Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Thanks for opportunity to discuss the CARL eLearning Report. I’ll review a few highlights from the report and provide a brief update. Diff bet Info Literacy (ACRL -- content) and eLearning (containers) Report was intended for a broader audience so I won’t belabor the library stuff
  • Traditionally there has been a disconnect between Laurillard’s vision and at least the North American Learning environment which is: course-focused Not necessarily enquiry based Incidentally not necessarily library based And this had informed the development of CMS’s to 2005, though there is some evidence of change Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer.
  • David Porter notes, in a paper prepared for CARL ( ): “Libraries … have tended to work under a different paradigm, providing students with access to online systems that allow them to “pull” information from catalogs, databases, and special collections to suit their learning or research needs. The notion of “pull” is a model of service congruent with more progressive higher education teaching and learning models [such as Laurillard’s]… Thus librarians should be integral to the decision making process when it comes to selecting and implementing a campus based LMS and determining best practices.” That this is slow to happen is as much the librarians’ responsibility as any one else; in many instances we have tended to preserve our traditional role rather than rethinking it in light of current academic practices. While enthusiastically embracing the electronic journal environment, the discourse about e-learning and information literacy has tended to controversy and to being inwardly focussed (being somewhat controversial, one could consider in fact that the codification of ‘information literacy’ as a standalone standard and practice is in fact part of the problem). Since the publication of Gibbons’ LTR report in 2005 and the CARL eLearning Report, this has begun to change. On the other hand, it is disappointing to see that references to libraries’ role in e-Learning tend often to be at best superficial. It’s crucial for librarians to articulating what should be our role in student elearning success, through advocacy at both the organizational and national level.
  • [Note improvements] The table (based on an examination of campus web sites) suggests that on CARL campuses, Elearning is institutionalized Libraries are increasingly providing online services to users and promoting them But the recognition of the role of libraries in elearning has actually dropped - there’s some work to do High activity includes (2004): Libraries doing a lot of online support stuff (guides, course pages etc.) Universities heavily supporting e-Learning (CMS, teaching support) Low activity 2004 increased to 2005: Mention of support for online courses in ‘Library support to faculty’ pages Interactive library instruction pages Remaining low (below 40% and declined) Few campus E-learning web sites mention libraries at all It is incumbent on librarians to do something about this. There is a noticeable divide that does not represent libraries’ potential contribution toward learning.
  • Detailed in report and there are examples from every library. Recommended web site of best practicies will be available sometime over the summer. Nevertheless, here are a few exemplary practices in Library Teaching and Learning among CARL members: Librarians at U. Calgary have developed web-based modules to support course-integrated instruction sessions, and encourage students to actively follow the librarian's presentation, using their own topics for selected searches. Students receive immediate feedback on search strategies during the session and can return at any time to refresh their skills for subsequent assignments. Reference staff use the materials to guide students in using information resources specific to their assignments at the reference desk. This blended approach to information literacy offers students and instructors the ability to address diverse learning styles, encourage active participation during the presentation, provide 24/7 access, and foster increased student contact with librarians. Student feedback has been uniformly positive and instructors indicate that students are using more resources more effectively. The University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University are providing online interactive reference services to each others’ students ; this service will be extended more widely to BC Campus students who may be associated with any British Columbia postsecondary institution. Numerous other CARL libraries provide similar chat reference. The value of these services extends beyond asynchronous email reference or traditional Chat support because the software can ‘push’ page images and allow the reference librarian to step the inquirer through a difficult procedure. UVIC is using the software to provide f2f instruction to distance students. What we have done to manage library content in CMS’s: Many university libraries are working with online course developers as well as instructors in traditional courses to provide online guides and help for library research; these include modules which introduce students not only to specific resources, but to critical evaluation of resources, specifics about thesis preparation and the like. As with face-to-face library instruction, these modules are most effective when integrated into course and research material provided by the instructor. The Uof C Distance Education Librarian keeps Distance Learners Up-to-Date on Library Services through RSS feeds to the Library’s Distance Education page and all Course E-Learning Sites and Online Tutorials by posting information to a blog which is distributed either as email or an RSS Feed; a chat icon on the course sites can be used to access the librarian when available.
