Liaison Librarians Update Forum March 1 2016

The March 1 Liaison Update Forum featured a presentation from Professor Susan McCahan, Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education, on trends in undergraduate education that have impact on her portfolio at the U of T.  The forum also  showcased 3 additional lightning round presentations.  Each presentation was followed by small group discussion and an open Q&A session.  Presenters kept track of the questions  and have kindly recorded and shared their responses for this post.

  1. Professor Susan McCahan, on Trends in Undergraduate Education Watch the video (best in IE – volume is a little low in the beginning)
  2. Laure Perrier, Gerstein Science Information Centre, on Research Data Management: UToronto Libraries Update Powerpoint || Q&A
  3. Erica Lenton, Gerstein Science Information Centre, on Creating a service through community & collaboration  (Evidence Synthesis Service) Powerpoint || Q&A
  4. Courtney Lundigan, Graham Library, Trinity College, on Re-imagining Liaison at UTL (update on progress of the Liaison Future Directions Working GroupPowerpoint || Q&A

Liaison Librarians Update Forum December 4 2015

The December 4 Liaison Update Forum showcased 6 lightning round presentations.  Each presentation was followed by small group discussion and an open Q&A session.  Presenters kept track of the questions (which were submitted on index cards to preserve anonymity) and have kindly recorded and shared their responses for this post.

  1. Stephanie Orfano: Thinking beyond fair dealing: Questions facing the Scholarly Communications and Copyright Office (…and how you can help)  Powerpoint || Q&A
  2. Caitlin Tillman: Talking to faculty about Downsview Powerpoint || Q&A
  3. Judith Logan: Choosing the right platform for your web content Powerpoint || Q&A
  4. Carey Toane: EntComp: Establishing an entrepreneurship community of practice at UTL Powerpoint ||Q&A
  5. Dylanne Dearborn: Research data management at the U of T Powerpoint ||Q&A
  6. Gail Nichol: I’ll follow you if you’ll follow me: How Scopus can track your research impact, connect you with others in your field and keep you up to date Powerpoint || Q&A

Putting ourselves in their shoes: What really matters to our community?

On October 13, thirty library staff members gathered in the BlackBurn Room to explore our communities’ needs from their perspective.  

librarians working on activity

The event was structured about the concept of Value Proposition Design, a way for businesses and other organizations to develop service and communication strategies that resonate with their clientele.

Although this exercise comes from a business setting, our facilitator, MJ D’Elia, assured us that applying it to a library context can be fruitful.  MJ manages the Learning and Curriculum Support Team at the University of Guelph Library and teaches an introductory entrepreneurship course.  He’s spoken at the OLA Super Conference about applying business startup thinking to libraries.

This event was intended to help us in several areas:

  • To reflect on our services from the standpoint of different segments of our user community
  • To communicate our value more effectively
  • To better understand our user community as a collection of different user groups or segments with differing needs, rather than as a single homogeneous group
  • To discover services or products that do not resonate with our community as much as we’d hoped and flag them for further investigation

For most of the workshop, we formed small groups focused on a specific user segment such as first year undergraduates or faculty with a research focus.  Participants had the option of signing up for a segment ahead of time or joining a group whose segment interested them.

Customer profile map

In first portion of the activity, we had to think of what life might be like for our user segment.  We documented our conversation with post-it notes on a piece of chart paper in three distcustomer profile mapinct sections:

  • Gains and outcomes: These are the broad goals that an individual in each customer segment may have.
  • Jobs and tasks: These are the things that the individual must do to accomplish their goals.
  • Pains and frustrations: These are the things that get in the way of accomplishing their goals.

A final-year undergraduate student may have an outcome of getting a job after graduation; the task of finishing their senior thesis; and the pain of student debt.

Here’s an example of a finished map:

finished customer profile map

You can see a transcribed version of each group’s map here.

Value map

value_mapIn the next section, we thought about what products and services could either help alleviate the pains and frustrations or help achieve the desired gains or outcomes from the previous activity.

Participants remarked that this section was more difficult because it was hard not to think of library services from a staff perspective.  We realized that many of the products or services that we thought of pains relievers or gain creators were farther removed from our segment’s most important pains and gain.  It was also sometimes hard to differentiate between gain creators and pain relievers.

