This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library]On: 24 September 2013, At: 07:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Web LibrarianshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjwl20

A Case Study for Combining Technologiesfor the Delivery of Information Literacyand Community to Students at RemoteLocations Using Live Synchronous Video-ConferencingDarryl J. Swarm a , Kitt K. Vincent b & Linda C. Gordon aa The Elvin and Betty Wilson Library , University of La Verne , LaVerne , California , USAb Central Coast Campus , University of La Verne , San Luis Obispo ,California , USAPublished online: 03 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Darryl J. Swarm , Kitt K. Vincent & Linda C. Gordon (2013) A Case Study forCombining Technologies for the Delivery of Information Literacy and Community to Students atRemote Locations Using Live Synchronous Video-Conferencing, Journal of Web Librarianship, 7:2,215-230, DOI: 10.1080/19322909.2013.785228

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2013.785228

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Journal of Web Librarianship, 7:215–230, 2013Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 1932-2909 print / 1932-2917 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19322909.2013.785228

A Case Study for Combining Technologiesfor the Delivery of Information Literacy andCommunity to Students at Remote LocationsUsing Live Synchronous Video-Conferencing

DARRYL J. SWARMThe Elvin and Betty Wilson Library, University of La Verne, La Verne, California, USA

KITT K. VINCENTCentral Coast Campus, University of La Verne, San Luis Obispo, California, USA

LINDA C. GORDONThe Elvin and Betty Wilson Library, University of La Verne, La Verne, California, USA

The University of La Verne, a pioneer in the field of adult anddistance education, hosts approximately 4,692 traditional under-graduate and graduate students on the main campus, 3,350 adultstudents, and hundreds of online students throughout Californiaat nine regional campuses. Challenged by limited funding andstaffing, the library and Regional Campus Administration collabo-rated with senior management to pilot a blended technology plat-form using Adobe Connect for content and live video streaming andBusiness Skype for audio to deliver real-time, interactive virtual in-formation literacy to distance learners. The initial objective of “Li-brary on Demand” was to supplement existing in-person, e-mail,and telephonic library information literacy instruction with livestreaming video and two-way audio. The use of multi-channel in-structional technologies would optimize outreach activities, reach-ing larger numbers of student communities while optimizingstudent learning modality preferences and differences. The pilotprogram was designed in phases to test the integrity of reaching

© Darryl J. Swarm, Kitt K. Vincent, and Linda C. GordonReceived 9 November 2012; accepted 19 November 2012.Address correspondence to Darryl J. Swarm, University of La Verne, 2040 Third Street,

La Verne, CA 91750. E-mail: dswarm@laverne.edu; Kitt K. Vincent, University of La Verne,4119 Broad Street, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. E-mail: kvincent@laverne.edu;Linda C. Gordon, University of La Verne, 2040 3rd Street, La Verne, CA 91750. E-mail:lgordon@laverne.edu

215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

216 D. J. Swarm et al.

over 3,500 students among the nine regional campus locationsconcurrently with a single librarian host. Later phases offer oppor-tunities for targeted or specialized sessions including applicationsfostering emerging virtual social learning communities beyond ashared information literacy experience.

KEYWORDS information literacy, community, virtual learning,outreach

INTRODUCTION

The possibilities for potential models, mediums, and technologies to deliverinformation literacy to users are vast. The Wilson Library at the Universityof La Verne, a small private university with limited resources, selected thecombined platform of Adobe Connect (Adobe 2012) and Business Skype(Skype 2012) as a best fit with present resources for a case study pilotof live, synchronous video-conferencing information literacy sessions on alarge scale (potentially over 500 students per session). Delivery of sessionswas targeted in multiple classrooms located at multiple off-campus locations.While most academic libraries offer some form of live, synchronous video-conferencing information literacy sessions (i.e., webinars), a review of theliterature suggests that because of audio bridge costs and technology chal-lenges, few deliver to multiple classrooms at geographically-distant locationslive and synchronously to large groups of students. A quote by Larry Page,cofounder of Google, seems appropriate: “It is often easier to make progresson mega-ambitious dreams. Since no one else is crazy enough to do it, youhave little competition” (Larson 2012, n.p.).

