Lotta Haglund

International trends in health science librarianship: part 3 ‐ the Nordic countries

This is the third in a series of articles exploring international trends in health science librarianship in the first decade of the 21st century. The invited authors carried out a survey of librarians in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland to identify common developments in their countries. A focus on pedagogy was seen as the most important trend. Future issues will track trends in Southern Europe and Latin America. JM.

Students and Graduates Learn Library Educational Content from Interactive Multimedia Tutorials

A review of: Markey, Karen, Annie Armstrong, Sandy De Groote, Michael Fosmire, Laura Fuderer, Kelly Garrett, Helen Georgas, Linda Sharp, Cheri Smith, Michael Spaly, and JoniE. Warner. “Testing the Effectiveness of Interactive Multimedia for Library-User Education.” portal: Libraries & the Academy 5.4 (Oct. 2005): 527-54. Objective –To demonstrate the effectiveness of interactive multimedia tutorials in delivering library educational content, and to evaluate librarian experiences of developing multimedia tutorials, both as part of the LUMENS (Drabenstott) project. Design – User study (questionnaire and interviews) using pretest-posttest design. Setting – Four academic libraries in the United States. One library dropped out during the course of the project. Subjects – Ninety university students from the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), Purdue University, and the University of Notre Dame participated in the main study to evaluate three of the tutorials: “Doing research an introduction to the concepts of online searching,” “How to read a scientific paper,” and “Hungry for information?” Another group of 15 subjects from UIC, consisting of 10 graduate students, 2 faculty, 2 librarians, and one fellow, assessed a fourth tutorial “Keeping current in your field.” Librarians were interviewed about their experiences producing the interactive multimedia tutorials. Methods – The 90 students were given a pretest containing questions about library educational content and five demographic questions. The students used the multimedia tutorial for 15-30 minutes and immediately afterward were given a posttest containing comparable questions to the pretest in terms of content and difficulty. The students were also asked to rate their experiences of using the tutorials in various ways on a scale from 0-10. At UIC, the experiences of the subjects using the multimedia tutorial were assessed by personal interviews. Librarians producing the multimedia tutorials were asked about their experiences of developing multimedia tutorials through e-mail, listserv discussion, phone calls, and face-to-face personal and group interviews. Main results – All three libraries measured a significant increase (using a one sample t-test, p 75%) of students were familiar with tutorial content before start. Despite this, most of the students found the tutorials useful and enjoyable, and the majority were fairly likely to recommend the tutorial to a friend. Interviews with subjects at UIC revealed similar experiences, except that the subjects were less familiar with the tutorial content at the beginning, and they were more likely to return to the tutorial for a refresher. The tutorial with the highest amount of interactivity was the most popular. The librarians found it difficult to find time to learn Macromedia Flash and to work within the LUMENS project generally. Eight out of 15 librarians remained with the project over the entire period. Conclusion – Students learned library educational content by using multimedia tutorials and seemed to enjoy the experience, and educational librarians should lead multi-expert project teams in tutorial production. Finally, the educational value of multimedia tutorials must be offset from the time and effort needed to produce them.

Health science libraries in Sweden : new directions, expanding roles.

Librarians in Sweden are facing huge challenges in meeting the demands of their organisations and users. This article looks at four key areas: coping with open science/open access initiatives; increasing demands from researchers for support doing systematic reviews; understanding user experiences in Swedish health science libraries; and the consequences of expanding roles for recruitment and continuing professional development. With regard to changing roles, there is an increasing shift from the generalist towards the expert role. The authors raise the issue as to how to prepare those new to the profession to the changing environment of health science libraries.