  • Indicators (mostly indirect) that library resources improve learning success; research cited in report: A level playing field for researchers can be achieved through collective licencing of online resources. CRKN and the Ontario universities’ Scholars Portal represent models of how this could be achieved, See That is, Reading correlates with academic success Reading helps to improve activity: better, faster and cheaper “ Scientists who read more tend to get achievement awards and other special honors. In universities, those whose teaching has been honored read about 26 percent more articles, while those honored for research read about 33 percent more articles.” Carol Tenopir and Donald W. King , "Designing Electronic Journals with 30 Years of Lessons from Print" in the Journal of Electronic Publishing, December 1998 . Another research project demonstrateda positive relationship between academic achievement and use of open shelf library books Dundar and Lewis examined data from U.S. Research institutions and determined that institutional library expenditures were a positive factor, among others, in determining the average number of papers published per faculty member. H. Dundar and D. Lewis, Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in higher education 39(1998), 607 Further research indicates that: “ Public schools that have well-stocked, well-funded libraries run by professionals and that involve the library in curriculum development produce students that do significantly better in standardized testing.’  ‘Performance improvements of between 3 per cent and 15 per cent exist even after taking into account … ethnicity, socioeconomic status and class size.’ Globe and Mail, June 10/02 (research of Keith Curry Lance, Dir. Colo Dept of Ed. Library Research Services)
  • Beyond collections, librarians’ role in instruction and reference has a significant benefit. This quote from an SFU prof. illustrates why librarians must be included in the discourse on course development both at the local and the national level. A recent report noted: “ CARL librarians offer classes and courses on research strategies, help students in determining useful scholarly resources, work with faculty in planning and developing distance education courses (in particular online courses) to integrate concepts of information literacy throughout the curriculum. Faculty support these activities because the ability to articulate information needs, find appropriate information resources and critically assess the results of an online search are key to success in e-learning, and they leave faculty time to concentrate on course content… Teaching students to find their way through the maze of information on the internet and to evaluate it is crucial.   “If there is no provision of library information resources there can be very little learning, online or otherwise.  Libraries serve as information literacy trainers, experts in organizing and providing access to online resources, content providers through digitization projects, and providers” The e-learning e-volution in colleges and universities: a pan-Canadian challenge A response to the Advisory Committee for Online Learning prepared by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries in May 2001
  • The importance of this type of library instruction has been demonstrated: ‘college students’ self-efficacy in electronic information searching was significantly higher after library instruction.  Furthermore, frequent use of library electronic databases was correlated with self-efficacy, and posttraining self-efficacy was correlated with grade points’ Ren, Wen-Jua ‘Library instruction and college student self-efficacy in electronic information searching.’ Journal of Academic Librarianship, v.26, 2000, 323-328 In summary, there are substantive reasons for integrating library resources instruction and services in both face to face and e-learning. We must use this evidence to advocate our central role in e-learning.
  • Identified by SFU librarians
  • This slide and the next suggest the existing and ideal relationships among library resources and support and LMS’s. In the existing and envisioned relationship, library resources and support reside outside the e-learning environment, to be called on and used, but not integrated into the context of the course. For example, a link to a library guide will either be viewed outside of the context of the online course (to always get the current version) or copied into the online course (and therefore be fixed even though the original might be updated).
  • In the ideal LMS, library resources and services would be tightly integrated into the course. For example, a library-created module on academic integrity could be accessed from within a history essay assignment as an integral part without needing to be conducted as a separate course; quotations from course readings could be automatically linked and shown highlighted in context from within a lesson. Learning Object Repositories (LOR’s) would reach their potential as sources of content and library modules to be drawn upon when a course is constructed, with the course creator automatically notified when an update is deposited in the LOR and a single keystroke bringing the updated version into the course module if desired.