Here’s an example of a finished value map:

value map finished

You can see a transcribed version of each group’s map here.

Value proposition statements

Then it was time to take the thinking we’d done and create statements that clearly articulated how library products or services benefit our specific segment.  We gave ourselves the freedom to explain existing services or think up new ones based on the value.

The value proposition statements all followed the same template:

Our [product/service] helps [customer segment] who want to [job/task] by [verb] [customer pain] and [verb] [customer gain].

Here are some of the statements we came up with:

  • Our carrel services help(s) PhD candidates who want to do research by reducing effort and time and providing convenient research space
  • Our TSpace research repository help(s) grant fund recipients who want to comply with funders’ OA policy by providing an OA compliant platform and satisfying requirements for future funding applications
  • Our course research guides help(s) 1st year students who want to do well on their assignments by reducing stress and showing quality resources

Several participants remarked that this was the hardest part of the afternoon.  Not only was being succinct very difficult, but again we found ourselves writing from a library-centric perspective.  It was also difficult to articulate clearly just how our services/products addressed specific pains and gains.

After we drafted the statements, we took 20 minutes to walk around the room, read other groups’ statements, and write anonymous comments on each sheet.  This helped the group who wrote the statement see how other library staff reacted to it.

feedback on value propositions statements

In the debrief, some participants remarked that receiving honest, anonymous feedback was very useful since we are often too gentle in our feedback with one another.

MJ reminded us that in a real world scenario, we would be testing these statements with people from the user segment rather than other library staff.

Takeaways

This event reminded us how small a place the library takes up in some of our community members’ lives.  They are busy with deadlines, social and family obligations, and any number of other stresses.  This means that we need to be as effective as possible in communicating how we help make their lives easier. That takes practice.

It also emphasized just how difficult it can be to align our resources and services with the actual, lived experiences of our community. The basic premise of the activity was to think about the jobs, pains, and desired outcomes of our community, but how do we know if we were right or even close?

User experience (UX) research is essential when we’re designing new services or reviewing existing services. Lisa Gayhart, User Experience Librarian, is developing a UX toolkit that will help you design and deliver UX studies.  In the meantime, you could consult with her or check out some of the many UX resources for libraries:

Plan, Develop, Deliver and Repeat.

In early 2015, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) posted the final version of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.  The framework outlined six frames: authority is constructed and contextual, information creation as process, information has value, research as inquiry, scholarship as conversation and searching as strategic exploration.  While the Framework outlines knowledge practices and dispositions, it is emphasized that the document is not meant to be prescriptive.  While this can be an exciting opportunity to re-imagine the way we teach information literacy, it can be challenging trying to understand how to plan and assess information literacy with a malleable framework.  Sheril Hook, Chief Librarian at the John M. Kelly Library suggested bringing together the academic library community (including colleges) to show librarians different tools for planning and assessment.  Librarians from Ryerson University, York University, the University of Toronto, the federated Colleges, Sheridan College, UOIT and the University of Guelph-Humber came together to put these tools into action.  The day also included special talks by April Cunningham, project leader for TATIL, an assessment tool for the new Framework by Carrick Enterprises, and a talk by Tyler Evans-Tokaryk about his research on students and self-efficacy.  Sheril Hook presented tools for planning and assessment (an assignment analysis document and self-awareness inventory).  In addition, Eveline Houtman, Courtney Lundrigan, Heather Buchansky and Angela Henshilwood facilitated discussions that generated ideas for activities around the Framework.  The Framework strongly encourages librarians to share their experiences and helpful tools, and in the spirit of that notion, we are more than happy to share the tools and presentation with the UTL community.  You can download documents and presentations at http://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=309224&p=2065201.  If you have any questions about the IL Analysis Template or the Self-Awareness inventory, please contact Sheril Hook at sheril.hook@utoronto.ca.  If you would like to follow-up on the brainstorming session, please feel free to contact Eveline Houtman, Courtney Lundrigan, Heather Buchansky or Angela Henshilwood.

Materials and handouts from the event can be found at http://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=309224&p=2065201.

One Tech to Teach Them All: Introducing a tool for choosing the right type of online IL delivery

Are you gearing up for the fall teaching season? Pondering ways to expand the reach of your IL initiatives? Having trouble deciding between creating or updating your interactive tutorials, libguides, or videos?