Research into the Impact of Facebook as a Library Marketing Tool is Inconclusive

A Review of: Xia, D. Z. (2009). Marketing library services through Facebook groups. Library Management 30(6/7), 469-477. Objective – To investigate whether Facebook Groups are useful for library marketing. Design – Content analysis of membership and activity of university library-related Facebook Groups. Setting – Two global Facebook Groups, and the Facebook Groups of two academic libraries in the US (Rutgers University and Indiana University, both with populations in excess of 30 000 students). Subjects – A total of 28 Facebook Groups were analyzed. Methods – Facebook global Groups are open to all users, while Groups based in a network (e.g., a university) only allow access for those in the network. Therefore, to collect data, the author used personal connections to log on to members’ profiles within university networks. The 26 university Groups were selected by searching Facebook for Groups belonging to the two university networks, using the word “library.” Groups unrelated to library business were discarded. A total of 11 Groups within the Rutgers network were analyzed. Of these, only one was organized by a librarian; the rest were organized by students. From Indiana, 15 Groups were identified, three of which were organized by librarians. In Table 1 (p. 474), all Groups are listed: 2 global Groups and 26 Groups within the two university networks. The author then visited all Groups, read all posts, and recorded the total number of members; status of each member, divided into faculty, staff and students; dates of first and last post; and discussion activity. The author analyzed group activity by keeping a tally of how often each member participated in discussions, as there was no way to see the number of times a member returned. The author also paid special attention to Groups with a large number of staff and faculty members, to gain information about the efforts of librarians to support or start new Groups. Main Results – There were a total of 652 members in the 26 university Groups (mean number of members was 25, ranging from 2 - 176). The two global Groups had a total of 12,665 members. Students were most active at starting new Groups, but these were on average very small (around 20 members), with very little discussion. Most discussions focused on limited topics or were event-driven, and therefore failed to retain member participation. The most active Facebook Groups were the global Groups. These Groups had a high staff and faculty membership, and librarians played an important role in promoting and maintaining group discussions. Conclusion – According to the author, a successful Facebook Group should be managed by active organizers, and discuss a broad range of topics. Good examples of active Groups were the two global Groups. Group activity should be diverse, include discussion topics and wall posts, as well as messages sent to group members. The messages were found to be critical for library marketing as they appear as personal messages in members’ inboxes.

Secondary School Teachers Don’t Have Time to Engage in the Most Important Aspects of Information Literacy Due to Curricular Pressures

A Review of: Williams, D. and C. Wavell. “Secondary School Teachers’ Conceptions of Student Information Literacy.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 39.4 (2007): 199-212. Objective – To examine school teachers’ understanding of student information literacy and to look at the implications of the findings for developing information literacy in students. Design – Qualitative research design (group discussions; verbal and written reflections). Setting – Secondary schools in the United Kingdom. Subjects – Secondary school teachers with various subject specializations. Methods – The study initially involved 31 secondary school teachers; 24 from seven schools in Scotland and seven from two schools in England. Participant teachers were self-selecting. The study took a phenomenographic approach. Teachers’ perceptions of their students’ abilities and their experiences and perceptions of their role in developing these abilities were examined through data collection in three stages. During the first stage, group discussions established the teacher’s initial conceptions of information literacy. Participants also filled out an information task grid which, together with focus questions, ensured that discussions were kept in the realm of practice. During the second stage of data collection, teachers observed and reflected on their students’ use of information in classroom activities. This was accompanied by informal site visits during which 26 of the participants were introduced to information literacy frameworks and definitions in order to contextualize reflections and discussions. Field notes were used to record these informal meetings. Six participants provided written feedback on reflections. In the third and final stage, a summary of themes from the first two stages was sent to 23 of the participants prior to a second group discussion in order to try to stimulate further reflection. Discussions were audio recorded and transcribed. The transcribed data were analyzed for the dimensions of variation of teachers’ conceptions of student information literacy and key elements associated with each category of description were determined. Main Results – The data revealed six main conceptions of student information literacy among the teachers: “finding information,” “linguistic understanding,” “making meaning,” “skills,” “critical awareness of sources,” and “independent learning.” There was no particular hierarchy in their conceptualization, although independent learning seemed to be the ultimate goal. Teachers’ conceptions in the beginning of the study focused on the ability to find information, whereas after a period of reflection and further discussions, a broader and more complex understanding of information literacy appeared. Table 1 simplifies some of the data from the table in the article and shows conceptualizations as well as some of the contextual elements. [Table 1] Teachers felt that they had at least some control over the development of student ability to find information, develop skills, and critically appraise sources, even though these were not the highest learning priority outcomes. However, in the three areas of ability which the teachers regarded as of high learning priority (linguistic understanding, making meaning and independent learning), they felt that they had little control over the development of these abilities in the students. Conclusion – The teachers’ conceptions of student information literacy overlapped with the ideas in existing models and frameworks for information literacy. However, some areas of information literacy were not addressed by the teachers, i.e., ethical issues in the use of information. In the categories of description of high learning priority, the main reason for the low sense of control by the teachers seemed to be curricular pressures – “our content is prescribed and time allocated doing each of these things is prescribed so we have got limited room for maneuvering” (206). The teachers tended to regard information literacy as process and skills-orientated, with little connection to learning. The authors note that other research also suggests that school librarians also have difficulty relating information finding to learning in specific subject disciplines. There is a clear gap here as the authors point out that “there is a danger that students will not understand the significance of learning with information for academic achievement or for independent learning” (209). The authors suggest that the way forward for further development of information literacy in the classroom and library is through dialogue and that “librarian-teacher collaborations needs to be founded on shared understanding of the complex inter-relationship between information and learning” (209).