  • From SFU librarians, MacLean and Lynch Student: Reluctance to enter Library, ‘big unknown space’ (a reason for classroom instruction) Translates into reluctance to enter Library domain, easier to use global tools, need for ‘source evaluation’ (Not all unique to libraries; not easily solved or even articulated) Integration in planning should extend, enhance existing DE , f2f model Copying rather than linking of content – stale dates Authentication/authorized vs. open environment – esp. in multi-institutional environment but also x-course; lib resources more general value Authentication/authorization – persistence when move to library resources May not require authentication/authorization but want identification eg for testing Need cross-course referral/links/evaluation within one platform Lynch and MacLean correctly noted that systems not learning objects needed to be addressed (McLean, Neil and Lynch, Clifford) Interoperability between Library Information Services and Learning Environments – Bridging the Gaps; A Joint White Paper on behalf of the IMS Global Learning Consortium and the Coalition for Networked Information. May 10, 2004
  • The OCLC E-Learning Task Force (McLean & Sander, 2003) examined a number of issues related to the integration of library and learning management system functions, and concluded that both students and faculty require complementary tools and services to participate successfully in online teaching and learning environments. The OCLC task force identified system requirements for technical, functional, and cultural aspects of e-learning that needed to be considered when systems are selected and deployed. The OCLC recommendations constitute a general-purpose set of best practice requirements: Technical and Functional Requirements display and integrate many information windows as part of a learning activity Search and discovery of multiple databases simultaneously provide bibliographic tools that permit easy searching and reference completions provide access to tools that render and present content in user-customized formats integrate plagiarism [and other appropriate] software into course management systems to encourage good practice and to assess reliability of content
  • Technical and Cultural Requirements embed library resources in course management systems integrate third-party commercial information services customize portal facilities for storing personal preferences provide easy access to virtual reference services at the point of need embed training modules to assist in information seeking (McLean & Sander, 2003)
  • A start
  • Learners : Learners will be able to easily access selected resources and/or specific resource lists, made available to them within the context of a specific learning environment. Faculty : Faculty will be able to log in to their course environment, and from there, search/browse for relevant library and other resources, build a resource list, and incorporate the resource list into the course environment, where it would become available to learners. Instructional designers : Instructional designers working with an authoring tool will be able to easily access resource lists and incorporate resources from them into structured course content in the fashion of other learning objects. Librarians : Librarians using a combination of library services will be able to select resources or use instructor-selected resources to build resource lists for specific courses or subject areas. Librarians would publish specific resource lists associated with particular courses or send them to a digital repository with the meta-data necessary for ready incorporation into a course management system.
  • Cases focus on resources, not library instruction Case 1 Resource List Is Created Based on Federated Search of Library and Third Party Licensed Databases Case 2 Online Public Access Catalog Records of Printed Materials in a Resource List Are Prepared for Course Reserves Case 3 Resource List Is Shared Between Courses and/or Course Management System (CMS) Environments Case 4 Supplying the Learner with a Course Reading List Case 5 Resource List is Created from Harvested Meta-data in a Personal Database using previously retrieved and stored citations from various information sources. Case 6 Resource List is Modified by the Instructor to Include Local Content Case 7 Allow vendors (and other parties creating or managing learning resources) to extend the specification and incorporate proprietary extensions to the meta-data elements needed. Case 8 Propagate Resource and Resource List changes to the system in which it is being managed Goal Case 9 Allows reuse of resource meta-data, coming from different systems and following different schemas, for resource. Allows creation of resource list meta-data. Provides tracking of administrative actions in the resource and resource list meta-data. Case 10 Allow faculty to create multiple pedagogic annotations for each resource and resource list. Provides contextual information about the individual resource or resource list. Facilitates more granular referencing and use of discrete resources within a resource list, thus allowing more flexible reuse of resources within a learning environment. Case 11 A library's digital repository is used to archive selected resource lists that have been used and within a VLE. The resource list and its meta-data are retained in the digital repository separately, but include contextual information about where the resource list has previously been used in the VLE. The VLE deactivates and archives courses that are not currently being taught. These courses may be reactivated in future terms, and instructors can then access the resource list and use it in the reactivated course, or in other courses. Changes to the resource list are added to the resource list archive as a newer version of the original resource list. Case 12 Resource list managers wish to create a list containing zero items. Empty resource lists may also be created automatically as part of the initial set up of a course environment.
