the embedded librarian is NOT a generalist, but specialist

p. 11 Central administrators, along with the chief academic officer, make critical funding and policy decisions affecting the library

p. 11 librarians and teaching.
In 2011, interim dean Ruth Zietlow “gave up” classes after the messy divorce with CIM. the library faculty poled itself to reveal that a significant number of the faculty does NOT want to teach.

p. 14 influencing campus virtual space
this library’s social media is imploded in its image.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DREWES, K., & HOFFMAN, N. (2010). Academic Embedded Librarianship: An Introduction. Public Services Quarterly6(2/3), 75-82. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.498773

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d53155443%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

p. 75 Literature about embedded librarianship is so diverse that the definition of this term, as well as related goals and methods when embedding services and programs, can be difficult to define. What are some characteristics of an embedded program? Is embedding only achieved through an online classroom? How did embedded librarianship first begin in academic libraries?

p. 76 adopted as a term because it is a similar concept to embedded journalism.
Embedded librarian programs often locate librarians involved in the spaces of their users and colleagues, either physically or through technology, in order to become a part of their users’ culture. A librarian’s physical and metaphorical location is often what defines them as embedded.

David Shumaker and Mary Talley (see bottom of this blog entry)

Highly technical tasks, such as creating information architecture, using analytical software, and computer and network systems management were performed by less than 20% of the survey respondents. Shumaker and Talley also report embedded services are often found in tandem with specialized funding. This study also confirms embedded services are not new.

p. 77 history and evolution of the role

p. 79 methods of embedding

In North America, one would be hard-pressed to find a library that does not already electronically embed services into online reference chat, make use of Web 2.0 communication applications such as Twitter and blogs, and embed librarians and collaborators within online classrooms. These are all examples of the embedding process (Ramsay & Kinnie, 2006). The name embedded librarian in this context is a double entendre, as the insertion of widgets and multimedia files into HTML code when designing Web sites is usually called the embedding of the file.
My note: is this library actually is one that does not use Twitter and blogs in the hard-core meaning of library service

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Essinger, C. c., & Ke, I. i. (2013). Outreach: What Works?. Collaborative Librarianship5(1), 52-58.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d87760803%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

Recommendations:
The authors distributed their findings at a half day workshop attended by nearly all liaisons. They made the following recommendations:

  • • Personalize outreach.
  • • Spend more time marketing and reaching out to departments, even though it might mean having less time for other activities.
  • • Find an alternative advocate who can build your reputation through word-ofmouth if your relationship with your assigned department liaison is not fruitful.
  • • Seek opportunities to meet department staff in person.
  • • As much as possible, administrators should commit to keeping liaisons assignments static.

p. 57 that faculty outreach is similar to other types of relationship building: it requires time to establish trust, respect and appreciation on both sides. Even a liaison’s challenging first two years can, therefore, be viewed as productive because the relationship is developing in the background. This phenomenon also signals to library administrators the benefits of maintaining a stable workforce. Frequent changes in academic assignments and staff changes can lead to a less engaged user population, and also make the outreach assignment much more frustrating.

+++++++++++++++++

Heider, K. L. (2010). Ten Tips for Implementing a Successful Embedded Librarian Program. Public Services Quarterly6(2-3), 110-121.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deric%26AN%3dEJ896199%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

embedded librarian program in the university’s College of Education and Educational Technology

p. 112 Make Sure You Have Buy-in from All Stakeholders

Include College=Department Faculty in the Interview Process

Look for the Following Qualities=Qualifications in an Embedded Librarian

Have a Physical Presence in the College=Department a Few Days Each Week

Serve as Bibliographer to College=Department

Offer Bibliographic Instruction Sessions and Guest Lectures at Main Campus, Branch Campuses, and Centers

Develop Collaborative Programs that Utilize the Library’s Resources for College=Department Improvement

#9 Offer to Teach Credit Courses for the College=Department When Department Faculty Are Not Available

#10: Publish Scholarly Works and Present at Professional Conferences with College=Department Faculty. again, Martin Lo, John Hoover,

+++++++++++++++++++

Hollister, C. V. (2008). Meeting Them where They Are: Library Instruction for Today’s Students in the World Civilizations Course. Public Services Quarterly4(1), 15-27.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deric%26AN%3dEJ877341%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

history and library. My note: can you break the silo in the history department? http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/05/01/history-becker/ 

world civilizations course

Faculty come to the world civilizations enterprise from a broad range of academic disciplines and world experiences, which has a significant impact on their interpretations of world history, their selections of course materials, their teaching styles, and their expectations for students. Moreover, faculty teach the course on a rotating basis. So, there is no single model of faculty-librarian collaboration that can be applied from section to section, or even from semester to semester. Faculty have widely differing views on the role of library instruction in their sections of the course, and the extent to which library research is required for coursework. They also differ in terms of their ability or willingness to collaborate with the libraries. As a result, student access to library instruction varies from section to section.

+++++++++++++++++

Kesselman, M. A., & Watstein, S. B. (2009). Creating Opportunities: Embedded Librarians. Journal Of Library Administration49(3), 383-400.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d502977425%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

p. 384 embedded librarians in the blogosphere.
not even close to the local idea how blog must be used  for library use.

p. 387 definitions

p. 389 clinical librarianship – term from the 1970s.

p. 390 Special librarians and particularly those in corporate settings tend to be more integrated within the company they serve and are often instrumental in cost-related services such as competitive intelligence, scientific, and patent research.

p. 391 Librarians Collaborating With Faculty in Scholarly Communication Activities

My note: this is what I am doing with Martin Lo and used to do with John Hoover. Attempts with the sociology department, IS department

p. 392 Role of Librarians With Multidisciplinary Collaborations

my note : my work with Mark Gill and Mark Petzhold

p. 393 social media
again, this library cannot be farther from the true meaning of Web 2.0 collaboration.

p. 396 organizational structures

Three different types of organizational structures are generally recognized—hierarchical, matrix, and flat. We suggest that each of these conventional structures promotes, to some extent, its own brand of silos—silos that inherently pose obstacles to the assumption of new roles and responsibilities. For example, we question whether the hierarchical organization structures that define many of our libraries, with their emphasis on line, lateral staff and functional relationships and the relative ranks of parts and positions or jobs, are flexible enough to support new roles and responsibilities. In contrast, matrix management offers a different type of organizational management model in which people with similar skills are pooled for work assignments. We suggest that, in contrast to hierarchical structures, matrix management allows team members to share information more readily across task boundaries and allows for specialization that can increase depth of knowledge and allow professional development and career progression to be managed. The third organizational structure mentioned—flat or horizontal organizations, refers to an organizational structure with few or no levels of intervening management between staff and managers

+++++++++++++++++

Kobzina, N. G. (2010). A Faculty—Librarian Partnership: A Unique Opportunity for Course Integration. Journal Of Library Administration50(4), 293-314.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d502990477%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

my LIB 290 is such class. and I am the only one who is teaching it online by QM standards.
Can the administration encourage Global Studies to combine efforts with my LIB 290 and offer a campus-wide class?