Reference Services in Australian Academic Libraries are Becoming More Multifaceted

A Review of: Burke, L. “Models of Reference Services in Australian Academic Libraries.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 40.4 (2008): 269-86. Objective – To investigate the current organizational models for reference work in Australian academic libraries, and how these reference services are staffed. Design – Mixed methods. Setting – Academic universities in Australia. Subjects – Forty Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) member libraries. Methods – A literature study was undertaken to (1) find a definition of reference services and (2) explore the development of reference service models over time. Statistics from the CAUL member libraries were studied for trends in student population and number of academic and library staff. A web-based survey, with questions based on the findings in the literature study, was then distributed to the 40 Australian university libraries in 2006. Respondents were asked when the library commenced different reference services in five areas: formats in which the library received and responded to reference queries, information literacy, subject specialization, liaison activities, and collection development. Respondents also answered questions about the organization of the reference department, including: whether they had a separate or integrated model; the size of the reference collections; if they had a librarian dedicated to supporting students studying in remote or distant mode; if the interlibrary loans department was part of the suite of reference services; and if they had a mission or statement of purpose for their reference services department. Main Results – Based on the literature study, the working definition of reference services (1) for the project was “all activities which assist in providing relevant and appropriate information services to patrons” (270), including: • All interactions with patrons to assist them in their searches for information in all media types. • All training by librarians of patrons to be able to access information for themselves. • Activities to help the library stay informed of relevant developments, such as establishing and maintaining relationships with patrons. The literature study also revealed (2) a shift from the traditional reference service model, focused on the reference desk and the services delivered from that location, to new models involving “consolidation of reference service points, establishment of tiered reference, reference by appointment, reorganization of reference departments, and limiting services to primary users” (271). The core aspects of reference services have changed little over time, including face-to-face reference work, print collection development, bibliographic instruction, and attending meetings. In some aspects, however, there has been a shift in emphasis, e.g., in bibliographic instruction from the teaching of tools to the teaching of information literacy. In addition, reference work has come to include “going out to users,” or academic liaison work, as well as research consultation as a general way to assist undergraduate student in getting started on assignments and projects. The Web-based survey (n=40, response rate 87.5%) showed that 32.4% of libraries have an integrated inquiry point which incorporates information queries and other queries that are not necessarily related to traditional library reference services (272, Table 1). This survey result supports the findings of the literature study in showing a trend of library services moving away from the traditional reference desk. A majority of the responding libraries still retained a separate reference department, but a significant number of libraries have developed departments incorporating reference services with other library services. Those that retained the separate department varied in how they described services to patrons, the most common name being Information Services, a more user-friendly and descriptive name. In staffing the reference service, the respondents were asked to indicate the classification level of their staff using the Higher Education Worker (HEW) scale (an Australian salary scale, based on competencies, minimum 1 / maximum 10). Staff spans a variety of levels (4-10), the most common level being HEW6, a level where all libraries had staff. This indicates that a large part of reference staff in Australian academic libraries are highly qualified. The shift in higher education, resulting in greater numbers of students and fewer staff (including librarians), has in many libraries resulted in a more flexible organization of reference services, and the utilization of staff from other sections of the library for manning the reference service point. There is also evidence of how the changing student population leads to changing demands for library facilities and services, e.g. a decrease in the traditional complex reference questions, as well as in over the counter loan transactions, and an increase in more general queries. Conclusion – Reference services in Australian academic libraries are becoming more flexible and integrated (although the definition for integrated is still unclear), in part as the result of client demand, and in part due to decreased funding. The author sees an emerging role for reference librarians in helping patrons to navigate the increasingly complex information environment, and to assist in developing the skills to critically evaluate the information they access for authoritativeness and appropriateness.