  • Another argument for library involvement; again, we should be engaged in advocacy on the basis of evidence and expertise, and the environment for library involvement appears to be ripe.
  • Key to success is: the liaison Librarian model: Discipline based partnership Collections, instruction, reference Value recognised by administration, faculty, students “ SFU Library rocks; best west of Winnipeg” Mad dog Strong systems division Local development Presence on key committees, decisions on campus: LMS Eval, Student learning task force, metadata support group (BCcampus), library services group (BCcampus) BC Electronic Library Network is sited at SFU Library
  • Moodle does not appear to have a ‘library’ awareness but with the Open University participation one it will move in that direction. The Libraries and Source Materials JISC has supported the WSRP portlet development. Access to UK library resources has been demonstrated by the University of Hull and its partner institutions in the CREE project ( These portlets, likely to be further refined with experience, will be especially important for students that do not have a major research library nearby. Expect to see JORUM develop WSRP portlet access as well. Access to these resources can be facilitated by the Shibboleth federated authentication; t
  • Recommendations A key issue for CARL libraries and librarians, is to continually identify the added value that they can bring to e-learning to benefit both instructors and learners directly. Librarians are on the front lines of knowledge when it comes to new systems and services that suit the needs of information seekers. However, there remains a requirement for libraries and librarians at the institutional level, to: be proactive in questioning the selection of learning management systems and complementary e-learning tools by faculties and departments, and actively seek representation through appointments to committees that deal with selection, management, and governance of online instructional systems on their campuses. at the national level, to: proactively advocate for representation on policy and standards bodies concerned with the pan-Canadian and global aspects of e-learning, including the interoperability between software systems, information management practices, and information resources such as e-journals, e-reserves, ILL delivery (print and electronic to the desktop). Autonomous institutions worldwide will continue to acquire and deploy e-learning systems and it is unlikely that there will be only one system used by all. Consequently, the notion of interoperability, standards, specifications, and application profiles will continue to be a topic of discussion between academic institutions, publishers, and computer vendors for the foreseeable future. advocate for the importance of information literacy to student success. At the international level, to: communicate and collaborate with similar organizations such as the Association of Research Libraries (U.S.), JISC (U.K.) and CAUL (Australia). For CARL to play a leadership role in e-learning in Canada it must be an active and proactive participant in discussions dealing with the ongoing functional requirements for exemplary online learning resources and systems. Toward this end, it is recommended: That CARL undertake discussions with the following groups about the expertise and value that CARL can bring to research and policy development initiatives. the Canadian Council for Learning (CCL), to assess its potential role in CCL’s funded research opportunities. CARL should seek to provide research guidance into standards, services, and policies for the provision of online resources for learning and teaching. the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), following up on its response to the report from the Advisory Committee for Online Learning “The e-learning e-volution in colleges and universities: a pan-Canadian Challenge” and seeking representation on the E-Learning Standards Advisory Council of Canada (ELSACC). CARL represents a significant interest group with expertise in the classification and provision of e-learning resources for higher education. CanCore, offering to provide its collective expertise in the creation and long-term maintenance of e-learning metadata specifications, bringing to the table librarians’ longstanding expertise in this area and suggesting the value of such a sustainable alliance to an organization with similar goals and expertise. LORNET with a view to becoming an “industry partner” in the LORNET project. In addition, CARL should work with its members at LORNET partner universities to represent the interests of research libraries in each of the LORNET research themes and pursue the possibility of developing an information resource/information literacy theme. CARL build on its role in advocating balanced copyright legislation by working with Creative Commons Canada to promote the us of CCC licenses within Canadian universities as a policy initiative. Creative Commons licenses represent an innovative model for making creative works available for use, reuse, and repurposing. Creative Commons and Open Source licensing is an interest area for some developers, faculty, instructors, and students, but its value needs to be promoted more widely to members of the academic community. CARL should play a leadership role in supporting individual innovation and the sharing of digital creative works through its proactive support of Creative Commons Canada, and similar licensing schemes. That CARL provide a community of practice web site for its members and others. In order that it be a credible member of the e-learning community, CARL and CARL members should demonstrate a commitment to using contemporary tools and practices to support its own organizational goals. This web site should make use of software that provides authenticated member access to discussions groups, mailing lists, online resource libraries, and collaboration software for conducting online meetings and professional development events. That CARL initiate an action campaign to demonstrate library importance and capabilities as an integral component of e-learning to administrators, instructional development units, and teaching faculties on its member campuses. That CARL members be encouraged to individually commit to an action project with at least one instructional development or faculty course development team, and that the outcomes be shared on the CARL online community of practice web site. The examples cited in this paper will form a basis. That CARL seek ways to communicate and collaborate with organizations such as ARL, JISC and CAUL with respect to e-learning initiatives.