MODALITIES OF INSTRUCTION

The five basic modes of instruction identified by the American Library As-sociation (2008) include face-to-face, Web-based asynchronous, Web-basedsynchronous, Webcasts, and Blended. Most libraries use combinations ofthe five modes of instruction to deliver information literacy presentations(American Library Association 2010).

Face-to-Face

The staple model for delivering information literacy instruction at most aca-demic libraries is in-person instruction sessions. Traditional face-to-face in-struction in the classroom occurs with the librarian in the role of instructorhosting the session with students physically located in the same room.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Combining Technologies 217

A recent survey of 307 academic librarians found that over 93 percent ofrespondents teach face-to-face library instruction sessions. Only 47 percentteach library instruction sessions online, serve as an embedded librarian, orboth (Bottorff and Todd 2012). A similar survey performed in 2000 by theAssociation of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) reported that of the384 colleges surveyed, face-to-face instruction was the most frequent modeof delivery (78 percent). At that time, only two institutions reported usingWebcasts to deliver library instruction to distance (off-campus locations) andonline students.

The University of La Verne has been teaching more students face-to-facewith fewer librarians than its peer group. The National Center for EducationStatistics reported a national average of 156 presentations per library, whilethe University of La Verne’s Wilson Library peer comparison group aver-aged 182 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2010). The University ofLa Verne reported 249 presentations, 60 percent greater than the nationalaverage and 37 percent greater than the comparison group average. Theseresults were accomplished with 11 percent fewer librarians than the nationalaverage and 35 percent fewer librarians than the comparison group average.With diminishing budgets, increasing enrollments, and saturated instructionlibrarians’ calendars, virtual modalities of instruction became a necessity.

Web-Based Asynchronous

The second most popular model for information literacy instruction, usuallysupplementing the in-person model described above, consists of static con-tent (i.e., Web-based, asynchronous tutorials). Content is often embeddedin subject guides on library Web pages, embedded in course managementtools such as Blackboard, or both. This model is commonly referred to asasynchronous, meaning it can be accessed at any time by a student but lacksreal-time interaction. Closely related to Web-based asynchronous delivery isWeb-based synchronous delivery.

Web-Based Synchronous

Web-based synchronous delivery occurs when students receive instructioncontent simultaneously, and there is live, real-time instruction and interactionwith the librarian. Video conferencing and Web-based audio and/or text-based communication are used to connect geographically-distant studentsand instructors.

The more desirable practice is to “push” Web-based instruction to tar-geted users by embedding content in academic course management systemslike Blackboard rather than assuming students will browse the library Webpages and “pull” the information. The “push” model is particularly desirable

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

218 D. J. Swarm et al.

because it is effective in achieving outreach to remote users for whom in-person library contact is limited. The “push” model can be “on demand” inthe form of a recorded video that can be accessed by students from a linkor URL.

Webcasts

Similarly, Webcasts (sometimes referred to as webinars or screen casts) arestreaming video with audio that can be pre-recorded and viewed on de-mand (asynchronous) or delivered live and viewed on a computer screen(synchronous). Live chat and/or two-way audio models support interactiveinstruction sessions. Podcasts, audio-only broadcasts that can be accessedthrough iPods or MP3 players, are less robust than either Webcasts withone-way audio or Webcasts with two-way audio.

Screencasts, often used in Webcasts, webinars, or video-conferencing,are akin to online movies where the presenter shares their computer screento illustrate processes or procedures. They appeal to visual learners andrequire more participant interactivity than podcasts, which are solely au-ditory. The ability to watch a demonstration of database searching, forexample, with mouse clicks and screen changes, is more effective thanpurely auditory or text content. Results from the Library Connect Pilot sur-vey (http://goo.gl/TpiM6) suggest that live, interactive video-conferencing ismore preferable than static one-way recorded video or audio models amongstudents.

Blended

A preferable solution, particularly for institutions with remote off-campuslocations, is mixing modalities using a combination of in person and virtualdelivery; this is often called hybrid or blended learning. Blended learningoffers the pedagogical benefits of classroom socialization and communitylearning without the limitations of physical and geographical limitations. Astudy conducted by Elizabeth Kraemer, Shawn Lombardo, and Frank Lep-kowski (2007) showed live-only and online-only instruction resulted in anaverage improvement of student learning outcomes of 8 percent. Hybrid in-struction resulted in an average improvement of student learning outcomesof 15 percent.

