Re-inventing Reference Collaborative (What effect would chat or email reference box in LCP have?) Information Literacy Collaborative, E-Learning Taskforce (What information literacy modules need to be created? How can we better support students they are using our resources) Current Awareness-WSSC subgroup (how/should the results of this group be integrated into LCP?) Discoverability-WSSC subgroup (How can their findings apply to LCP?) Performance Support (How can their findings apply to LCP?) Digital Collections (What infrastructure can be on? How can these materials be included on LCP?) Archives and Special Collections (how can these unique materials be integrated in the LCP? De-emphasis on Other Gateways As we adopt LCPs we may want to move focus away from the front ends of other library resource gateways (CourseLib, e-reserves). Discussion of which gateways to keep and to what level we want to de-emphasize others must occur. Using multiple methods for integration Much of the literature discusses the idea of system-level integration and individual course-level integration (Shank & Dewald 2003). Both methods should be part of a comprehensive system to ensure success with integration of the library into courses (see figure 10). The LCP system should be developed with an awareness of existing and ongoing efforts at integration at the individual course level. Also there should be an awareness that courses will benefit from a wide spectrum of integration, with the LCP acting as a minimum. The increase in interdisciplinary research needs to be considered, and using individual-level integration techniques may provide the most useful way to alleviate this challenge. Figure 10. Models of Course Integration System-level integration Individual-level integration Generic library presence in all courses Customized content through personal, (through CMS) one-to-one contacts to individual Automated solution courses Library resources become a de-facto Usually related to instruction part of a class’s online presence Pros Pros Standardizes materials in courses Library integrated into course Easy to maintain Provide more connection with Increases visibility of library resources library and librarians Capitalizes on technological solutions Librarians become partners in teaching currently available Easier to gain feedback on contents of Pro-active LCP Cons Cons Generic pages may not fit expectations Time and resource intensive; not of customization scalable Challenging to get feedback on content Different levels of support in specific on pages courses Must be reviewed and maintained often
Re-inventing Reference Collaborative (What effect would chat or email reference box in LCP have?) Information Literacy Collaborative, E-Learning Taskforce (What information literacy modules need to be created? How can we better support students they are using our resources) Current Awareness-WSSC subgroup (how/should the results of this group be integrated into LCP?) Discoverability-WSSC subgroup (How can their findings apply to LCP?) Performance Support (How can their findings apply to LCP?) Digital Collections (What infrastructure can be on? How can these materials be included on LCP?) Archives and Special Collections (how can these unique materials be integrated in the LCP? De-emphasis on Other Gateways As we adopt LCPs we may want to move focus away from the front ends of other library resource gateways (CourseLib, e-reserves). Discussion of which gateways to keep and to what level we want to de-emphasize others must occur. Using multiple methods for integration Much of the literature discusses the idea of system-level integration and individual course-level integration (Shank & Dewald 2003). Both methods should be part of a comprehensive system to ensure success with integration of the library into courses (see figure 10). The LCP system should be developed with an awareness of existing and ongoing efforts at integration at the individual course level. Also there should be an awareness that courses will benefit from a wide spectrum of integration, with the LCP acting as a minimum. The increase in interdisciplinary research needs to be considered, and using individual-level integration techniques may provide the most useful way to alleviate this challenge. Figure 10. Models of Course Integration System-level integration Individual-level integration Generic library presence in all courses (through CMS) Automated solution Library resources become a de-facto part of a class’s online presence Customized content through personal, one-to-one contacts to individual courses Usually related to instruction Pros Standardizes materials in courses Easy to maintain Increases visibility of library resources Capitalizes on technological solutions currently available Pro-active Pros Library integrated into course Provide more connection with library and librarians Librarians become partners in teaching Easier to gain feedback on contents of LCP Cons Generic pages may not fit expectations of customization Challenging to get feedback on content on pages Cons Time and resource intensive; not scalable Different levels of support in specific courses Must be reviewed and maintained often