++++++++++++++++++++

Lange, J. j., Canuel, R. r., & Fitzgibbons, M. m. (2011). Tailoring information literacy instruction and library services for continuing education. Journal Of Information Literacy5(2), 66-80.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d70044774%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

McGill. p. 77 The McGill University Library’s system-wide liaison model emphasises a disciplinary approach, placing the impetus for outreach and service on individual librarians responsible for particular departments and user groups.

 

+++++++++++++++++

MCMILLEN, P., & FABBI, J. (2010). How to Be an E3 Librarian. Public Services Quarterly6(2/3), 174-186. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497454

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d53155458%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

ILL

++++++++++++++++++++

Meyer, N. J., & Miller, I. R. (2008). The Library as Service-Learning Partner: A Win-Win Collaboration with Students and Faculty. College & Undergraduate Libraries15(4), 399-413.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d502937618%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

ILL

I did something similar with Keith Christensen in 2012: http://bit.ly/SCSUlibGame, yet again, blocked for further consideration

+++++++++++++++++++++
Niles, P. (2011). Meeting the Needs of the 21st Century Student. Community & Junior College Libraries17(2), 47-51.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3deric%26AN%3dEJ947074%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

about Millennials

millennials. p. 48 my note: the losing battle of telling the millennials the value of books

librarians need to emphasize that not all information
is found on the Web and that the information found there might not be
reliable, depending on its source

p. 49 The latest technology can be used for communication. Two examples of this modernization process are making podcasts of library lectures and using instant messaging to answer reference queries. Students need Reference Librarians to assist them in focusing their research, showing them appropriate sources and how to use those sources. The change is not how the librarians serve the students but how the service is delivered. Instead of coming to the reference desk Millennial students may choose to use e-mail, cell phones to send a text message or use a chat reference service to communicate with the librarian. Students want to have 24/7 access to library resources and librarians.

my note: and yet this library still uses 90ish communication – the facebook page is just an easy to edit web page and the concept of Web 2.0 has not arrived or shaped the current communication.

p. 50 Librarians should examine how they present library instruction and ensure that students know why it is important. Further, Lancaster and Stillman state that librarians need to “incorporate some computer-based instruction for Millennials as it allows them to go at their own speed and acknowledges their ability to manage information” (2003, 231).
and, once again, talking about inducing library instruction with technology: http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/

+++++++++++++++++++

Oakleaf, M., & VanScoy, A. (2010). Instructional Strategies for Digital Reference: Methods to Facilitate Student Learning. Reference & User Services Quarterly49(4), 380-390.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d502996462%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

constructivism, social constructivism, active learning

they have a graph about metacognition. I wish, they had found place for metaliteracy also

p. 383. #5 Let them drive. this is EXACTLY what I am offering with:http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/
build their own construct

p. 386 my work with the doctoral cohorts:

In the current climate of educational accountability, reference librarians should embrace the opportunity to align reference service with the teaching and learning missions of their libraries and overarching institutions

+++++++++++++++++

Rao, S., Cameron, A., & Gaskin-Noel, S. (2009). Embedding General Education Competencies into an Online Information Literacy Course. Journal Of Library Administration49(1/2), 59-73.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d502963853%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

online programs a 3-credit junior seminar course (JRSM 301) to assess general education competencies

p. 60 The 3-credit course titled LISC 260—Using Electronic Resources for Research has existed as a required course for this overseas cohort of students since the fall of 1999. The course was initially developed as a required course to introduce the Mercy College Libraries’ resources to this cohort of overseas students. Full-time librarians teach this course as an overload.

The course lasts for 8 weeks during fall and spring semesters and is divided into eight modules with five quizzes. Summer sessions are shorter; the summer version of the course runs for 6 weeks. There is no midterm exam, final exam, project, or term paper for this course. Sixty percent of the grade is based on the quizzes and assignments and 40% on discussion and class participation.

Each quiz addresses a specific competency. We identified the modules where the five competencies would fit best. A document containing the five general education competencies (critical thinking, information literacy, quantitative reasoning, critical reading, and writing) statements

Critical Thinking Competency This competency was placed in the second module covering the topic “Developing Search Strategies” in the second week of the course. In this module, students are required to select a topic and develop logical terminologies and search strings. This task requires a great deal of critical and analytical thinking and therefore lays the groundwork for the other competencies. The quizzes and assignments for this competency involve breaking or narrowing down the topic into subtopics, comparing two topics or ideas, and similar skills. It is hoped that students will be able to adopt Boolean and other search logic in clear and precise ways in their analyses and interpretations of their topic and use the search strategies they develop for continued assignments throughout the rest of the course.

p. 61. Information Literacy Competency The information literacy competency is introduced in the fourth module in the fourth week of the course. As part of the course, students are required to learn about the Mercy College Libraries’ indexes and databases, which this module addresses (“Information Literacy,” n.d.).

Quantitative Reasoning Competency

This seminar course is a library research course with no statistics or mathematics component. Many students enrolled in the course are not mathematics or statistics majors, hence some creativity was needed to evaluate their mathematical and computational skills. Students are given this competency in the fifth module during the fifth week of the course, which deals with subject-specific sources. It was decided that, to assess this competency, a quiz analyzing data obtained in a tabular format from one of the databases subscribed to by the library would fulfill the requirement. Students are given a choice of various countries and related data, and are asked to create some comparative demographic profiles. This approach has worked well because it gives students the opportunity to focus on countries and data that interest them.

 

++++++++++++++++++

Abrizah, A., Inuwa, S., & Afiqah-Izzati, N. (2016). Systematic Literature Review Informing LIS Professionals on Embedding Librarianship Roles. Journal Of Academic Librarianship42(6), 636-643. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2016.08.010

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dlxh%26AN%3d119652419%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

requested through research gate

+++++++++++++++++++
Summey, T. P., & Kane, C. A. (2017). Going Where They Are: Intentionally Embedding Librarians in Courses and Measuring the Impact on Student Learning. Journal Of Library & Information Services In Distance Learning11(1/2), 158-174. doi:10.1080/1533290X.2016.1229429

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d121839436%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

a pilot project utilizing a variety of methods.

p. 158 The concept of embedded librarians is not new, as it has antecedents in branch librarians of the seventies and academic departmental liaisons of the 1980s and 1990s. However, it is a way to proactively reach out to the campus community (Drewes & Hoffman, 2010).