Real-time, virtual video-conferencing platforms rely on more than juststreaming video and audio. They typically include components for sharingthe host’s desktop, allowing demonstration of subject guides, the libraryhomepage for resources, or showing documents on the screen. While freeversions of technology platforms like Skype offer some of these featuresfor video and audio, they are not as well developed or robust as the moreexpensive licensed technologies such as Adobe Connect.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Combining Technologies 219

Settings for virtual learning can be broken down into two distinct types:(1) physical classrooms hosting many students and (2) individual studentusers. A physical classroom with many students is generally more desirablein terms of the host librarian’s ability to reach more users. It enables the librar-ian to control the environment, such as screens, documents, and host tech-nology, such as compatible software and hardware (cameras, microphones,and speakers), presentation conventions, as well as trained instruction hostsand support staff (Kirlew 2007). Delivering live, virtual instruction to a class-room with a number of students retains many of the benefits of face-to-face,in-class participation, such as community with other learners and economiesof scale for the host librarian, without the logistical complexities of distanceand being physically limited to one location.

Delivering live, virtual information literacy instruction to multiple loca-tions and multiple classrooms is the optimal model. The host librarian’s timeand expertise is extended to many as opposed to a few. Rather than host-ing a single classroom location, virtual delivery allows for multiple locationsto be served simultaneously. Hosting multiple classrooms can reach greaternumbers of students, but the threat of experiencing technology failures in-creases with greater numbers of locations and users. This underscores theimportance, if not necessity, for using robust, proven technologies. To en-sure quality, we found working with more than five users requires formalcommunication protocols as well as monitoring of bandwidth for both hostand user.

THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE

The University of La Verne is a tier-two doctoral-granting institution com-prised of four colleges (Arts & Sciences, Education & Organizational Lead-ership, Business & Public Management, and the Law School). The 2007–11University of La Verne Fact Book (2011) reported that the main campusserves approximately 4,700 on-campus, traditional-aged and graduate stu-dents (approximately 2,200 and 2,500, respectively), approximately 3,350off-campus adult students, and approximately 300 online students, for a to-tal of 8,400 students. Approximately 547 students reside at domestic UnitedStates military bases or are deployed to locations around the world. Studentsenrolled in course work at the off-campus locations fall under the purviewof Regional Campus Administration (RCA).

Among the four colleges at the University of La Verne, the College ofArts and Sciences accounts for approximately 26 percent of full-time equiv-alent students (FTE), the College of Business and Public Management ap-proximately 39 percent of FTE, the College of Education and OrganizationalLeadership approximately 17 percent of FTE, the College of Law approxi-mately 5 percent of FTE, and 13 percent of FTE are undesignated (Universityof La Verne 2011, 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

220 D. J. Swarm et al.

The Wilson Library is the main campus library at the University of LaVerne. The total library budget and the number of librarians per 1,000 FTEare, respectively, approximately 50 percent and 35 percent less than the com-parison group median. Five full-time librarians, plus one part-time librarian,are devoted to library instruction serving approximately 8,300 students, re-sulting in an average of approximately one instruction librarian per 1,545students. These librarians are paired by subject specialty to serve each of theUniversity’s three colleges, while performing collection development, refer-ence, instruction, academic university committee work, community service,and various other library projects. The two librarians serving the Collegeof Arts and Sciences generally work on campus. However, since RCA cam-puses primarily serve the Colleges of Education & Organizational Leadershipand Business & Public Management, the remaining four subject specialistlibrarians typically travel to the RCA off-campus locations, in addition toserving the main campus students for the delivery of information literacyinstruction.

Information literacy is defined at the Wilson Library per the ACRL Infor-mation Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (University ofLa Verne 2010).

Face-to-face, traditional classroom instruction is the Wilson Library’sprimary mode for delivering on- and off-campus information literacy. Sta-tistically, 66 percent of the information literacy sessions were conducted onthe main campus, and 34 percent were conducted at the RCA locations offcampus (University of La Verne 2010). Both on- and off-campus instructionare priorities in the library’s strategic plan. In-person information literacyinitiatives are supplemented virtually through the use of LibGuides, withlinks to recorded video tutorials and embedded library resources across thecurriculum in the university’s course management tool, Blackboard.

