CiL day one April 7, 2008
Posted by Jenica Rogers in Libraries, My Life, cil2008, conferences, library blogs.3 comments
I’m sitting in my room at 6:48 on day one of the conference, tired’er than tired. When did I get so old? My feet hurt, my shoulder’s achy, and I kind of just want to go to bed. I am, in fact, 32 years old. This is not acceptable. I used to be fun! I used to have time to be fun before I got tired!
A beer is also not dinner, no matter if it was free in the vendor hall. I should remedy that somehow.
I skipped the keynote this morning, because while I think Lee Rainie is very interesting and Pew presents some unique statistics, I’ve heard him keynote twice in the past year, and I think if I give him a brief break before hearing him again it’ll do us both credit. I also skipped the morning sessions in general, the first because I was getting out of the shower after a lovely “I needed some sleep” morning and the second because, well, I was hungry and people were going to lunch. We followed last year’s Lunch 2.0 path and, defying the spirit of Lunch 2.0, went to the same Italian restaurant which was, again, quite good.
I’ve blogged the afternoon sessions here, as you can see, and I was, as always, pleased and invigorated by the content of this conference. Bravo, ITI and presenters! I love it when you make a conference worth my time and energy by providing good content.
More than the content, though, I had a great time today talking to people who entertain, challenge, and interest me. People I would never get to see face-to-face without conferences like these. (Which makes it all the more entertaining that I spent the vendor reception talking to four other SUNY librarians, and the ever-patient Anna Creech who listened to us talk endlessly about local issues without ever getting annoyed.)
The highlight of the day was the LSW presentation, though. Watching Griffey sit next to me diligently trying to subvert the LSW chat room… well. The whole thing was fun, if it did provoke a feeling in me that there was a crowd of librarians behind us saying to themselves “What? Why? Who are you young rascals, anyway?” We’re the future, that’s what.
The weirdest moment of the day was when Rudy told me that I’m in the latest issue of CiL. Uh, what? I… what?!

Well, then. I guess it’s a good thing I’m actually blogging the conference, or that’d be embarrassing…
Millenial Mythology April 7, 2008
Posted by Jenica Rogers in Libraries, Statistics and Data, Users, cil2008, conferences.5 comments
Millenial Mythology: Putting suppositions to the test in an academic library, from Pascal Lupien, Academic Liaison Librarian, University of Guelph, and Randy Oldham, System Support Technician, University of Guelph
Questions: What percentage of students
- Own PDAs
- Use their cell phone to get the internet
- Participate in a virtual world
- Use a social network
- Use these for academic purposes
(the audience was calling out responses to each, such as 5% own PDAs, ALL use social networks. The shouted answers sounded pretty standard to me, but let’s see what the data tells us is true on their campus…)
- Own PDAs – 9%
- Use their cell phone to get the internet – 69% own. 72% can browse internet, only 17% had done so. (So, should we REALLY be moving our services to mobile platforms? Are they REALLY going to use them if we do?)
- Use a chat application? 93% did. Do you use it academically? YES.
- Use a social network? Most do. 50% never use for academic work. 35% used only on a few projects. Data skews younger; the younger the user, the more they use networks for academic work. Focus groups show they prefer email for group project work, and don’t want to share work online with strangers – only with friends. “Why should I share information with people who haven’t done the work?”
- Participate in a virtual world? 4% say yes. Second Life is not reaching students.
- Play online games? 42% never. 20%+ less than once per month. With a gender gap — many more men say yes. (So do we really need to integrate online gaming technology in our teaching and learning?)
They also asked about where students go to find information, and learned from surveys that many more students than expected went to the library’s sites — homepage, indexes, etc — first, rather than Google, knowing that the good information is in the library — but that the library resources were the hardest and most frustrating to use. (So you start off pleased that they use the library then get sad because they don’t like us.)
Discussion points to pull from this data:
- Technology is everywhere, but they may not be using it the way we assume they do or predict they will. How will this change? What services should we be digging into?
- Student culture is reluctant to mix personal and academic computing. Therefore, what’s the appropriate way for us to work with social networking as use increases and the personal/academic divide (possibly) grows?
- If students are using the library in large numbers, how do we improve access to address their concerns? How do we make more efficient search tools, and user-friendly websites?
- Are we looking for technology to sell to make us cool, or technology that fits a need? Explore what we can offer, but make sure that it actually meets a local need.
Observational study of students’ natural research behavior on existing assignments, from John Law, Director, Strategic Alliances & Platform Management, ProQuest.
Most observational sessions happened in coffee shops and apartments, with far fewer in computer labs and libraries. “You have to go native” so sat on beds in student bedrooms, etc — wherever they were, the observers were.