There is not a one-size-fits-all definition for embedded librarianship. As a result, librarians in academic libraries may be embedded in their communities in a variety of ways and at varying levels from course integrated instruction to being fully embedded as a member of an academic department

p. 160 my note: the authors describe the standard use of LMS for embedded librarianship.

p. 163 they managed to fight out and ensure their efforts are “credited.” Assigning credits to embedded librarian activities can be a very tough process.

p. 165  assessment

the authors utilized a pre-module and post-module survey to assess the students’ performance using library resources. The survey also helped to determine the students’ perceived self-efficacy and confidence in using the library, its resources, and services. In addition, the researchers analyzed student responses to discussion questions, studied feedback at the end of the course in the course discussion forum, and conducted interviews with the faculty members teaching the courses (

In another study, researchers analyzed bibliographies of students in the course to identify what resources they cited in their research projects. More specifically, they analyzed the type and appropriateness of sources used by the students, their currency, and noting how deeply the students delved into their topics. They also looked at the number of references cited. The authors believed that examining the bibliographies provided an incomplete picture because it provided data on the sources selected by the students but not information on how they retrieved those sources.

p. 171 survey sample

+++++++++++++++++

Wu, L., & Thornton, J. (2017). Experience, Challenges, and Opportunities of Being Fully Embedded in a User Group. Medical Reference Services Quarterly36(2), 138-149. doi:10.1080/02763869.2017.1293978

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d122763145%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

this is somehow close to my role with the EDAD

Texas A&M University academic health sciences library integrating a librarian into the College of Pharmacy, approximately 250 miles away from the main library. preembedded and postembedded activities demonstrated the effectiveness and impact of

For this study, the fully embedded librarian is defined as one who is out of the traditional library and into an onsite setting to provide a full range of library services that enable collaboration with researchers or teaching faculty and support student learning. In this model, the embedded librarian is a team member of the RCOP rather than a service provider standing apart. The lines are not blurred as to the kind of services that should be embedded because the embedded librarian is 100% onsite. Very few reports in the literature describe fully embedded librarian models such as this. However, one similar model exists at the Arizona Health Sciences Library (AHSL), which is affiliated with the University of Arizona, where librarians relocated their permanent offices to the colleges of Nursing, Public Health, and Pharmacy. AHSL librarians spent close to 100% of their time in the colleges.

p. 144 The embedded librarian has gained recognition in the college and was appointed by the dean to serve on the Instructional Venues Ad Hoc Committee (IVC).

My note: This is what Tom Hergert and I have been advocating for years: the role of the librarian is not to find info and teach how to find info ONLY. The role of the librarian is to bring 21st century to School of Education: information literacy is only a fragment of metaliteracies. Information literacy is a 1990s priority. While it is still an important part of librarians goals, digital literacy, visual and media literacy, as well as technology literacy and pedagogical application of technology is imposed as integral part of the work of the embedded librarian.

p. 145 Challenges and Opportunities

Another challenge involved the librarian’s decision-making and effective communications skills, especially when deciding to implement library services or programs. Other challenges included speaking the client group’s language and knowing the information needs of each group—faculty, students, staff, postdocs, research assistants, and research scientists—to deliver the right information at the point of need. The following strategies were practiced to overcome these challenges: .

  • A positive attitude can increase connectivity, networking, and collaboration beyond a limited space. Proactively seeking opportunities to participate and get involved in library events, instructional programs, training workshops, or committee work shortened the distance between the remote librarian and those in main campus. .
  • As video conferencing tools or programs (e.g., Adobe Connnect, Webex, Skype, Google Hangout, Zoom) were the primary means for the remote at 18:19 24 August 2017 librarian to attend library meetings and teach in library instructional programs, spending some time learning to use these tools and embracing them greatly increased the librarian’s capacity to overcome the feelings of disconnection.
  • The willingness to travel several times a year to the main campus to meet librarians face-to-face helped in understanding the system and in getting help that seemed complicated and difficult via remote resources (e.g., computer issues). .
  • Actively listening to the faculty and students during the conversations helped understand their information needs. This served as the basis to initiate any targeted library services and programs.

Despite the challenges, the embedded librarian was presented with numerous opportunities that a traditional librarian might think impossible or difficult to experience, for example, attending RCOP department meetings or RCOP executive committee meetings to present library resources and services, serving on RCOP committees, co-teaching with faculty in RCOP credit courses, creating and grading assignments counting toward total course credits, and being given access to all RCOP course syllabi in eCampus. (the last is in essence what I am doing right now)

p. 147 Marketing Embedded Library Services

The “What’s in It for Me” (WIIFM) principle1 was a powerful technique to promote embedded library services. The essentials of WIIFM are understanding patron needs and ensuring the marketing effort or communications addressing those needs15—in other words, always telling patrons what is in it for them when promoting library services and resources. Different venues were used to practice WIIFM: .

  • RCOP faculty email list was an effective way to reach out to all the faculty. An email message at the beginning of a semester to the faculty highlighted the embedded librarian’s services. During the semester, the librarian communicated with the faculty on specific resources and services addressing their needs, such as measuring their research impact at the time of their annual evaluation, sharing grant funding resources, and promoting MSL’s resources related to reuse of images. .
  • Library orientations to new students and new faculty allowed the librarian to focus on who to contact for questions and help, available resources, and ways to access them. . Being a guest speaker for the monthly RCOP departmental faculty meetings provided another opportunity for the librarian to promote services and resources.
  • Casual conversations with faculty, students, researchers, and postdocs in the hallway, at staff luncheons, and at RCOP events helped understand their information needs, which helped the librarian initiate MSL service projects and programs.
  • The Facebook private group, created by Instructional Technology & MSL Resources @ Rangel COP, was used to announce MSL resources and services. The group currently has 256 members. The librarian is one of the group administrators who answers student questions related to library and MSL resources. (social media is my forte)

p. 148 This model would not have been successful without the strong support from MSL leadership team and the RCOP administration.

the next step would be to conduct a systematic assessment to get feedback from RCOP administrators, faculty, students, staff, postdocs, and research assistants. The integration of the library instructional program into the RCOP curriculum should be included in RCOP final course evaluations. Another future direction might be to conduct a curriculum map to get a better idea about the learning objectives of each course and to identity information literacy instruction needs across the curriculum. The curriculum mapping might also help better structure library instruction delivery to RCOP. Teaching content might be structured more purposefully and logically sequenced across the curriculum to ensure that what students have learned in one course prepares them for the next ones.

+++++++++++++++++++

Blake, L., Ballance, D., Davies, K., Gaines, J. K., Mears, K., Shipman, P., & … Burchfield, V. (2016). Patron perception and utilization of an embedded librarian program. Journal Of The Medical Library Association104(3), 226-230. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.008

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d116675007%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

The overall satisfaction with services was encouraging, but awareness of the embedded program was low, suggesting an overall need for marketing of services.

+++++++++++++++++++

Tumbleson, B. E. (2016). Collaborating in Research: Embedded Librarianship in the Learning Management System. Reference Librarian57(3), 224-234. doi:10.1080/02763877.2015.1134376

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d114820440%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

+++++++++++++++++++

O’Toole, E., Barham, R., & Monahan, J. (2016). The Impact of Physically Embedded Librarianship on Academic Departments. Portal: Libraries & The Academy16(3), 529-556.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d116715636%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

++++++++++++++

Agrawal, P. p., & Kumar, A. (2016). Embedded Librarianship and Academic Setup: Going beyond the library stockades. International Journal Of Information Dissemination & Technology6(3), 170-173.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d119763981%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

India. p. 173 as of today, most of the users are not able to differentiate the library professional who have a bachelor degree, Masters degree and who are doctorate of the subject. My note: not in my case and this is my great advantage.