You’re invited to try out a new tool for selecting digital/online learning objects: https://onesearch.library.utoronto.ca/online-learning-objects

While many of us would like to create digital learning objects (aka DLOs)* that are effective in teaching information literacy skills beyond classroom walls, it can be hard to figure out which type best suits our specific – and often many – needs and requirements. If you’ve ever felt unsure if you should create a handy screenshot, or dedicate time to making a more formal screencast, you’re not alone. While some of you might want to create a just-in-time DLO quickly and easily, others may prefer DLOs with a longer shelf life. No one wants to reinvent the wheel. Here are just a few DLO types that librarians find themselves choosing between:

Recently, our small subgroup of librarians (Judith Logan, Jesse Carliner, Erica Lenton, and Vincci Lui from the Instruction in Library Use Committee’s Learning Object Interest Group), began working on a tool aimed at helping librarians choose the right type of DLO. The most commonly used DLO types were selected for inclusion. Based on librarians’ practical considerations, several key criteria were identified, and each DLO type was evaluated against these criteria.

During an interactive, collaborative session at the recent TRY conference, our subgroup also crowdsourced the tacit knowledge of fellow librarians from U of T, Ryerson, and York. The results of the TRY session were incorporated as we further developed this tool. As the image below illustrates, each DLO type is evaluated against several criteria (such as learning outcomes, learning styles, learning curve, resource intensiveness, reusability, software, etc.). Each DLO type also links to helpful examples for inspiration:

Screenshot of formal screencast section

Screenshot of the section on formal screencasts, one of several DLO types that this tool explores

This is an ongoing collaborative project, and we welcome your expertise and input: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1IK1eWw0iNbgH7sTjXJXSYtz3mhAnLdKMpVdJ2xRBISI/viewform


Further reading – for more about the user preferences and usage of DLOs:

*DLOs = used to describe a describe a reusable digital instructional resource that is developed to support learning. DLOs are a sustainable, scalable, and potentially accessible way to deliver information literacy (IL) instruction. They can be standalone objects, or act as a complement to our in-class teaching. They also allow us to reach students whenever/wherever they are, and can be repurposed for different contexts.

Debrief Meeting with Cross-departmental Tri-agency Team, June 26 2015

A message from Julie Hannaford:

Debrief Meeting with Cross-departmental Tri-agency Team, June 26 2015

One of the key recommendations from the external liaison report is the need to re-conceptualize how we respond to faculty and student needs. The reviewers suggest using nimble teams that can readily respond to requests as they arise from our various stakeholders.

Recently, a small group had to coalesce around university requirements related to the Tri-Council Open Access (OA) policy. We realized that we had formed a cross-departmental, responsive team, just as the report recommended and considered it to be both an excellent experiment and learning opportunity. While there is much discussion that needs to occur related to unpacking all of the recommendations from the report, we feel that this teamwork has lessons to share with everyone. We met recently to review our progress. What follows is a summary of our discussion.

Group: Bobby Glushko, Julie Hannaford, Mariya Maistrovskaya, Steve Marks, Sian Meikle, Rita Vine

 Purpose: Lori Ferris, Associate Vice-President for Research Oversight and Compliance requested advice related to how the library could support faculty compliance with the Tri-Council OA policy

Outcomes:

  • Production of a one-pager that outlines the main services that the library offers to support faculty
  • Production of a PPT presentation that can be tailored to different faculties, outlining the OA policy, key issues and library programs and services that support faculty with their compliance
  • Delivery of two presentations: one to the Research Advisory Board and another to the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering

Discussion/Debrief:

