Alcts farkas

1,558 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,558
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
56
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Alcts farkas

  1. 1. EMBEDDING THE LIBRARY INTO THE ONLINE LEARNING EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/wa/WAVASbike_kevf.jpg Meredith Farkas Portland State UniversityMonday, January 21, 13
  2. 2. WHO ARE ONLINE LEARNERS IN HIGHER ED?Monday, January 21, 13
  3. 3. THEY ARE OLDER 85% ARE 25 OR OLDER, 55% ARE 35 AND OLDER Source: Noel-Levitz 2011 National Online Learners Priorities Report https://www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/2011/PSOL_report%202011.pdfMonday, January 21, 13
  4. 4. THEY HAVE COMPETING PRIORITIES 81% ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED TOP FACTORS DETERMINING ENROLLMENT: CONVENIENCE, FLEXIBLE PACING, WORK SCHEDULE Source: Noel-Levitz 2011 National Online Learners Priorities Report https://www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/2011/PSOL_report%202011.pdf Online Student Demographics Infographic http://www.classesandcareers.com/education/infographics/student-demographics-infographic/Monday, January 21, 13
  5. 5. MANY SEE EDUCATION AS A MEANS TO AN END THE MAJORITY ARE ENROLLED IN PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS Online Learning Enrollment and Demographics, The Chronicle of Higher Education https://chronicle.com/article/Online-Learning-Enrollment/125202/Monday, January 21, 13
  6. 6. TEND TO HAVE HIGHER EXPECTATIONS FOR THEIR LEARNING EXPERIENCE THAN STUDENTS IN ON-CAMPUS PROGRAMS Source: Noel-Levitz 2011 National Online Learners Priorities Report https://www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/2011/PSOL_report%202011.pdfMonday, January 21, 13
  7. 7. ARE BECOMING THE NEW NORMAL 31.3% OF ALL STUDENTS WERE TAKING AT LEAST ONE ONLINE COURSE IN 2010 Source: Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011 http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdfMonday, January 21, 13
  8. 8. Monday, January 21, 13
  9. 9. Monday, January 21, 13
  10. 10. Monday, January 21, 13
  11. 11. Monday, January 21, 13
  12. 12. IF THIS IS THEIR CAMPUS...Monday, January 21, 13
  13. 13. Library IF THIS IS THEIR CAMPUS...Monday, January 21, 13
  14. 14. http://www.flickr.com/photos/yogendra174/5980718184 GET IN THEIR FLOWMonday, January 21, 13
  15. 15. MANY LEVELS OF “EMBEDDING” Macro-Level Library Courseware Involvement* Micro-Level Library Courseware Involvement* Molecular-Level Library Involvement * From Shank, J. D. and N. H. Dewald. 2003. Establishing our presence in courseware: Adding library services to the virtual classroom. Information Technology and Libraries 22(1):38-43.Monday, January 21, 13
  16. 16. MACRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT • One library presence for distance learners in the learning management system • An external web page •A presence in the LMS •A course shell in the LMS in which every student is enrolled •A module/widget in every classroom • Could be a link or embedded content. • Could be in every course or on the LMS home pageMonday, January 21, 13
  17. 17. Monday, January 21, 13
  18. 18. Monday, January 21, 13
  19. 19. Monday, January 21, 13
  20. 20. Monday, January 21, 13
  21. 21. MACRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT • Pros • Easy to maintain • No collaboration with faculty needed • Good for universally-useful information, learning objects and resources for online students • Cons • Generic, not tailored to specific courses or programsMonday, January 21, 13
  22. 22. MICRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT • Library presence targeted to specific courses or programs • Program/subject-specific presence or guide • Course-specific presence or guide • Learning objects to support specific programsMonday, January 21, 13
  23. 23. MICRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT • How does the content get into the classroom? • One library presence that links to subject-specific content embedded automatically into each classroom (through the LOR) • Subject/course-specific content embedded automatically into each classroom • Faculty member must link to subject/course-specific content • Librarian is given course-designer accessMonday, January 21, 13
  24. 24. Monday, January 21, 13
  25. 25. Monday, January 21, 13
  26. 26. Monday, January 21, 13
  27. 27. Monday, January 21, 13
  28. 28. Monday, January 21, 13
  29. 29. Monday, January 21, 13
  30. 30. Monday, January 21, 13
  31. 31. Monday, January 21, 13
  32. 32. Monday, January 21, 13
  33. 33. Monday, January 21, 13
  34. 34. Monday, January 21, 13