Impetus for Change

The Wilson Library faced significant challenges to deliver information literacyinstruction equitably to both the main campus and the off-campus studentpopulations. Between 2008 and 2009, the percentage of information literacyinstruction sessions conducted declined from the prior year by 45 percentdue to a 38 percent reduction in travel budget. The trend of declining instruc-tion, 55 percent overall for both main campus and RCA off-campus locationsbetween 2008 to date (University of La Verne 2010) at a time enrollmentsrose by 22 percent (University of La Verne 2011), was of great concern tothe Wilson Library instruction librarians.

Given this situation, the instruction librarians undertook a two-prongedapproach to optimize the delivery of information literacy. One prong was towork together in subject specialty teams to identify core courses or programsin their respective colleges best-suited for focused efforts for information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Combining Technologies 221

literacy instruction that was more in-depth than one-shot, basic informationliteracy sessions. Once identified, the subject specialist librarians collabo-rated with their college faculty to develop targeted and assignment-specificinformation literacy learning outcomes for designated core courses. Currentlyunder consideration is having non-core information literacy instruction per-formed primarily by part-time librarians and trained student instructors.

The second prong to optimize delivery of information literacy at WilsonLibrary was to explore and pilot use of existing technology to reach thegreatest number of students in greatest need, synchronously and live, forbasic information literacy instruction. The two College of Business & PublicManagement librarians, supporting the greatest number of students at theuniversity (approximately 41 percent of the student population both on- andoff-campus, or approximately 3,000 students), took the lead on this projecton behalf of the Wilson Library.

Live Synchronous Video Conferencing with Library Connect

Working as an internal team among the librarians as well as with a cross-functional team, a multi-phased program called “Library Connect” wasproposed to senior management. This platform uses synchronous video-conferencing using Adobe Connect and Business Skype for delivery of in-formation literacy to multiple classrooms at multiple off-campus locations,potentially over 500 students in an evening Webcast. The phases of the pilotprogram can be found in the Appendix. The cross-functional team includedthe Dean of RCA, one of the key RCA directors residing at the most distantof the RCA campuses (San Luis Obispo, CA), and in collaboration with theOffice of Information Technology.

Based on a SWOT (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) anal-ysis conducted by the cross-functional team (Harvard Business School 2005),the RCA off-campus locations were identified as the target student audi-ence for the first phase of a pilot program experimenting in the use oflive, synchronous video-conferencing using Adobe Connect and BusinessSkype. The rationale supporting this decision was four-fold and was prior-itized as follows: (1) Optimize existing resources (incur little to no cost);(2) Reach the largest number of students in the greatest need (approxi-mately one-half of the student population resides at the off-campus RCAcampus locations and are the furthest physically from the main campus li-brary, with the lowest overall information literacy instruction sessions); (3)Capitalize on the technical feasibility of reaching the greatest numbers in thegreatest need within a specific timeframe; and (4) Ensure consistent, com-patible, robust technology, protocols, and training for the facilitation anddelivery of basic information literacy instruction through interactive video-conferencing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

222 D. J. Swarm et al.

Strengths: Weaknesses:(1) A service-driven library faculty(2) Collaborative relationships among

senior management, librarians, deans, directors, and staff

(3) A regionally-distributed student population that can be targeted for instruction at a pre-arranged time

(1) Wilson Library employs the lowest median number of librarians per 1,000 FTE among peer comparison group of institutions and achieves the highest percentage of instruction presentations per librarian (NCES 2010)

(2) An FTE growth rate of 22 percent over the past four years with projections for continued growth (University of La Verne 2011)

(3) Stagnant travel budgets with no anticipated increase (University of La Verne 2010)

Opportunities: Threats:(1) The ability to reach nine regional

campus locations simultaneously, at a prescribed time to optimize outreach efforts

(2) Live video-conferencing capabilities to supplement the in-person information literacy instruction to deliver more equitable services

(3) Connecting regionally-separated campuses to create a cohesive community of learners

(1) Technology infrastructure challenges to support 48 potential simultaneous connections

(2) Continued administrative, faculty, and staff support for sustaining delivery

(3) Students’ perceived value and learning outcomes for live video-conferencing in a hybrid or blended program

FIGURE 1 SWOT analysis for Library Connect.

