Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,057
On Slideshare
1,055
From Embeds
2
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 2

http://pmomale-ld1 2

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Project group set up to procure a software solutionBusiness specification document drawn up‘Expression of interest’ sought from software providersTalis Aspire – short listedPurchase confirmed at end of July 2009“Early adopter” status agreedSeveral months of active, co-operative development and specification (working with Talis to secure the essential components of the RLMS – pre-requisites to launching the live service)

Transcript

  • 1. Enhancing life-long learning, teaching and research throughinformation resources and services 1 14 April 2012
  • 2. Resource lists and e-resources –discovery and management challengesDr Richard Cross, Resource Discovery and Innovation Team ManagerLibraries and Learning Resources, Nottingham Trent UniversityUKSG Conference 2012 2 14 April 2012
  • 3. Abstract• In the academic sector the concept of the multi-format resource list is rapidly displacing the notion of largely book-bound, print-bound reading lists. This opening up of the notion of the resource list has, as a result, expanded the pedagogic opportunities for academics and the learning options for students. For libraries charged with running a web-based resource list management system (RLMS) on behalf of a learning institution, the challenges raised by the need to „resource the resource lists‟ can be profound. This presentation will assess the impact that the introduction of the Talis Aspire RLMS has had on the resource discovery and resource management practices of Libraries and Learning Resources at Nottingham Trent University, with particular focus on electronic serials, e-books and other online resources. The results will be of interest to any academic librarians involved in the selection, acquisition and discovery of electronic resources whose library service is considering the implementation of a resource list solution. 314 April 2012
  • 4. Agenda• Resource Lists vs. Reading Lists• Implementing a Resource List Management System (RLMS) at Nottingham Trent University• What the adoption of RLMS has meant (staff, students, librarians)• The „library review‟ process – resourcing the resource list• Challenges for the library• Simple innovations to support library‟s work• Future developments 414 April 2012
  • 5. Nottingham Trent University and the RLMS• Information Systems  Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)  Shibboleth Libraries and Learning Resources  Information Resources  Acquisitions  Metadata services  Document supply and digitisation  Technical services  Customer Services  Front-line support for students  Academic liaison  Information literacy  Advocacy and promotion
  • 6. My role in NTU Resource List project…• Lead Resource Discovery and Innovation Team within Information Resources• Technical lead for the Resource List project group• Administrator of NTU‟s Talis Aspire Tenancy• Member of the RLMS management team• Manage the team responsible for resource list „link checking‟• Liaison between LLR and VLE team• Liaison between LLR and Information Systems (including Shibboleth)
  • 7. Resource lists – and the resource list challenge 714 April 2012
  • 8. What is the difference between a ReadingList and Resource List?Reading List Resource List• Books • Books / eBooks• Journal articles • Journal / eJournal articles • Web sites • Learning materials • Surveys, quizzes and tests • Blogs, wikis, social media • Photos and illustrations • Online video and audio • Statistics and data sets • Search strategy guidance • And more… 814 April 2012
  • 9. What is the difference between a ReadingList and Resource List?Reading List Resource List• Lists of materials • Collections, selections,• Groups chronologically or groups, sub-groups, thematically groups-within-groups of• Prescriptive materials • Dynamically sortable and filterable • Ranking and weighting • Embedded guidance and pedagogic context • Prescriptive and open & indicative 914 April 2012
  • 10. Resource lists and information skills at NTU• Raising information and literacy skills – an increasing priority• Key aims: facilitate development of the „independent learner‟; and support „directed study‟ through access to information resources• Student feedback reported failings in delivery of „direct reading‟ “I can‟t find the things my lecturer told me to read” “I can‟t find a list of things from my lecturer that I ought to read”•Existing resource/reading list management was not up to task
  • 11. How were reading lists being „managed‟?• No guarantee to the student: no certainty that course offerings would provide the learner with a reading list; experiences differed• No consistent ‘format’: not physical format; nor structure; nor extent; nor over reach and range of materials• No single point of student discovery: some lists were held in the VLE database; some as VLE documents; some as print-only• No consistent method for library discovery: library sought to acquire as many lists as possible, but only accessed a small percentage (circa 20%, at the very best)• No rigorous workflow: lists were not seamlessly processed from the academic, through the library service, to the student• No fully supportive policy framework: to underpin service
  • 12. Adopting Talis Aspire 1214 April 2012
  • 13. New Resource List solution had to deliver• For students…. – Consistent, good quality Resource Lists with (much) improved availability – Clearer guidance on different types of material (Core, Recommended, etc.) – Simple access to the lists (primarily through the learning space in the VLE)• For academic staff… – Easy population of lists from the library discovery systems and other sources – Required resources „on shelves‟ (actual, virtual) quicker, with less effort – Fewer complaints from students!• For library staff… – Resource acquisition with a proven correlation to learning and teaching need – Support for real-world library workflows (without being prescriptive or fixed) – Fewer complaints from students!