  • Such teams need a leader – someone who is accountable for the completion of the project’s tasks and timelines to ensure project success.  That person should have accountability, and be able to follow up legitimately with group participants. While that person may not be a supervisor in the official sense, he/she needs to be given the mandate/authority to lead and coordinate as required.
  • If we move to a more team-based model, people will need training so that they have the skills they need to lead projects.  This could take the form of a group session(s) on project management. Another idea would be to pair up a new team lead with a more experienced one to co-lead a project. The more experienced person could then provide mentorship, feedback and guidance.
  • When a team disbands, there needs to be a plan in place, including how to archive content that we made, make it available to others and/or move any ongoing work into the workflows of existing units. There could be a role for a resurrected intranet to hold this kind of content when it leaves Confluence.
  • There needs to be careful thought given to whether a team model makes sense for a given project and if so, who the right people are for the project’s requirements.
  • To find the right people to bring to the table, we all have to know what everyone else is doing. Given our scale and complexity, this can be very hard. Is it worth reconstituting the idea of individual (non-public) optional profiles so that we could look up each other’s skills more easily?  ACTION ITEM: Sian to provide options
  • For a team to coalesce, everyone has to pull together. This team was very successful at ignoring boundaries and traditional structures; thinking more flexibly and openly about how the work could be done.
  • Moving forward, if we establish more teams, we need to reconcile the role of a team with the role of a committee, to ensure no overlap.  We need to be clear in our minds what committees do versus teams. In general, committees can be very good for obtaining feedback and input, which is very important and wanted across the libraries.  Some of the larger committees may be less suited for actionable items because they are so large, but could have sub-committees/working groups form that report into them.
  • There is an open question regarding who should constitute a team. A lot of impetus will come from Senior Staff and UTLExec but there are also great people making their own teams.  There have been some small groups formed to fix problems on the fly (e.g. Libcal2 migration, training), which have a defined end.  A cross-departmental team may be better for a longer, more complex project or initiative, part or all of which will continue over time. Small groups solve problems and don’t necessarily need management prior approval. Big groups implement new initiatives and projects and will likely require management approval.
  • ITS often plays a role in projects, which puts many demands on their resourcing. Could ITS train staff in other departments so that they can contribute more to projects and free up ITS? An excellent example is the recent placement of Judith Logan in ITS who was able to contribute significantly to the recent website redesign and launch. Encouraging more cross-departmental placements in ITS (and other departments as well) is one mechanism that can help in this area.   Such exchanges allow librarians to contribute to a defined project in new areas. ACTION ITEM: Julie to do a new call for expressions of interest for cross-departmental placements.

 

How to seek out, apply for, and manage a research grant – Joanna King

On May 22, 2015, Joanna King, currently a grants officer in the iSchool,  discussed the process of seeking appropriate grants to apply to, how to go about applying and then how to manage the funds upon receipt of a successful grant application.  She has generously provided her slides.  Thanks to the Research Interest Group for planning this informative session!

Research at the university of Toronto (slide deck, PDF)

 

Talking about metrics to the University community – notes from the February 24 2015 practice exchange

Gail Nichol reviewed the recent discussions between the Library and senior university members  on how to support the acquisition of reputation metrics for use by faculty, departments and divisions.  Several librarians  shared stories of how they are currently supporting faculty and departmental requests for information.

Trends we noticed:

  • Although the H-index isn’t perfect, it has become the de facto tool for inter-institutional and inter-departmental comparisons.  Most understand its limitations.
  • Supporting faculty and departmental requests for metrics is time-intensive, with no one-size-fits-all approach.  Nevertheless, there is an important role for U of T librarians to support these kinds of requests at the divisional, departmental and individual level.
  • It is not easy to construct profiles even with tools like Web of Science and Scopus, that enable automatic generation of H-indices, so wider exposure to these kinds of tools and their capabilities is an area of interest. Be patient, there’s a learning curve.
  • Librarians are interested in further training and development to support their work in the area of metrics, and expressed interest in creating an information space to share information, strategies, and approaches to various requests.

Materials from today’s session:

 

Materials from the Articulate Storyline 3-Part Workshop

A post to hold materials circulated during the 3-part workshop series to plan, storyboard, and build learning objects using Articulate Storyline.

Monday, February 2
Monday, February 9: Storyline Extra FYI, including instructions for creating a glossary, and adding notes and resources.

 

ORCID: What It Is and What It Can Do

On December 1 2014, Dylanne Dearborn and Stephanie Orfano presented an open session for liaison librarians on ORCID, a persistent digital identifier that disambiguates researchers names. As an identification system, ORCID enables all aspects of a  researcher’s work to be identified, while also allowing for linkage in the scholarly communications workflow.
The presentation introduced ORCID and detailed the potential benefits and uses for different stakeholder groups including researchers, university administrators, funding bodies, publishers, and the library. Examples of ORCID integration were introduced and the prospective role of ORCID in the scholarly communication process was discussed.