SWOT Analysis

Dozens of factors were identified in the SWOT analysis; the top elementsin each category are shown in Figure 1. After conducting the SWOT anal-ysis, the results were used to develop the Library Connect pilot programand establish learning objectives for RCA campus students. These objectivesincluded

(1) Support multi-dimensional learning modality preferences among studentsfor the delivery of information literacy using Adobe Connect and BusinessSkype: (a) auditory (the librarian host’s presentation will be heard in theclassroom through the classroom podium speakers and students mayinteract with the librarian host using the classroom microphone); (b)visual (a live demonstration of searching the databases and formulatingkeyword searches using screen-sharing); and (c) kinesthetic (handoutwith screen shots and space for note taking).

(2) Students will participate in live, interactive information literacy instructionwith the host librarian.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Combining Technologies 223

Pilot Launch of Library Connect

Recognizing the need to collaboratively address the declining delivery ofinformation literacy to the RCA off-campus locations, the two College ofBusiness & Public Management library faculty members collaborated withtwo key RCA directors. Rationale for initiating discussions with the RCADean was the library’s need for buy-in and support from RCA students,faculty, and staff. Their participation in an innovative “disruptive change”was necessary to achieve the desired benefits for both target audience andlibrary (Lewis 2004).

Following preliminary discussions, the Dean of RCA granted approvalto pursue the project. Library Connect would be supplemental to existingface-to-face instruction at RCA campus locations. Between February 2010and August 2011, the Library Connect team created naming conventions andaccounts and physically visited each of the nine RCA locations for technologyassessment and to install Skype software. Subsequent testing in March 2011revealed that Office of Information Technology (OIT) protocols removed allnon-imaged programs from desktops each evening, which required furthercorrective programming to preserve the newly-installed software.

The Library Connect team identified the San Fernando Valley Cam-pus, the Central Coast Campus, and the Vandenberg Campus as the initialcampuses for testing with RCA students and staff. The purpose of the testwas to determine the level of picture and sound quality from the students’point of view. The test was of one classroom at three different campuslocations.

RCA students and staff were asked to complete a survey a regardingpicture and sound quality. They made suggestions to improve the sign-inprocess for Business Skype with a quick start auto-login and for the hostinglibrarian to have a co-pilot to keep up with chat from multiple locations.Students liked the virtual Webinar and the ability to receive basic informationliteracy instruction as a class. Staff were impressed with the audio and visualquality of the presentations but found supporting them somewhat disruptiveto their normal work routine, having to leave their administrative work areasto be in the classrooms.

The OIT department fine-tuned issues with Skype and Adobe Connectat all RCA campuses. Classroom microphones were ordered and shippeddirectly to all RCA locations, and the team subsequently conducted additionaltesting. The Library Connect team conducted a live demonstration at the RCAdirector’s monthly meeting held at the main campus. Procedure manuals withcampus-specific documentation were distributed to RCA campus directors.Following the live demonstration of Library Connect, campus directors, withsupport from the RCA Dean, prepared to launch an RCA-wide pilot in thethird week of the spring 2012 term with over 40 classes in 24 classroomsparticipating.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

224 D. J. Swarm et al.

The pilot test revealed many technical issues, some more easily re-solved than others. To avoid reverberation, all microphones must be set tothe “off” position until the presenter called upon participants. Some loca-tions experienced feedback when laptop computers were situated in closeproximity to each other. Testing for bandwidth revealed a maximum of24 Skype audio connections while layered on top of the Adobe Connectvideo connection. The Library Connect team also explored the use of AdobeConnect for video and audio but lost both after approximately 15 connec-tions. While unlimited robust Adobe Connect audio is available using avariety of telephonic bridges, the cost per classroom was prohibitive giventhe Wilson Library and RCA’s current budgets. At the time of this writing,the RCA campuses are scheduled for bandwidth upgrade within the next sixmonths, which could potentially double the number of connections to reachall classrooms at all locations using the combination of Adobe Connect andSkype.