  • 14. Resource List Management System project• Project team set up, with full backing of the university, to implement a RLMS; beginning with a procurement process• Selected the Aspire product (from Talis) – new generation product, in use at a growing number of UK universities 1414 April 2012
  • 15. Key implementation decisions• RLMS service: a centralised or devolved resource list environment?• List creation: a mediated service or direct academic creation?• Existing data: import legacy data or fresh start?• Launch: targeted pilot or big bang?• Library contract: strong and explicit or limited and secondary? 1514 April 2012
  • 16. Key implementation decisions: at NTU• RLMS service: a centralised resource list environment• List creation: direct academic creation• Existing data: import legacy data (where existed) and fresh start (where needed)• Launch: big bang• Library contract: strong and explicit 1614 April 2012
  • 17. Implementation plan• Target live date – September 2010• Parallel strands to implementation process  Deliver technical aspects  Securing policy environment  Providing training to academics  Preparing library to underpin live service• Went live to students in September 2010!• Now in second full academic year of RLMS – first list set has been „rolled over‟ for the new session
  • 18. Resource lists - students • Delivering resource lists to students, across disciplines and at all levels; • Populated, authored and owned by academics; • Integrated with VLE (1-to-1 match: module to list) • Materials are validated (metadata and linking) by the library 1814 April 2012
  • 19. Resource lists - academics• Own, author, populate and revise resource lists• Benefit from automatic and dynamic association with modules• Utilise a variety of methods for capturing resources („bookmarks‟)• Have access to training and support when-and-where needed• Recognise „contract‟ with the library to resource lists 1914 April 2012
  • 20. Resource lists – library service• Resource list management now central to library activity• Front facing teams working with academics; supporting students• Back-of-house teams working with list validation and acquisitions processing 2014 April 2012
  • 21. Take-up and adoptionPrior to implementation of Aspire RLMS• Library service was aware of <20% of potential reading lists• Student discovery of list materials was ad- hoc and unmanagedWith the implementation of Aspire RLMS• Library service now working with >68% of potential resource lists• Students benefit from managed, integrated, QA-ed discoveryAdoption target: 100% 2114 April 2012
  • 22. Creating and managing resource lists 2214 April 2012
  • 23. Populating a resource list with items• Academics (or librarians) create lists through a two stage process„Bookmark‟ items online – from Populate lists with items – the library discovery system, arrange, organise and annotate and elsewhere as required• A JavaScript based web browser plug-in enables metadata to be auto-extracted from online resource records 2314 April 2012
  • 24. Adding citation data to a bookmark library• Range of citation and reference management applications offer automated or part-automated metadata extraction from electronic resources• Aspire utilises a range of similar technologies to read-in metadata • Pulling „recognisers‟ web page code • Reading in OpenURL and COinS data • Leveraging look-ups from CrossRef, OpenLibrary • Augmenting metadata from local catalogue sources • Accepting RIS (Research Information Systems) file loads 2414 April 2012
  • 25. 2514 April 2012
  • 26. 2614 April 2012
  • 27. 2714 April 2012
  • 28. The library discovery system preference• A list author begins a search on Amazon, bookmarking an Item… 2814 April 2012
  • 29. • Aspire extracts ISBN values from the Amazon record; checks for a match in the LMS; if it finds a match, it sources data from the library system; if not, it pulls data from Open Library 2914 April 2012