+++++++++++++++++

Madden, H., & Rasmussen, A. M. (2016). Embedded Librarianship: Einbindung von Wissenschafts- und Informationskompetenz in Schreibkurse / Ein US-amerikanisches Konzept. Bub: Forum Bibliothek Und Information68(4), 202-205.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dlxh%26AN%3d114671852%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

ILL

+++++++++++++++++
Delaney, G., & Bates, J. (2015). Envisioning the Academic Library: A Reflection on Roles, Relevancy and Relationships. New Review Of Academic Librarianship21(1), 30-51. doi:10.1080/13614533.2014.911194

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d101516816%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

overview of the literature on embedded librarianship

+++++++++++++++++++
Freiburger, G., Martin, J. R., & Nuñez, A. V. (2016). An Embedded Librarian Program: Eight Years On. Medical Reference Services Quarterly35(4), 388-396. doi:10.1080/02763869.2016.1220756

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d118281342%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

close to my role with the doctoral cohorts

++++++++++++++++++++++

Wilson, G. (2015). The Process of Becoming an Embedded Curriculum Librarian in Multiple Health Sciences Programs. Medical Reference Services Quarterly34(4), 490-497. doi:10.1080/02763869.2015.1082386

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dkeh%26AN%3d110525415%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

ILL

+++++++++++++++++++++

Milbourn, A. a. (2013). A Big Picture Approach: Using Embedded Librarianship to Proactively Address the Need for Visual Literacy Instruction in Higher Education. Art Documentation: Bulletin Of The Art Libraries Society Of North America32(2), 274-283.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daft%26AN%3d92600699%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

visual literacy – this is IMS area, which was de facto shot off by the omnipotence of “information literacy”

+++++++++++++++++

Talley, M. (2007). Success and the Embedded Librarian. https://www.sla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Success_and_the_Embedded.pdf

Shumaker, D., Talley, M. Models of Embedded Librarianship: A Research Summary. https://www.sla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Models_of_Embedded.pdf

Shumaker, D., Talley, M. (2009). Models of Embedded Librarianship. Final Report.  Prepared under the Special Libraries Association Research Grant 2007. https://embeddedlibrarian.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/executivesummarymodels-of-embedded-librarianship.pdf

Shumaker, D. (2013). Embedded Librarianship: Digital World Future? http://www.infotoday.com/CIL2013/session.asp?ID=W30

Modelsof embeddedlibrarianship presentation_final_mt61509 from MaryTalley
slide 8: vision of embedded librarianship:
customer centric not library centric; located in their workplace not our workplace; focused on small groups not entire populations; composed of specialists, not generalists; dependent on domain knowledge not only library skills; aming an analysis and synthesis not simply delivery; in context, not out of context; built on trusted advice not service delivery
all of the above is embodied in my work with the doctoral cohorts
slide 9: why study? because traditional library service model is in decline
slide 11: broad analytical research on successful implementation is lacking
slide 20: large institutions more likely to offer specialized services
slide 21: domain knowledge through continuous learning, not always through formal degrees.
slide 39: what matters most
slide 40: strong leadership by library managers is critical (I will add here “by deans of other colleges)
+++++++++++++++++++++
bibliography:

Abrizah, A., Inuwa, S., & Afiqah-Izzati, N. (2016). Systematic Literature Review Informing LIS Professionals on Embedding Librarianship Roles. Journal Of Academic Librarianship42(6), 636-643. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2016.08.010

Agrawal, P. p., & Kumar, A. (2016). Embedded Librarianship and Academic Setup: Going beyond the library stockades. International Journal Of Information Dissemination & Technology6(3), 170-173.

Andrews, C. R. (2014). CUNY Academic Works An Examination of Embedded Librarian Ideas and Practices: A Critical Bibliography. An Examination of Embedded Librarian Ideas and Practices: A Critical Bibliography. Codex, 3(1), 2150–86. Retrieved from http://academicworks.cuny.edu/bx_pubs

Blake, L., Ballance, D., Davies, K., Gaines, J. K., Mears, K., Shipman, P., & … Burchfield, V. (2016). Patron perception and utilization of an embedded librarian program. Journal Of The Medical Library Association104(3), 226-230. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.008

Bobish, G. (2011). Participation and Pedagogy: Connecting the Social Web to ACRL Learning Outcomes. Journal Of Academic Librarianship37(1), 54-63.

Cahoy, E. S., & Schroeder, R. (2012). EMBEDDING AFFECTIVE LEARNING OUTCOMES IN LIBRARY INSTRUCTION. Communications In Information Literacy6(1), 73-90.

Cha, T., & Hsieh, P. (2009). A Case Study of Faculty Attitudes toward Collaboration with Librarians to Integrate Information Literacy into the Curriculum. (Chinese). Journal Of Educational Media & Library Sciences46(4), 441-467.

COVONE, N., & LAMM, M. (2010). Just Be There: Campus, Department, Classroom…and Kitchen?. Public Services Quarterly6(2/3), 198-207. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.498768

Delaney, G., & Bates, J. (2015). Envisioning the Academic Library: A Reflection on Roles, Relevancy and Relationships. New Review Of Academic Librarianship21(1), 30-51. doi:10.1080/13614533.2014.911194

Dewey, B. I. (2004). The Embedded Librarian: Strategic Campus Collaborations. Resource Sharing & Information Networks17(1-2), 5-17.

DREWES, K., & HOFFMAN, N. (2010). Academic Embedded Librarianship: An Introduction. Public Services Quarterly6(2/3), 75-82. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.498773

Essinger, C. c., & Ke, I. i. (2013). Outreach: What Works?. Collaborative Librarianship5(1), 52-58.

Freiburger, G., Martin, J. R., & Nuñez, A. V. (2016). An Embedded Librarian Program: Eight Years On. Medical Reference Services Quarterly35(4), 388-396. doi:10.1080/02763869.2016.1220756

Heider, K. L. (2010). Ten Tips for Implementing a Successful Embedded Librarian Program. Public Services Quarterly6(2-3), 110-121.

Hollister, C. V. (2008). Meeting Them where They Are: Library Instruction for Today’s Students in the World Civilizations Course. Public Services Quarterly4(1), 15-27.

Kesselman, M. A., & Watstein, S. B. (2009). Creating Opportunities: Embedded Librarians. Journal Of Library Administration49(3), 383-400.

Kobzina, N. G. (2010). A Faculty—Librarian Partnership: A Unique Opportunity for Course Integration. Journal Of Library Administration50(4), 293-314.

Kvenild, C. (n.d.). The Future of Embedded Librarianship: Best Practices and Opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.cclibinstruction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CCLI2012proceedings_Kvenild.pdf

Lange, J. j., Canuel, R. r., & Fitzgibbons, M. m. (2011). Tailoring information literacy instruction and library services for continuing education. Journal Of Information Literacy5(2), 66-80.

Madden, H., & Rasmussen, A. M. (2016). Embedded Librarianship: Einbindung von Wissenschafts- und Informationskompetenz in Schreibkurse / Ein US-amerikanisches Konzept. Bub: Forum Bibliothek Und Information68(4), 202-205.

MCMILLEN, P., & FABBI, J. (2010). How to Be an E3 Librarian. Public Services Quarterly6(2/3), 174-186. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497454

Meyer, N. J., & Miller, I. R. (2008). The Library as Service-Learning Partner: A Win-Win Collaboration with Students and Faculty. College & Undergraduate Libraries15(4), 399-413.