- How students decide which resources to use – library outreach/marketing (great anecdote about student who was “walking advertisement” for libraries with “resources too expensive for us to access otherwise” etc — because a librarian came to his class to tell them that), course instructor (what the professor says is the bible for research – even if a faculty member in a totally different subject area said it was a good resource), brand awareness
- How students ues library resources – vast majority of participants attempted to use library resources. But many failed, even though they wanted to, due to the state of websites. Once they’re in databases, they seem to succeed, but they can’t always figure out how to get there. Students often work with multiple resources at the same time, but abstracts are essential in identifying relevant search results. “Even when the full-text is present, they use abstracts as a reliable summary to decide whether something is relevant.”
- How students are really using google – “studies show 90% of students use google for research” but maybe we should be asking better questions… we all use google, but is it our primary tool? And is that what gets asked? Some use it as a primary search tool, some to supplement research, and most to do handy look-ups. When we ask “Who uses google for research”, how much of that is for handy look-ups? Who uses Google for primary search? Students for whom it will suffice – if quality isn’t a concern, then google will suffice. Students who are insufficiently aware of library e-resources. Students who’ve had bad experiences with library resources. “Students are pretty smart about using different research tools for different reasons.” (Just like us. This is also how we search; why we think they’re radically different than we are is a mystery to me.)
- How social networking sites factor into student research – they don’t. “We stopped asking this question because they were laughing at us.”
- Chief inhibitors to success – Lack of awareness of resources. Significant difficulty navigating library websites. When the catalog search is front-and-center, they want to use it for ANY search. Authentication provides barriers.
Audience question on “how can I apply all this to baby boomers?” And the answer from all 3 was “be seamless, be better, be more available” — no matter who your audience is. Identify the best technology and use it to address expressed user needs. “People say ‘Your websites are crap’, and we have to fix that.”
(This was one of the best presentations I’ve seen in a long while — personable presenters with good anecdotes to support their information, concise, and relevant. Thanks, guys!)
Tombrarian talks learning commons April 7, 2008
Posted by Jenica Rogers in Libraries, Library As Place, cil2008, conferences.3 comments
Tom Ipri, Tombrarian, UNLV Libraries
Learning Commons : the In in CiL [slides via slideshare]
When relocating from your home to somewhere like Las Vegas, you stop and think about Place in a new way. For example, from his office window he sees a pyramid, and from his library’s top floor you see a 10 story banner of Barry Manilow. What does that mean about his library as place, or our libraries as place?
Every place has its own features, functions, and challenges – this room would not work well for a conversation. It’s designed for a lecture. UNLV has a great learning commons in a relatively new building, with excellent furniture – which is all wired into the floor and bolted together. So the space was designed well, but not designed for flexibility. In part, this is linked to the fact that ten years ago future-oriented librarians and thinkers were predicting the end of the physical library – libraries would become ‘an abstraction’, virtual, or unnecessary. Five years ago future-oriented librarians and thinkers, having remained non-abstract, started thinking about the library as place in a new information environment.
Common characteristics of learning commons: Moveable furniture, wireless infrastructure, laptop support, group study options, multimedia production, rich application suite, laptop loans, large scale printers, white boards, smart boards, tutoring, writing services, vending machines, practice presentation suites. (All of these are designed in support of the need of the learner at any given point in time – not the need of the ‘library’ to be ‘a library’.)
Common Concepts: Flexibility that can be defined and implemented by the learner in a variety of spaces “If you have a tree and a wireless network, you have a classroom”, in support of collaboration, stimulation, and user-friendly human-centered interactions. Libraries interested in being a learning place need to bring together content, services, technology, and environment into one coherent and user-centered whole. Access is not enough; users can access information and teaching outside of the physical library, so the library must be more than access in order to stay relevant.
All of this is a response to the cognitive theory of constructivism – “active construction of knowledge by the learner” – learners construct knowledge by understanding new things and building on current understanding, by drawing on their environment and their trusted experts – which are often their friends.
4 assumptions: Space can hinder or facilitate learning. Environmental effects are moderated by other factors. Space should match teaching objectives, learning styles, and social setting. Space should be treated the same as materials and preparation.
(That last one is a seriously interesting statement. Great services plus great materials plus terrible physical environment = unsuccessful learning interaction. That’s a big idea to unpack in the context of underfunded and neglected physical plant resources. We, in MPOW, have gotten very good at thinking about space, particularly about our space and its strengths and weaknesses, but I don’t think we’ve ever prioritized it as highly as we do our materials and our services. Perhaps we need to be…)
Interesting question: “If our computers are not better than the laptop the students already own, why will they come to use ours? That’s why we include Adobe Creative Suite on our computers” (Value-added computing! Quick, get all those “for library use only” computers out of your libraries, and put in USEFUL stuff.)