  • 30. The Bookmark browser plug-inAny web location can be Bookmarked: Extracts page title and URL• Minimal metadata• URL may not be persistent or authentication-awareWeb locations configured for the Bookmark plug-in: Extracts identifiers to perform an additional look-up (LCN, ISBN, DOI) Returns far richer metadata Enables more appropriate linking (without need for intervention) 3014 April 2012
  • 31. Resource List – preparing the student view• Adding and organising items – authoring (direct or mediated)• Item priority status – set by list author• Item annotation – added by list author 31 14 April 2012
  • 32. Authoring a Resource List – drag-and-drop 3214 April 2012
  • 33. Resource List – Item view (physical stock)• Item data – extracted from library discovery system record• Library availability – a live holdings look-up• ‘View in library catalogue’ – a LCN deep-link• ‘Other formats/editions’ – a Title/Author search (or alternative) 33 14 April 2012
  • 34. Resource List – Item view (electronic book)• Item data – extracted from library discovery system record• Link – $856 URL presented in Resource List record 34 14 April 2012
  • 35. Resource List – Item view (journal article)• Item data – CrossRef and OpenURL resolver integration• Article/Journal – presents „is part of/has part‟ elements 35 14 April 2012
  • 36. Resource List – Item view (YouTube video)• Embedded object (auto-extracted when bookmarked from YouTube) 3614 April 2012
  • 37. Student access to resource lists 3714 April 2012
  • 38. VLE: accounts for 95%+ of access requests 3814 April 2012
  • 39. The ‘library review’ process 3914 April 2012
  • 40. The Library Review of Resource Lists• Academics submit completed resource lists for Library Review 4014 April 2012
  • 41. Meeting the challenges of RLMS supportNo single set of ‘correct’ how-to responsesThe individual library service’s response depends on…• The institutional momentum of the RLMS project• The nature of the library‟s contract with academics• Synergies or conflicts with wider teaching and resourcing strategies• Library resources: budgetary and staffing
  • 42. Nature of the contract with academics atNottingham Trent University• “The RLMS is the tool which enables you to deliver the university’s expectation over resource list provision”• “The library will resource the resource lists”• “The library will operate an e-preference acquisition model by default”• “The priority status of items matters: directly impacting on provision”• “To expedite acquisition, simple formulas (matching module numbers against relative priority) will inform purchase decisions”
  • 43. Contract with academics: challenges• Lists are visible to students („list publication‟) independent of „library review‟• Commitment to resource the lists is non-conditional (in principle)• Encouraging consistent good resource list practice (in terms of length, material balance, estimated cost)• Working with a recognition of resource lead times• Instances of lecturer reluctance („The line of list resistance‟)
  • 44. The processing of resource lists under review Review of lists: Processing of Lists: Making resourced lists Academic Liaison Information available to Team Resources students• An opportunity to rethink and refashion existing workflows• Aim to deliver the most efficient and timely resourcing of lists• Profound impact on existing ways of working – for all teams involved 4414 April 2012
  • 45. The Information Resources workflow • Researching e-availability • One-touch ordering, whenever possibleAcquisitions • Updating the RLMS and LMS in parallel • Improving quality of descriptive metadata Link • Updating electronic links to be persistent checking • Ensuring access available from any location • Processing items marked for digitisation • Enabling linking through the RLMSDigitisation • Supporting delivery through VLE 4514 April 2012
  • 46. Acquisitions – challenges• Promoting RLMS adoption whilst managing expectation• RLMS support and collection development – balancing the two needs appropriately• Weighing the benefits of discretion against the gains of automation Describe• Limits to the availability of materials in electronic format Acquire• Edition vs. format tensions Make available• Academic interest in out-of-print titles• Mapping workflows new acquisition models