Milbourn, A. (2013). A Big Picture Approach: Using Embedded Librarianship to Proactively Address the Need for Visual Literacy Instruction in Higher Education. Art Documentation: Bulletin Of The Art Libraries Society Of North America32(2), 274-283.

The Changing Roles of Academic and Research Libraries – Higher Ed Careers – HigherEdJobs. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.higheredjobs.com/HigherEdCareers/interviews.cfm?ID=632

Niles, P. (2011). Meeting the Needs of the 21st Century Student. Community & Junior College Libraries17(2), 47-51.

Oakleaf, M., & VanScoy, A. (2010). Instructional Strategies for Digital Reference: Methods to Facilitate Student Learning. Reference & User Services Quarterly49(4), 380-390.

O’Toole, E., Barham, R., & Monahan, J. (2016). The Impact of Physically Embedded Librarianship on Academic Departments. Portal: Libraries & The Academy16(3), 529-556.

Rao, S., Cameron, A., & Gaskin-Noel, S. (2009). Embedding General Education Competencies into an Online Information Literacy Course. Journal Of Library Administration49(1/2), 59-73.

Shumaker, D., Talley, M. Models of Embedded Librarianship: A Research Summary. https://www.sla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Models_of_Embedded.pdf

Shumaker, D., Talley, M. (2009). Models of Embedded Librarianship. Final Report.  Prepared under the Special Libraries Association Research Grant 2007. https://embeddedlibrarian.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/executivesummarymodels-of-embedded-librarianship.pdf

Shumaker, D. (2013). Embedded Librarianship: Digital World Future? http://www.infotoday.com/CIL2013/session.asp?ID=W30

Summey, T. P., & Kane, C. A. (2017). Going Where They Are: Intentionally Embedding Librarians in Courses and Measuring the Impact on Student Learning. Journal Of Library & Information Services In Distance Learning11(1/2), 158-174. doi:10.1080/1533290X.2016.1229429

Talley, M. (2007). Success and the Embedded Librarian. https://www.sla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Success_and_the_Embedded.pdf

Tumbleson, B. E., & Burke, J. (John J. . (2013). Embedding librarianship in learning management systems : a how-to-do-it manual for librarians. Retrieved from http://www.worldcat.org/title/embedding-librarianship-in-learning-management-systems-a-how-to-do-it-manual-for-librarians/oclc/836261183

Tumbleson, B. E. (2016). Collaborating in Research: Embedded Librarianship in the Learning Management System. Reference Librarian57(3), 224-234. doi:10.1080/02763877.2015.1134376

Wilson, G. (2015). The Process of Becoming an Embedded Curriculum Librarian in Multiple Health Sciences Programs. Medical Reference Services Quarterly34(4), 490-497. doi:10.1080/02763869.2015.1082386

Wu, L., & Thornton, J. (2017). Experience, Challenges, and Opportunities of Being Fully Embedded in a User Group. Medical Reference Services Quarterly36(2), 138-149. doi:10.1080/02763869.2017.1293978

+++++++++++++++++
more about embedded librarian in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=embedded+librarian

2017 teaching w technology conference

2017 Teaching with Technology Conference

October 6-8 in Baltimore

Forward-thinking educators are finding that technology can enhance their teaching methods, infuse new energy into their courses, and improve student learning.

But the latest cool technology is only cool if you know where, when, why, and how to use it. Join us in Baltimore for the 2017 Teaching with Technology Conference to learn best practices for effectively integrating technology into your courses.

Topics include:

  • Blended and flipped learning
  • Assignments for online discussion
  • Digital tools for formative assessment
  • Online course design and development
  • Active learning
  • Media literacy
  • Copyright issues

Smartphones in the classroom

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
more on teaching with technology in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=educational+technology

reading online bibliography

Request from Plovdiv University faculty and teachers from the Plovdiv school district for literature on the issue of online reading for K4 students

 

  • Putman, S. M. (2014). Exploring Dispositions Toward Online Reading: Analyzing the Survey of Online Reading Attitudes and Behaviors. Reading Psychology, 35(1), 1-31. doi:10.1080/02702711.2012.664250

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d91809391%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

p. 25

Research continues to emerge that pro-vides us with information about the cognitive skills and strategies relevant to the proficient use of the new literacies of the Internet, but conclusions regarding dispositions and affective variables are notably limited. For this reason, it is important that researchers  begin to focus concurrently on both areas to inform the educational community regarding how to meet the rapidly changing needs of our current and future students.
  • Coiro, J. (2011). Talking About Reading as Thinking: Modeling the Hidden Complexities of Online Reading Comprehension. Theory Into Practice, 50(2), 107-115. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.558435

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d60106534%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

  • Hutchison, A. C., Woodward, L., & Colwell, J. (2016). What Are Preadolescent Readers Doing Online? An Examination of Upper Elementary Students’ Reading, Writing, and Communication in Digital Spaces. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 435-454. doi:10.1002/rrq.146

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d118355638%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

he performance of 1,262 fourth and fifth graders on the Survey of Internet Use and Online Reading.
(c) despite reporting a preference for using the Internet, preadolescent students believe that it is more difficult to use it than to read a book, and believe that they would learn
more from a book than from the Internet;
  • Huang, S., Orellana, P., & Capps, M. (2016). U.S. and Chilean College Students’ Reading Practices: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 455-471. doi:10.1002/rrq.144

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d118355640%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

My note: this may seem peripheral study to the request in terms of age, but the cross-cultural study can help the Bulgarian research
Due to the impact of the Internet on reading resources, students’ reading patterns today are different from how they were in the past. College students’ reading practices have moved to different venues with the advent of Internet technology, and the modality has migrated to online reading.
  • Naumann, J. (2015). A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement, navigation, and performance in digital reading. Computers In Human Behavior, 53263-277. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.051

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d109279300%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

model of online reading engagement is outlined. This model proposes that online reading engagement predicts dedication in digital reading. Dedication in digital reading according to the model is reflected in task-adaptive navigation, and task-adaptive navigation predicts digital reading performance over and above print reading skill. Information engagement is assumed to positively predict task-adaptive navigation, while social engagement is assumed to negatively predict task-adaptive navigation. These hypotheses were tested using OECD PISA 2009 Digital Reading Assessment data from 17 countries and economies ( N = 29,395).

  • Alvermann, D. E., & Harrison, C. (2016). Are Computers, Smartphones, and the Internet a Boon or a Barrier for the Weaker Reader?. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(2), 221-225. doi:10.1002/jaal.569

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d117719283%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

If boys are spending nine hours a day media multitasking and prefer computers to books, shouldn’t they be successful at online learning? Online learning requires online reading, which means that boys, who are significantly poorer readers than girls in every nation in the world, may well be struggling to keep up. an online student may not have access to the learning that can come from group interaction, nor to the social and emotional support that can come from peers or a teacher, and the online reader could be heading for a learning apocalypse

  • Park, H., & Kim, D. (2017). English language learners’ strategies for reading online texts: Influential factors and patterns of use at home and in school. International Journal Of Educational Research, 8263-74. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.01.002

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d121673563%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

five fourth and fifth-grade English language learners’ (ELLs) strategy use when they read online texts at home and in school. We also identify factors that play a role when these learners read online texts, as well as similar and different patterns in reading strategies at home and in school. The findings show that three factors influence the ELLs’ selection of online texts and use of reading strategies. In addition, the ELLs used nine reading strategies to enhance their reading online texts. Based on these findings, we discuss (a) the ELLs’ online reading strategies in different contexts, (b) the multidimensional zone of proximal development, and (c) collaboration between parents and teachers.

  • Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Timbrell, N., & Maykel, C. (2015). Seeing the Forest, Not the Trees. Reading Teacher, 69(2), 139-145. doi:10.1002/trtr.1406

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d109228758%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

a primary goal is to develop the ability to read in order to learn with online information. Technologies that support this goal, especially the Internet, and instructional practices that support the development of online reading should be our primary consideration for reading and literacy education, beginning in the primary grades.

  • Brynge, E., Case, H., Forsyth, E., Green, G., & Hölke, U. (2015). Libraries: Sustaining the Digital Reader Experience. Scholarly & Research Communication, 1-10.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d110574946%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

my note: role of the library

  • Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., & Kennedy, C. (2015). Income Inequality and the Online Reading Gap. Reading Teacher, 68(6), 422-427. doi:10.1002/trtr.1328

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3daph%26AN%3d101315232%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

my note: when you make a decision about a textbook, income and social inequality are factors needed to be considered.

+++++++++++++++
http://bibliosphere.eu/?p=238

IM554 discussion on GBL

IM554 discussion on Game Based Learning

Here is the “literature”:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/03/19/recommendations-for-games-and-gaming-at-lrs/
this link reflects my recommendations to the SCSU library, based on my research and my publication: http://scsu.mn/1F008Re

Here are also Slideshare shows from conferences’ presentations on the topic:

https://www.slideshare.net/aidemoreto/gamification-and-byox-in-academic-libraries-low-end-practical-approach

https://www.slideshare.net/aidemoreto/gaming-and-gamification-in-academic-and-library-settings

Topic :Gaming and Gamification in Academic Settings

  1. Intro: why is it important to discuss this trend
    1. The fabric of the current K12 and higher ed students: Millennials and Gen Z
    2. The pedagogical theories and namely constructivism
      1. Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow” concept (being in the zone)
      2. Active learning
      3. Sociocultural Theory
      4. Project-Based Learning
    3. The general milieu of increasing technology presence, particularly of gaming environment
    4. The New Media Consortium and the Horizon Report

Discussion: Are the presented reasons sufficient to justify a profound restructure of curricula and learning spaces?

  1. Definition and delineation
    1. Games
    2. Serious Games
    3. Gamification
    4. Game-based learning
    5. Digital game-based learning
    6. Games versus gamification
    7. Simulations, the new technological trends such as human-computer interaction (HCI) such as augmented reality (AR),virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR) (http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/02/22/virtual-augmented-mixed-reality/ )

Discussion: Is there a way to build a simpler but comprehensive structure/definition to encompass the process of gaming and gamification in education?

  1. Gaming and Gamification
    1. Pros
    2. Cons
    3. Debates

Discussion: Which side are you on and why?

  1. Gaming and Gamification and BYOD (or BYOx)
    1. gaming consoles versus gaming over wi-fi
    2. gaming using mobile devices instead of consoles
    3. human-computer interaction (HCI) such as augmented reality (AR),virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR) (http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/02/22/virtual-augmented-mixed-reality/ )

Discussion: do you see a trend to suggest that either one or the other will prevail? Convergence?

  1. Gaming in Education
    1. student motivation, student-centered learning, personalized learning
    2. continued practice, clear goals and immediate feedback
    3. project-based learning, Minecraft and SimCity EDU
    4. Gamification of learning versus learning with games
    5. organizations to promote gaming and gamification in education (p. 6 http://scsu.mn/1F008Re)
    6. the “chocolate-covered broccoli” problem

Discussion: why gaming and gamification is not accepted in a higher rate? what are the hurdles to enable greater faster acceptance? What do you think, you can do to accelerate this process?

  1. Gaming in an academic library
    1. why the academic library? sandbox for experimentation
    2. the connection between digital literacy and gaming and gamificiation
    3. Gilchrist and Zald’s model for instruction design through assessment
    4. the new type of library instruction:
      in house versus out-of-the box games. Gamification of the process
      http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/

Discussion: based on the example (http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/), how do you see transforming academic library services to meet the demands of 21st century education?

  1. Gaming, gamification and assessment (badges)
    1. inability of current assessments to evaluate games as part of the learning process
    2. “microcredentialing” through digital badges
    3. Mozilla Open Badges and Badgestack
    4. leaderboards

Discussion: How do you see a transition from the traditional assessment to a new and more flexible academic assessment?

NISO Webinar IoT

Wednesday, October 19, 2016
1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)

About the Webinar

As the cost of sensors and the connectivity necessary to support those sensors has decreased, this has given rise to a network of interconnected devices.  This network is often described as the Internet of Things and it is providing a variety of information management challenges.  For the library and publishing communities, the internet of things presents opportunities and challenges around data gathering, organization and processing of the tremendous amounts of data which the internet of things is generating.  How will these data be incorporated into traditional publication, archiving and resource management systems?  Additionally, how will the internet of things impact resource management within our community?   In what ways will interconnected resources provide a better user experience for patrons and readers?  This session will introduce concepts and potential implications of the internet of things on the information management community.  It will also explore applications related to managing resources in a library environment that are being developed and implemented.

Education in the Internet of Things
Bryan Alexander, Consultant;

How will the Internet of Things shape education? We can explore this question by assessing current developments, looking for future trends in the first initial projects. In this talk I point to new concepts for classroom and campus spaces, examining attendant rises in data gathering and analysis. We address student life possibilities and curricular and professional niches. We conclude with notes on campus strategy, including privacy, network support, and futures-facing organizations.

What Does The Internet of Things Mean to a Museum?
Robert Weisberg, Senior Project Manager, Publications and Editorial Department; Metropolitan Museum of Art;

What does the Internet of Things mean to a museum? Museums have slowly been digitizing their collections for years, and have been replacing index cards with large (and costly, and labor-intensive) CMS’s long before that, but several factors have worked against adopting smart and scalable practices which could unleash data for the benefit of the institution, its collection, and its audiences. Challenges go beyond non-profit budgets in a very for-profit world and into the siloed behaviors learned from academia, practices borne of the uniqueness of museum collections, and the multi-faceted nature of modern museums which include not only curator, but conservators, educators, librarians, publishers, and increasing numbers of digital specialists. What have museums already done, what are they doing, and what are they preparing for, as big data becomes bigger and ever more-networked?
The Role of the Research Library in Unpacking The Internet of Things
Lauren di Monte, NCSU Libraries Fellow, Cyma Rubin Fellow, North Carolina State University

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a deceptively simple umbrella term for a range of socio-technical tools and processes that are shaping our social and economic worlds. Indeed, IoT represents a new infrastructural layer that has the power to impact decision-making processes, resources distribution plans, information access, and much more. Understanding what IoT is, how “things” get networked, as well as how IoT devices and tools are constructed and deployed, are important and emerging facets of information literacy. Research libraries are uniquely positioned to help students, researchers, and other information professionals unpack IoT and understand its place within our knowledge infrastructures and digital cultures. By developing and modeling the use of IoT devices for space and program assessment, by teaching patrons how to work with IoT hardware and software, and by developing methods and infrastructures to collect IoT devices and data, we can help our patrons unlock the potential of IoT and harness the power of networked knowledge.