Mismatch Between the Demands for Tenure and Those of Public Services is Creating a Crossroads in Academic Librarianship

Objective – To explore how public services librarians in academic libraries perceive their duties and experience job satisfaction especially in relation to faculty status (tenure track or non-tenure). Design – A multi-site study. Setting – Academic libraries in the United States. Subjects – Academic public service librarians. Methods – In March 2004, an online survey containing 25 questions was sent out to 1,510 academic librarians across the United States. The survey included demographic and professional work-related questions, but mainly focused on retrieving information about librarian feelings, thoughts, and perceptions in relation to six aspects of the role of the public service librarian, namely: reference, collections, publishing, teaching, committee, and management activities. The survey data was stored in an SQL database and analyzed in various ways to try to see if there were correlations in the replies. In some cases, Chi-square was used to test for statistical significance. Main results – 328 (22%) out of 1,510 potential replies were received. 74% came from public universities and 26% from private institutions. 23% of the respondent librarians had received their MLA before 1980, 34% between 1980 and 1994, and 43% 1995 or later. About 50% had worked as an academic librarian fewer than 10 years and 50% for 10 or more years. About 50% had worked at their current institution five years or fewer and the other 50% for six years or more. 49% had job descriptions which clearly indicated the relative emphasis of each of the main areas of their job. 50% came from tenure-track and non-tenure-track institutions alike. The librarians were asked to reply to “most” and “least” questions. The following lists show the most chosen responses (in %) to the questions. “Most” questions: 80% felt that they were most prepared for reference activities by their library school training. 50% felt most satisfied with doing reference activities. 25% felt that administrators viewed reference activities as being most important. 41% thought that reference activities had most service impact on users. 24% found teaching activities the most challenging aspect of their job. 49% had attended most training in the area of reference activities. 31% thought that reference activities would be most important for them 5 years later on (that is, at the date of publication of this review, 2009). For those with a position description, 49% had descriptions that most emphasized reference activity. For those in tenure-track positions, 78 % replied that publishing activities were most important for tenure. “Least” questions: 28% felt that they were least prepared for teaching activities by their library school training. 44% felt that committee activities were the least satisfactory part of their job. 33% felt that administrators regarded publishing as the least important aspect of the job. 49% thought that publishing activities would have the least service impact on users. 46% thought that committee activities were the least challenging. 31% had attended least training in publishing activities. 35% thought that publishing activities would be least important to them 5 years later. For those with a position description, 33% had descriptions that least emphasized publishing activities. For those in tenure-track positions, 31 % replied that management activities were least important for tenure. There was a correlation at an individual level between reference activities considered as having the most service impact on users and giving the most job satisfaction; and what the librarian thought was the most important to administrators. There was an overall correlation between what librarians found most challenging and the type of in-service training they had attended, with the notable exception of publishing. The area of scholarly publishing was perceived generally as the second most challenging area (18%) after teaching. However, very few (2%) replied that they had (recently) attended in-service training in this area. Librarians with publishing as a clear component of their job description were more likely to find publishing challenging and to say that it was an important component for their administrators. Publishing was clearly considered important for tenure. There were some statistically significant differences between more- and less-experienced librarians and more- and less-recently qualified librarians. In general (according to the authors), less experienced librarians tended to place more emphasis on teaching and committee activities, whereas more experienced librarians tended to emphasize collection development and management. Conclusions – Generally, the authors conclude that “librarians feel that they are in tune with their library administrators” (360). The authors found a clear link between in-service training opportunities chosen by librarians and the areas that the librarians thought that the administration regarded as important. However, there seems to be discord between the requirements for tenure (the majority ranked publishing as most important for tenure) and the service needs of users, librarian job satisfaction, and the perceived demands of administrators. The authors conclude that academic librarianship is at a “crossroads” where “librarians need to decide how and if publishing activities can be successfully balanced with other job components that are arguably more central to the library’s mission” (363).