  • 47. Acquisitions challenges – Patron DrivenAcquisition• Large PDA records sets can be found by academics in discovery systems• Materials can be added to resource lists that the library service does not yet own• PDA resourcing needs to allow for end of process acquisition
  • 48. Linking validation – challenges• Varied quality of electronic resource bookmarks• Bookmarked links can include unwanted values – which break links• Lack of support for deep-linking on some information resources• “The things academics find on the interwebnet…” (which raise provenance, copyright, appropriateness, et al issues)• Which librarians fix this stuff? (systems team, eResource team, metadata team)
  • 49. Linking challenges – full-text services• Referencing of full-text materials in aggregator packages (potential impact of cancellation)• Post-cancellation legacy access for direct electronic subscriptions?• Aggregated collections are typically dynamic – content profiles change
  • 50. Digitisation – challenges• Academic requesting vs. library identification of need• Lead times for satisfying digitations requests differ (hint – they‟re rarely shorter)• No capacity to store (or authenticate access to) materials within Aspire – so the RLMS will need to point to some managed, authenticated environment
  • 51. Resource list review – and LLR‟s processes• Launch of RLMS has led to significant realignment of staff resources• Funding has been realigned to meet the RLMS commitment• All stock management and collection development processes have had to become RLMS-aware• Training for staff; revisions to existing workflows; embedding new processes – needs to be accounted for in rollout planning• “If your library service goes for a „big bang‟ RLMS launch you probably won‟t get every library management process right from the off…”
  • 52. Local RLMS innovations at NottinghamTrent University 5214 April 2012
  • 53. Local technical and service innovations• Relic – Resource List Item Checker (using an Aspire API)• http://www.urko.org.uk/library/rlms/relic/index.php?type=doi&sear ch=10.1177/0309132509105004 5314 April 2012
  • 54. Local technical and service innovations • SlyFox (SFX OpenURL generator) and CatNip (Catalogue DLG) 5414 April 2012
  • 55. Local technical and service innovations• LLR developed an SFX- RLMS bookmarking service• Uses the Bookmarking API for Aspire (now supports OpenURL)• Enables any OpenURL supporting service to become a bookmarking source• Any metadata received by SFX can be sent to Aspire• Several other customers have deployed this target service 5514 April 2012
  • 56. RLMS and Aspire – future developments 5614 April 2012
  • 57. Aspire enhancements anticipated by LLR• Extending the bookmarking tool (to improve quality of item records)• Better Management Information reporting (especially self-service)• Acquisitions workflow extension (enabling LLR to bring more processing into Aspire)• Improving RefWorks integration (moving to selective, direct export)• Synchronisation API VLE-to-Aspire (to dispense with manual processes)• Improved digitisation management
  • 58. RLMS goals at Nottingham Trent University• 100% adoption of resource lists for all taught courses• Evidential increase in student satisfaction with resource list provision• Academic buy-in built on: (a) ease of use of the RLMS system; (b) recognition of the value of the library contract; (c) proven student satisfaction• Library demonstrates the ability to support resource lists in agile, timely, consistent and efficient ways• For the library service, the positive momentum of a resource list management system delivers: (a) a better collection; (b) improved consultation with the library over the implications of course design
  • 59. Questions or comments?NTU Resource Lists http://resourcelists.ntu.ac.ukRichard Cross Resource Discovery and Innovation Team Manager Libraries and Learning Resources, Nottingham Trent University richard.cross@ntu.ac.uk 5914 April 2012