  • “ Cdn. Government is providing a one-time payment of $1 billion to a third-party body for a Post-Secondary Education Infrastructure Trust. The Trust will support critical and urgent investments in post-secondary infrastructure: libraries and elearning are examples.”
  • In summary, SFU Library and many others in Canada are actively involved in the e-learning enterprise, but this role needs to become more widespread, and librarians need to advocate on a national level to this end. We look forward to providing integrated library services to elearners at point of need. Meanwhile, librarians in Canada and elsewhere are engaged in elearning activities that despite their limitations do enhance learning experience and success. References Library Technology Reports May/June 2005: Susan Gibbons
  • Copeland

    1. 1. CARL eLearning Report & Update Lynn Copeland Simon Fraser University Library CARL/ARL Ottawa May 17, 2006
    2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>“ A university is defined by the quality of its academic conversations, not by the technologies that service them.” </li></ul><ul><li>Diana Laurillard </li></ul>
    3. 3. Why librarians’ involvement slow to come <ul><li>Traditional role not course-specific </li></ul><ul><li>Librarians as a whole haven’t made their case </li></ul><ul><li>Administrators and educators haven’t bought in </li></ul>
    4. 5. A very few Canadian examples <ul><li>Univ. Victoria </li></ul><ul><li>SFU Library </li></ul><ul><li>UBC Library </li></ul><ul><li>U Calgary Library </li></ul><ul><li>York U Library </li></ul><ul><li>… </li></ul>
    5. 6. Library resources: core value <ul><li>In 2002/03, CARL academic libraries subscribed to 297,108 electronic journals, representing 46% of their serials subscriptions, and the number is growing. </li></ul>
    6. 7. Librarian involvement: core value <ul><li>“... the average essay grade is … a whole 2 grade points improved over last year. I suspect this is in no small part due to you and your excellent orientation.” </li></ul><ul><li>330,000 students at CARL institutions receive instruction </li></ul>
    7. 8. Librarian involvement core value (2) <ul><li>Library instruction  searching self-efficacy </li></ul><ul><li>Frequent use of library databases  self-efficacy </li></ul><ul><li>Posttraining self-efficacy  grade point up </li></ul>
    8. 9. Reasons for library/CMS integration <ul><li>‘ Value of going back’ esp. for EAL students; students learn at own pace </li></ul><ul><li>Students preference to stay inside domain (webct); students ‘live’ in WebCt; learning is contextual </li></ul><ul><li>Avoid reinvention of library wheel </li></ul>
    9. 12. General issues: <ul><li>Student preference for familiar </li></ul><ul><li>Extend DE model, f2f model </li></ul><ul><li>Library should be in context not just a ‘resource’ </li></ul><ul><li>Building content within course: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information dates and must be re-copied </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple static copies of the same material </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quiz content not easily imported </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Student evaluation is within course </li></ul><ul><li>Authentication/authorization </li></ul><ul><li>Cross-course referral/link/eval within one platform </li></ul>
    10. 13. OCLC Best Practices: Technical and Functional <ul><li>Information windows </li></ul><ul><li>Aggregate access </li></ul><ul><li>Provide bibliographic tools: easy searching and reference completions </li></ul><ul><li>Provide content in user-customized formats </li></ul><ul><li>Integrate plagiarism software </li></ul>
    11. 14. OCLC Best Practices: Technical and Cultural <ul><ul><ul><li>Embed library resources in course management systems </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Integrate commercial information services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Customize personal preferences </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide virtual reference at point of need </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Embed information seeking training modules </li></ul></ul></ul>