Lauren Di Monte is a Libraries Fellow at NC State. In this role she develops programs that facilitate critical and creative engagements with technologies and develops projects to bring physical and traditional computing into scholarship across the disciplines. Her current research explores the histories and futures of STEM knowledge practices.

What does the internet of things mean for education?

Bryan Alexander:

I’m not sure if the IoT will hit academic with the wave force of the Web in the 1990s, or become a minor tangent.  What do schools have to do with Twittering refrigerators?

Here are a few possible intersections.

  1. Changing up the campus technology space.  IT departments will face supporting more technology strata in a more complex ecosystem.  Help desks and CIOs alike will have to consider supporting sensors, embedded chips, and new devices.  Standards, storage, privacy, and other policy issues will ramify.
  2. Mutating the campus.  We’ve already adjusted campus spaces by adding wireless coverage, enabling users and visitors to connect from nearly everywhere.  What happens when benches are chipped, skateboards sport sensors, books carry RFID, and all sorts of new, mobile devices dot the quad?  One British school offers an early example.
  3. New forms of teaching and learning.  Some of these take preexisting forms and amplify them, like tagging animals in the wild or collecting data about urban centers.  The IoT lets us gather more information more easily and perform more work upon it.  Then we could also see really new ways of learning, like having students explore an environment (built or natural) by using embedded sensors, QR codes, and live datastreams from items and locations.  Instructors can build treasure hunts through campuses, nature preserves, museums, or cities.  Or even more creative enterprises.
  4. New forms of research.  As with #3, but at a higher level.  Researchers can gather and process data using networked swarms of devices.  Plus academics studying and developing the IoT in computer science and other disciplines.
  5. An environmental transformation.  People will increasingly come to campus with experiences of a truly interactive, data-rich world.  They will expect a growing proportion of objects to be at least addressable, if not communicative.  This population will become students, instructors, and support staff.  They will have a different sense of the boundaries between physical and digital than we now have in 2014. Will this transformed community alter a school’s educational mission or operations?

How the internet could evolve to 2026: responding to Pew Posted on

teaching with technology

Boulder Faculty Teaching with Technology Report
Sarah Wise, Education Researcher ,  Megan Meyer, Research Assistant, March 8,2016

http://www.colorado.edu/assett/sites/default/files/attached-files/final-fac-survey-full-report.pdf

Faculty perceive undergraduates to be less proficient with digital literacy skills. One-third think
their students do not find or organize digital information very well. The majority (52%) think
they lack skill in validating digital information.
My note: for the SCSU librarians, digital literacy is fancy word for information literacy. Digital literacy, as used in this report is much greater area, which encompasses much broader set of skills
Faculty do not prefer to teach online (57%) or in a hybrid format (where some sessions occur
online, 32%). One-third of faculty reported no experience with these least popular course types
my note: pay attention to the questions asked; questions I am asking Mike Penrod to let me work with faculty for years. Questions, which are snubbed by CETL and a dominance of D2L and MnSCU mandated tools is established.

Table 5. Do you use these in-class technologies for teaching undergraduates? Which are the Top 3 in-class technologies you would like to learn or use more? (n = 442)

Top 3 use in most of my classes have used in some classes tried, but do not use  

N/A: no experience

in-class activities, problems (via worksheets, tablets, laptops, simulations, beSocratic, etc.)  

52%

 

33%

 

30%

 

6%

 

30%

in-class question, discussion tools (e.g. Twitter, TodaysMeet, aka “backchannel communication”)  

 

47%

 

 

8%

 

 

13%

 

 

11%

 

 

68%

using online resources to find high quality curricular materials  

37%

 

48%

 

31%

 

3%

 

18%

iClickers 24% 23% 16% 9% 52%
other presentation tool (Prezi, Google presentation, Slide Carnival, etc.)  

23%

 

14%

 

21%

 

15%

 

51%

whiteboard / blackboard 20% 58% 23% 6% 14%
Powerpoint or Keynote 20% 74% 16% 4% 5%
document camera / overhead projector 15% 28% 20% 14% 38%

 

Table 6. Do you have undergraduates use these assignment technology tools? Which are your Top 3 assignment technology tools to learn about or use more? (n = 432)

Top 3 use in most of my classes have used in some classes tried, but do not use N/A: no experience using
collaborative reading and discussion tools (e.g. VoiceThread, NB, NotaBene, Highlighter, beSocratic) 43% 3% 10% 10% 77%
collaborative project, writing, editing tools (wikis, PBWorks, Weebly, Google Drive, Dropbox, Zotero)  

38%

 

16%

 

29%

 

12%

 

43%

online practice problems / quizzes with instant feedback 36% 22% 22% 8% 47%
online discussions (D2L, Today’s Meet, etc) 31% 33% 21% 15% 30%
individual written assignment, presentation and project tools (blogs, assignment submission, Powerpoint, Prezi, Adobe Creative Suite, etc.)  

31%

 

43%

 

28%

 

7%

 

22%

research tools (Chinook, pubMed, Google Scholar, Mendeley, Zotero, Evernote) 30% 33% 32% 8% 27%
online practice (problems, quizzes, simulations, games, CAPA, Pearson Mastering, etc.) 27% 20% 21% 7% 52%
data analysis tools (SPSS, R, Latex, Excel, NVivo, MATLAB, etc.) 24% 9% 23% 6% 62%
readings (online textbooks, articles, e-books) 21% 68% 23% 1% 8%

Table 7. Do you use any of these online tools in your teaching? Which are the Top 3 online tools you would like to learn about or use more? (n = 437)

 

 

 

Top 3

 

use in most of my classes

 

have used in some classes

 

tried, but do not use

N/A: no experience using
videos/animations produced for my course (online lectures, Lecture Capture, Camtasia, Vimeo)  

38%

 

14%

 

21%

 

11%

 

54%

chat-based office hours or meetings (D2L chat, Google Hangouts, texting, tutoring portals, etc.)  

36%

 

4%

 

9%

 

10%

 

76%

simulations, PhET, educational games 27% 7% 17% 6% 70%
videoconferencing-based office hours or meetings (Zoom, Skype, Continuing Education’s Composition hub, etc.)  

26%

 

4%

 

13%

 

11%

 

72%

alternative to D2L (moodle, Google Site, wordpress course website) 23% 11% 10% 13% 66%
D2L course platform 23% 81% 7% 4% 8%
online tutorials and trainings (OIT tutorials, Lynda.com videos) 21% 4% 16% 13% 68%
D2L as a portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.)  