  35. 35. MICRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT • Pros • More targeted to student research needs • Can put more of a human face on the library (subject librarian) • Cons • Requires significantly more effort to build and maintain • Depending on the approach, may require significant programming and/or significant librarian involvement to embed the content into the LMS • Sometimes requires more collaboration with facultyMonday, January 21, 13
  36. 36. MOLECULAR-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT • Involvement in the design or teaching of the course itself • Collaboration with faculty on course and research assignment design • Developing learning objects to support specific assignments or providing synchronous online instruction • Librarians embedded in individual coursesMonday, January 21, 13
  37. 37. COLLABORATING WITH FACULTY ON COURSE-DESIGN • Macro-level • Workshops for faculty on research assignment design and/or embedding of information literacy instruction into courses • Micro-level • Working with individual facultyMonday, January 21, 13
  38. 38. PORTLAND STATE’S ADVANCED DESIGN PROCESSMonday, January 21, 13
  39. 39. Monday, January 21, 13
  40. 40. COLLABORATING WITH FACULTY ON COURSE-DESIGN • Pros • Can integrate information literacy instruction much more deeply into a course • Cons • Requires significant librarian time working with faculty • Many faculty will not be open to this type of collaboration • Not every faculty member is interested in teaching information literacy instruction • Doesn’t create library presence, per seMonday, January 21, 13
  41. 41. LEARNING OBJECTS AND SYNCHRONOUS INSTRUCTION • Learning objects • HTML tutorials • Video tutorials • Interactive learning objects • Synchronous instruction • Video conferencing is becoming more mainstreamMonday, January 21, 13
  42. 42. LEARNING OBJECTS: CONSIDERATIONS • Available at a user’s point-of-need • Have to be updated as interfaces and technologies change • Must focus on accessibility (ADA and mobile) • Different modalities for different • Learning styles • Programs • TopicsMonday, January 21, 13
  43. 43. SYNCHRONOUS INSTRUCTION: CONSIDERATIONS • Can provide tailored instruction to students, active learning • Social presence • Mirrors what we can do for f2f classes • Technical barriers and cognitive load should not be underestimated • Can’t cover as much as during a f2f session • Often a poor fit in programs that are totally or largely asynchronousMonday, January 21, 13
  44. 44. EMBEDDED LIBRARIANS • Many, many models • Librarians involved in building the course • Librarians with course design privileges • Librarians involved in the teaching of the course • Co-teaching the course • “Lurking” in the course • Involved in a discussion board in the course • For the entire term or for specific period(s) of timeMonday, January 21, 13
  45. 45. EMBEDDED LIBRARIANS • Considerations • Requires a tremendous time commitment; not easily scalable • Must be integrated meaningfully into the course • Requires significant collaboration with faculty to be successful • Librarians need to apply the same standards to responding to students as they do at the reference desk • Has the potential to significantly increase the sense of social presence and support in an online courseMonday, January 21, 13
  46. 46. EMBEDDED LIBRARIANS • Considerations (cont’d) • Sometimes embedding simply shifts reference help burden onto the embedded librarian • Not a right fit for every program or course • Better for programs/courses where faculty do not feel comfortable teaching research skills • While some embedded librarian projects in the literature demonstrated efficacy, no tests have measured the efficacy of embedding vs. other methods of info lit instructionMonday, January 21, 13
  47. 47. CONSIDERATIONS • Sustainability should be a top concern • Consider what it will take to maintain (or grow) the service one year from now, five years from now, etc. • Pilot projects have pros and cons • Librarians must develop strong connections with the units that administer the LMS and support online teaching • Subject librarians are critical • Every subject librarian should be a distance learning librarian tooMonday, January 21, 13
  48. 48. CONSIDERATIONS • Ignore the hype and focus on the specifics of your College/ University’s online programs • Institutional culture • Learning outcomes and program structure • Available resources • No one approach will be a right fit for all programs/courses • If you do something time intensive, be strategicMonday, January 21, 13
  49. 49. CONSIDERATIONS • Depending too much on the LMS may create problems if the University switches to a new LMS or upgrades • Not every LMS has a role that makes sense for a librarian • Putting a human face on the library (“presence”) is so valuable onlineMonday, January 21, 13
  50. 50. QUESTIONS? Find me atmeredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress gmail: mgfarkas twitter: librarianmer facebook: meredithfarkas http://www.flickr.com/photos/trucolorsfly/2401196653/Monday, January 21, 13

×