    12. 15. IMS Resource List interoperability Best practice and Implementation <ul><li>First focus – reading lists (ie ereserves) </li></ul><ul><li>Content Packaging: Create/read/delete </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time sensitive </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Digital repositories: Search/expose, gather/expose, submit/store, request/deliver, alert/expose </li></ul>
    13. 16. IMS Stakeholders: <ul><li>Learners : </li></ul><ul><li>F aculty : in their course environment </li></ul><ul><li>Instructional designers :working with an authoring tool </li></ul><ul><li>Librarians : a combination of library services </li></ul>
    14. 17. IMS Use cases <ul><li>Resource List Is Created </li></ul><ul><li>Online Public Access Catalog Records for Course Reserves </li></ul><ul><li>Resource List Is Shared </li></ul><ul><li>Supplying the Learner with a Course Reading List </li></ul><ul><li>Resource List is Created from Harvested Meta-data </li></ul><ul><li>Resource List can include Local Content </li></ul><ul><li>Extensibility for Vendor Specific Needs </li></ul><ul><li>Propagate changes </li></ul><ul><li>Harvesting and Reusing </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitating Reuse via Annotations (References) </li></ul><ul><li>Library digital repository archives selected resource lists </li></ul><ul><li>Resource list can be empty </li></ul>
    15. 18. JISC/ELF Framework: Library roles <ul><li>Application Services: 6,8 of 17 </li></ul><ul><li>Common Services: 13,9 of 38 </li></ul><ul><li>Library roles are closely or somewhat tied to 36 of 55 services in the ELF framework </li></ul>
    16. 19. SFU Library: ‘Our Library is where YOU are’ <ul><li>Liaison Librarian model: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Discipline based partnership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collections, instruction, reference </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Strong systems division </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Local development </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Presence on key committees, decisions </li></ul>
    17. 20. Reasons for optimism wrt LMS’s <ul><li>SAKAI, WebCT features </li></ul><ul><li>JISC/ELF: library components in framework </li></ul><ul><li>DEST </li></ul><ul><li>CARL position paper shows librarians’ engagement; </li></ul><ul><li>Pamphlet, web site will enable libraries to engage faculty, admin locally </li></ul>
    18. 21. SAKAI <ul><li>MIT: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>integrate library content, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrate librarian functionality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>eReserves via News tool </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Yale: via new librarian role & library toolkit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrate links via individual course resources tool </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pre- and post-tests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guides, contact info, chat ref etc. </li></ul></ul>
    19. 22. WebCT CE v.6; Vista <ul><li>Powerlinks potential to include library resources </li></ul><ul><li>‘ guest’ accounts </li></ul>
    20. 23. Other <ul><li>Moodle </li></ul><ul><li>CREE </li></ul>
    21. 24. Report Recommendations <ul><li>Make connections </li></ul><ul><li>Advocate </li></ul><ul><li>Educate </li></ul><ul><li>Local </li></ul><ul><li>National </li></ul><ul><li>International </li></ul>
    22. 25. Update <ul><li>Report, pamphlet distributed </li></ul><ul><li>CARL represented on CanKNOW STC </li></ul><ul><li>CARL represented at CCL Strat. Pl. </li></ul><ul><li>Web ‘best practices’ site will shortly be developed </li></ul><ul><li>Presenting at eLearning conferences </li></ul><ul><li>Cdn gov’t investment </li></ul>
    23. 26. “ Why should we put up with overcrowded classes & facilities ” --- Len Norris