January 15, 2015 (Thursday)

Time: 9am-10am; 11am-12pm; 12pm-12:45pm; 1:15pm-2pm; 2pm-3pm (4.5 hrs)
Hours completed (IST): 4/135
Hours completed (Kara Robinson): 4/15
Accumulated on-site hours:8/150

Today I observed two instruction sessions (9am and 11am) classes being taught by the same professor (the former was a 20000 level and the latter was a 30000). Though the class was at two different levels the themes and structures of the classes were very similar. The sessions began with a general introduction to the library's main page and discovery layer searches.  Discovery layer searches are the default on the main page which, because the discovery layer was recently implemented, makes showing how to search using discovery an important aspect of student instruction. Tammy then showed students various reference services and databases that would be helpful for the final paper that the students would be writing later in the semester. Along with the presentation of reference services was a discussion of resource authority to reinforce the difference between an appropriate resource that can be cited and, for example, Wikipedia.

Two major takeaways from observing these two bibliographic instructions were:

1. That the librarians has limited control over the session. The timing worked better for the professor to have this instruction occur at the beginning of the semester. Many students seem confused or might not have got as much out of the BI since they had yet to even choose their topics. This made it more difficult to tell them specifics. Additionally, the professor wanted the students to be shown both the graphic novel collection and special collection. This limited the total "class time" of the BI to about thirty minutes.
2. I took the opportunity to compare the instruction to the Information Literacy Plan for Undergraduate Education. The lecture touched on all the level one and most of the level two skills despite the small amount of time available. Tammy, in a meeting later in the day (2pm-3pm), explained that preparation and repetition helps in these situations.  By having a good relationship with the professor and a copy of the syllabus for the class she was able to craft the BI so it could provide the most useful information possible.

I also spent some more time working on the collection development project.

January 14, 2015 (Wednesday)

Time: 3pm-4pm
Hours completed (ISD): 1/135
Hours completed (Kara Robinson): 2.5/15
Accumulated on-site hours: 3.5/150

Today I spent some time working on the collection development project for Kara. This initial phase consists of looking through the OPAC (KentLINK) and making note of books that I believe could be moved to off-site storage books and replaced with books that are currently off-site. The main criteria that I was told to be aware of was books published in the last five-to-ten years that are located in off-site storage.

For books currently on campus I am using the following basic criteria to determine if they should be moved to off-site storage:

1. Do we have a newer edition of the book.
2. Multiple copies.
3. Theses over twenty-five years old with copies in Special Collection, on-site microfilm, or both.
4. Books that have free digital facsimiles available online (ex: Google Books).
5. Books more than sixty years old which are not considered central to the field. 

The books that I select will certainly have their circulation records checked to determine if the book is used often or if it falls within the research or teaching area of faculty.

Several librarians have commented that they wish that they had time to conduct a similar analysis of their own collections. The impetus of this project came from a recent large-scale weeding that was done with an algorithm. One of the complaints of this process is that newer books were sent to off-site storage, rather than staying on campus. I am certainly learning how complex and time consuming it is to develop and maintain a collection.

Below is a scan of one page of notes from the project.

January 13, 2015 (Tuesday)

Time: 10am-11am
Hours completed (total): 2.5/135
Hours completed (Kara Robinson): 1.5/15
Accumulated on-site hours: 2.5/150

I had a meeting with Tammy Eschedor Voelker, my on-site supervisor, and Feng-Ru Sheu, whom I will be assisting with a project during the my CE. The purpose of this meeting was to expand on some of the ideas that were talk about when setting up this practicum as well as to give me an introduction to the types of experience and projects I will likely have. One of the first matters of business, aside from introductions and pleasantries, was to be invited to attend the weekly department meeting (beginning 1/20/2015) as well as scheduling weekly meetings with Tammy (beginning 1/26/2015). The purpose of the meetings with Tammy is to discuss and assess what I had done the previous week, and also to plan which directions or assignments I may want to focus on.

Tammy reiterated that I would be "bouncing around" to many different librarians in Instruction Services because different departments operate with with library in unique ways. Further, she reminded me that I had the option to work both in traditional as well as online settings. I expressed my interest in doing both.

Tammy assigned me to familiarize myself with UL's Information Literacy Plan for Undergraduate Education as well as ACRL Framework that is currently under consideration.

Feng-Ru discussed five projects I may be able to assist with:

1. A review of online skill modules
2. Usability testing (sometime in March)
3. Instructional material (possibly videos) for the nursing liaison librarian
4. Developing a scavenger hunt for library instruction which will likely use a mobile app
5. Development of a library website for international students

I discussed with them my idea of creating an Alternate Reality Game, based on the idea of a murder mystery, which both responded to positively. They encouraged me to read more on the subject and to feel free to approach with any ideas or questions, though this project will not be implemented during my CE.

January 11, 2015 (Sunday)

Time: 12pm-1:30pm
Hours completed (ISD): 0/135
Hours completed (Kara Robinson): 1.5/15
Accumulated on-site hours: 1.5/150

As part of a previous discussion with Kara Robinson she suggested that I could possibly contact the History Department to get their input on the collection development project. I spent some time considering the best method to implement this idea if we chose to follow this route. Electronic communication seemed the best delivery choice and, rather than simply using an email, decided to devise a form that could be filled out by the respondents. I was aware that Microsoft Word could be used to create such a form but had never attempted to do so. After reading a few web sites, I was able to complete the History Assessment form. I was especially cognizant to create the form in such a way where scope could easily be change, as Kara explained that she saw this as the first step in a larger collection assessment.

After completing the form I showed it to Kara. She liked the idea of the form and felt it was well-done; however, she did not believe that the faculty would respond in great enough numbers to really help the assessment. Instead, I will proceed with reviewing the catalog with the goal of locating books that can be removed from on-site and replaced with off-site resources.