Digital Resource Use and Non-Use in the Humanities and Social Sciences Academic Settings is Multifaceted

A review of: Harley, Diane. “Why Study Users? An Environmental Scan of Use and Users of Digital Resources in Humanities and Social Sciences Undergraduate Education.” First Monday 12.1 (Jan. 2007). 7 May 2007 http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_1/harley/index.html . Abstract Objective – (1) To map the digital resources available to undergraduate educators in the humanities and the social sciences, (2) to survey faculty about their use of digital resources, and (3) to examine how understanding use and users can benefit the integration of resources into teaching. Design – A mixed-methods approach, which included a survey, conducting discussion groups, and in-depth interviews. Setting – Academic institutions in the United States. Subjects – (1) “Various stakeholders”; (2) 31 instructors from three institutions, and 4500 full-time and part-time faculty and graduate students (at California public research universities, liberal arts colleges and community colleges); and (3) 13 digital resource providers and two other stakeholders, and 16 site owners or user researchers. Methods – (1) A literature review, combined with discussions with various stakeholders. (2) Four sessions of discussion groups with 31 instructors from three institutions formed the basis for developing a faculty survey instrument. The survey was distributed both on paper and online. (3) Collection of data on cost and collaborative development strategies, in-depth interviews with 13 digital resource providers and two other stakeholders, combined with a two day workshop with 16 experts, both on the subject of online educational resources. Main results – (1) Concerning the humanities and social sciences digital resource landscape, the main results of the literature study were the conclusions that the field of online education studies is complicated by a lack of common vocabulary, definitions, and analyses; and that different stakeholder interests and agendas also influence the understanding of how digital resources are used. With the help of discussion groups, an attempt at creating a typology for digital resources available to undergraduates was made, looking at type of resource, origin, and type of role of the provider or site owner. From the article, it is unclear whether or not this attempt at classification was successful. (2) Concerning faculty use or non-use of digital resources, the most important result was the insight that personal teaching style and philosophy influence resource use more than anything else, and this also seemed to be the most important reason for not using digital resources. Faculty use digital resources for a number of reasons, to improve student learning, provide context, and also because it is expected of them. More than 70% of faculty maintain their own collection of digital resources. However, the lack of efficient tools for collecting, managing, and using these resources in teaching is seen as a problem. There is also a variation between scholarly fields, where faculty in different disciplines require different types of resources and use them in different ways, and for different educational reasons. (3) Concerning how understanding use and users can benefit the integration of resources in teaching, the results of the interviews show a lack of common terms, metrics, methods, or values for defining use and users; but a shared desire to measure how and for what purpose digital resources were being used. Few of the providers had any plans to evaluate use and users in a systematic way. Conclusion – The digital landscape is complicated. Faculty use is determined by personal teaching style and philosophy. Digital resource providers would like to know more about how and for what purpose digital resources are being used. Experts see a number of areas for further research, the results of which might help clarify the situation. The only way to understand the value of digital resources is to measure their impact and outcomes, but further work is needed to provide common vocabulary, metrics, and methods for evaluation.