Audience question: If you have a small budget and a mandate to make an information commons, what would you prioritize? Tom says flexible furniture and physical resources – move some furniture around, allow them to move furniture around, maybe buy some whiteboards on rollers. (I would add, “get wireless” to that, so the students can leverage the other things you can do.) Another audience member follows up with “leverage campus resources”, and bring the writing center into the library, bring in the tutoring services, etc, to create a learning one-stop shop.
(Awesome bunch of ideas and tips to consider. Lots of thinking for me/us to do on this issue… particularly in light of the whole “not likely to ever get a whole new library” perspective — what can we do NOW?)
InfoDooDads on blogging April 7, 2008
Posted by Jenica Rogers in Libraries, cil2008, conferences, library blogs.add a comment
Some well-presented and clear tips for successful blogging from the authors of InfoDooDads:
- Mission: What are you trying to accomplish? DO THAT THING, rather than get all distracted by other stuff.
- Scheduling: To keep a blog going, schedule the posting. Make it a regular task, give people goals… rather than “as you feel like it”, to give readers a sense of regularity and your posters a sense of deadline.
- Niche: find your corner of the blogosphere, be good at it, and then promote it — and people will come.
- Promotion: Know your audience and how to reach them. Are there appropriate listservs? Other blogs? Groups? Find them, ask permission/read rules about ads, and advertise.
- Assessment: Keep track of what’s working. Get Clicky, Feedburner, etc tell you what you need to know about how your blog’s being read or used. Does your blogging count? Blogging can lead to more professional scholarship, though it may not be a clear tenure-grabber — and it’s really easy to assess your impact with a blog. Participation makes impact very clear.
- Business vs Blogging: Know the following: Do you want to have full freedom of speech? Do you want independence from your employer? Do you want to be the organizers and planners, unbound by other criteria? Do you want to be responsible for all expenses and income?
LSW goes public April 7, 2008
Posted by Jenica Rogers in I amuse myself, Libraries, cil2008, conferences.2 comments
Michael Sauers has chosen the Haiku Bio approach, which is actually really cool. While the LSW people are talking, the LSW chat room is running on the projectors, and the room is contributing to the presentation. Asking questions, making jokes, providing backchannel contributions. Aaaaaand…. Griffey just rickrolled the meebo room. Except the moderator is wisely denying the audio.
LSW: “The ALA without the bureaucracy, the ALA without the money, make up your own title.” Conveniently, the creation of the LSW coincided with the creation of Meebo Rooms. Steve Lawson says that this kind of communication is important because conferences are a combination of creating new knowledge for the profession and meeting people — and the LSW is like being at a conference every day, meeting people, talking about issues, sharing ideas with people around the country. Membership is defined by showing up, so it’s a very diverse group, scattered all over the country and beyond. Rikhei Harris says that it’s the combination of personal and professional that make the LSW work for her — you can get feedback on reference questions, professional problems, and what to do for the wicked headache you have right now. The LSW also provides a guaranteed feedback loop — there are so many people online at any given time that you’re nearly guaranteed to have an audience if you have an information need.
Why has the LSW been successful? (The attempts to RickRoll have succeeded — Sauers is scrambling to figure out how to turn it off.) Because of low expectations — who thought it’d be this fun, or useful? And, just like an unconference, whoever shows up is the right group. So whoever wants it? They’re the right people to have there.
So, given the chaos that’s ensuing in the meebo room right now as they talk, and the club-ish-ness of the backchannel convo, is this just another “cool” club I’m not a part of? NO. If you want to talk to people, about librarianship and other stuff, in a free and informal way, the LSW is for YOU. The LSW promises different things than other organizations: They propose to provide a place for conversation “without making you go to Anaheim”, where you will have a chance to talk to real library professionals about whatever is on your mind. According to Josh Neff, “The immediacy of real people doing real things” and talking about it in the LSW room keeps people coming back.
(…and my wireless bombs out. Welcome to CiL! Though, to give InfoToday the credit they deserve, things have been much better this year — power strips by the comfy chairs, a bloggers’ table with power strips at the front of rooms, better wireless. Except right now.)
Could the LSW hit critical mass and therefore fail? As in, now that there are all these new people who’ve been exposed to the hilarity, if we all log in, will it kill it? Possibly. If there are too many people in a chat room, the only ones who stay are the ones who can handle the stream of conversation at that volume. Or, it’ll just be like the rest of the internet — if it hits a point where it gets unwieldy, it’ll fracture into other groups to serve similar purposes — and that’s not a bad thing.
Someone raised the idea that if you’re in a chat room with nicknames, you’re not meeting the “real people”. (And therefore Griffey is a cylon.) Those of us, including the panel, don’t see it that way. “Meeting” people has less to do with physical presence than conversation and connection. The three presenters, for example, met last night in person for the first time.