21%

 

28%

 

18%

 

11%

 

42%

videos/animations produced elsewhere 19% 40% 36% 2% 22%

In both large and small classes, the most common responses faculty make to digital distraction are to discuss why it is a problem and to limit or ban phones in class.
my note: which completely defies the BYOD and turns into empty talk / lip service.

Quite a number of other faculty (n = 18) reported putting the onus on themselves to plan engaging and busy class sessions to preclude distraction, for example:

“If my students are more interested in their laptops than my course material, I need to make my curriculum more interesting.”

I have not found this to be a problem. When the teaching and learning are both engaged/engaging, device problems tend to disappear.”

The most common complaint related to students and technology was their lack of common technological skills, including D2L and Google, and needing to take time to teach these skills in class (n = 14). Two commented that digital skills in today’s students were lower than in their students 10 years ago.

Table 9. Which of the following are the most effective types of learning opportunities about teaching, for you? Chose your Top 2-3. (n = 473)

Count           Percentage

meeting 1:1 with an expert 296 63%
hour-long workshop 240 51%
contact an expert on-call (phone, email, etc) 155 33%
faculty learning community (meeting across asemester,

e.g. ASSETT’s Hybrid/Online Course Design Seminar)

116 25%
expert hands-on support for course redesign (e.g. OIT’s Academic Design Team) 114 24%
opportunity to apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards)  

97

 

21%

half-day or day-long workshop 98 21%
other 40 8%
multi-day retreats / institutes 30 6%

Faculty indicated that the best times for them to attend teaching professional developments across the year are before and early semester, and summer. They were split among all options for meeting across one week, but preferred afternoon sessions to mornings. Only 8% of respondents (n = 40) indicated they would not likely attend any professional development session (Table 10).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Teaching Through Technology
http://www.maine.edu/pdf/T4FinalYear1ReportCRE.pdf

Table T1: Faculty beliefs about using digital technologies in teaching

Count Column N%
Technology is a significant barrier to teaching and learning. 1 0.2%
Technology can have a place in teaching, but often detracts from teaching and learning. 76 18.3%
Technology has a place in teaching, and usually enhances the teaching learning process. 233 56.0%
Technology greatly enhances the teaching learning process. 106 25.5%

Table T2: Faculty beliefs about the impact of technology on courses

Count Column N%
Makes a more effective course 302 72.6%
Makes no difference in the effectiveness of a course 42 10.1%
Makes a less effective course 7 1.7%
Has an unknown impact 65 15.6%

Table T3: Faculty use of common technologies (most frequently selected categories shaded)

Once a month or less A few hours a month A few hours a week An hour a day Several hours a day
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
Computer 19 4.8% 15 3.8% 46 11.5% 37 9.3% 282 70.7%
Smart Phone 220 60.6% 42 11.6% 32 8.8% 45 12.4% 24 6.6%
Office Software 31 7.8% 19 4.8% 41 10.3% 82 20.6% 226 56.6%
Email 1 0.2% 19 4.6% 53 12.8% 98 23.7% 243 58.7%
Social Networking 243 68.8% 40 11.3% 40 11.3% 23 6.5% 7 2.0%
Video/Sound Media 105 27.6% 96 25.2% 95 24.9% 53 13.9% 32 8.4%

Table T9: One sample t-test for influence of technology on approaches to grading and assessment

Test Value = 50
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
In class tests and quizzes -4.369 78 .000 -9.74684 -14.1886 -5.3051
Online tests and quizzes 5.624 69 .000 14.77143 9.5313 20.0115
Ungraded  assessments 1.176 66 .244 2.17910 -1.5208 5.8790
Formative assessment 5.534 70 .000 9.56338 6.1169 13.0099
Short essays, papers, lab reports, etc. 2.876 70 .005 5.45070 1.6702 9.2312
Extended essays and major projects or performances 1.931 69 .058 3.67143 -.1219 7.4648
Collaborative learning projects .000 73 1.000 .00000 -4.9819 4.9819

Table T10: Rate the degree to which your role as a faculty member and teacher has changed as a result of increased as a result of increased use of technology

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %
shifting from the role of content expert to one of learning facilitator  

12

 

9.2%

 

22

 

16.9%

 

14

 

10.8%

 

37

 

28.5%

 

29

 

22.3%

 

16

 

12.3%

your primary role is to provide content for students  

14

 

10.9%

 

13

 

10.1%

 

28

 

21.7%

 

29

 

22.5%

 

25

 

19.4%

 

20

 

15.5%

your identification with your University is increased  

23

 

18.3%

 

26

 

20.6%

 

42

 

33.3%

 

20

 

15.9%

 

12

 

9.5%

 

3

 

2.4%

you have less ownership of your course content  

26

 

20.2%

 

39

 

30.2%

 

24

 

18.6%

 

21

 

16.3%

 

14

 

10.9%

 

5

 

3.9%

your role as a teacher is strengthened 13 10.1% 12 9.3% 26 20.2% 37 28.7% 29 22.5% 12 9.3%
your overall control over your course(s) is diminished  

23

 

17.7%

 

44

 

33.8%

 

30

 

23.1%

 

20

 

15.4%

 

7

 

5.4%

 

6

 

4.6%

Table T14: One sample t-test for influence of technology on faculty time spent on specific teaching activities

Test Value = 50
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Lecturing -7.381 88 .000 -12.04494 -15.2879 -8.8020
Preparing course materials 9.246 96 .000 16.85567 13.2370 20.4744
Identifying course materials 8.111 85 .000 13.80233 10.4191 17.1856
Grading / assessing 5.221 87 .000 10.48864 6.4959 14.4813
Course design 12.962 94 .000 21.55789 18.2558 24.8600
Increasing access to materials for all types of learners 8.632 86 .000 16.12644 12.4126 19.8403
Reading student discussion posts 10.102 79 .000 21.98750 17.6553 26.3197
Email to/with students 15.809 93 .000 26.62766 23.2830 29.9724

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2014

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1407/ers1407.pdf

Although the LMS is pervasive in higher education, 15% of faculty said that they
do not use the LMS at all. Survey demographics suggest these nonusers are part of
the more mature faculty ranks, with a tenure status, more than 10 years of teaching
experience, and a full-professor standing.
18
The vast majority of faculty use the LMS
to conduct or support their teaching activities, but only three in five LMS users (60%)
said it is critical to their teaching. The ways in which faculty typically use the LMS are
presented in figure 8.
19
Pushing out information such as a syllabus or other handout
is the most common use of the LMS (58%), which is a basic functionality of the
first-generation systems that emerged in the late 1990s, and it remains one of the core
features of any LMS.
20
Many institutions preload the LMS with basic course content
(58%), up about 12% since 2011, and this base gives instructors a prepopulated plat
form from which to build their courses.
21
Preloading basic content does not appear to
preclude faculty from making the LMS part of their daily digital habit; a small majority
of faculty (56%) reported using the LMS daily, and another 37% use it weekly.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Digital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/student-affairs-and-technology/digital-literacy-engagement-and-digital-identity-development

igital Literacy, Engagement, and Digital Identity Development

+++++++++++++++++

 

++++++++++++++++

more on digital literacy in this IMS blog

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=digital+literacy

Save

1 2 3 4