Results of the Library Connect Pilot

Approximately 2,650 students participated over the course of four eveningsessions. In cooperation with the University President, Provost, RCA directorsand staff, and OIT, the University Library completed the Library Connect pilotacross nine regional campus locations. All connections were stable, and thepresentations were successful.

One of the more exciting outcomes of the pilot was the feedback fromstudents regarding their sense of community with students from other re-gional campuses and with the main campus as a result of their LibraryConnect experience. Following the pilot launch, several classes engaged indiscussions about their experience, and while not indicated in the survey,many shared their excitement identifying with their peers across the entire LaVerne learning community. Additionally, 84 students voluntarily respondedto a survey using SurveyMonkey; results are shown in Table 1. Three majorfindings emerged. First, the majority of University of La Verne adult studentsparticipating in the survey preferred the interaction with class participantseither face-to-face or in a blended mode as opposed to online instruction.This supported the idea of tailoring the delivery of library instruction to op-timize the use of hybrid course delivery and interactive live synchronoussessions to better satisfy student learning preferences for some face-to-facein-person interaction. Additionally, the majority of University of La Verneadult students self-reported they were moderately proficient or proficient intheir use of technology and described the good quality audio and visualattributes and ease of participating in live, virtual sessions as better thanaverage. This suggested that robust technology platforms supporting inter-active virtual sessions encourages technologically moderately proficient or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Combining Technologies 225

TABLE 1 Library Connect Pilot Survey Results

Key study findings Percentage agreeing

Student self-reported skill level of moderate or proficient in theuse of technology

97%

Student perception that improved information literacy skills willimprove professional skills

93%

Student preference for hybrid or face-to-face instruction overpure online

85%

Technology platform viewed by students as better than averageor excellent for audio/video/ease of use

80%

Students feel more “connected” as a result of the virtualPresident/Provost address

78%

Positive student view of using online library resources 68%Positive student view for use of this technology in a hybrid

environment66%

proficient students who prefer in-person face-to-face delivery to support livevirtual sessions in a hybrid (partially face-to-face and partially live virtual) for-mat. Finally, the majority of University of La Verne adult students correlatedimproved information literacy skills with improved professional skills.

Discussions with senior management and the RCA directors were alsoheld following the pilot launch of Library Connect. Adobe Connect licensingand free Business Skype were found to be adequate for supporting thenext phase of the Library Connect program. Additionally, RCA administratorsmade the following suggestions:

• University addresses made by the President and Provost were well receivedby RCA students, however such addresses should be done independentlyfrom library instruction.

• More “structure” is needed to prepare faculty and students for the interac-tive session.

• Students should be allowed to “opt out” if they participated in anothersession that term.

• The library should launch Library Connect for 15–20 minute sessions at theRCA campuses in the fall and the spring terms, in the third week of theterm.

• In-person library instruction visits for distant campuses should continue inthe fall and spring terms during the second week of classes.

• In-person visits to local RCA campuses should continue on a regular basisevery term.

• Students should be allowed to “opt out” if they have already participatedin a session that term.

• The directors requested regular reports on instruction of all types,databases usage, research appointments of all types, etc., by campus. TheDean of RCA believed Library Connect should be reviewed by RCA and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

226 D. J. Swarm et al.

Library annually. Discussion of the next phases (see Appendix) of LibraryConnect should begin in May 2012.

• The Dean of RCA recommended a dedicated RCA librarian to serve as theRCA liaison and coordinate all Library Connect delivery and off-campus,in-person delivery between the librarians and RCA directors.

Despite administrative feedback and support, there are still concerns forthe Library Connect project. The next phase of the Library Connect programwill require training and dedication of library faculty, as well as continuedsupport from RCA directors, staff, and faculty. To remain effective and rele-vant, the Library Connect project must evolve and adapt to emerging tech-nologies, engaging students and faculty while maintaining learning outcomeobjectives.

FUTURE TRENDS

An emergent tool in the delivery of virtual information literacy is that ofthree-dimensional animated video, using motional avatars. Avatars are 3-Danimated characters or “digital personas” (Luo and Kemp 2008). Use ofavatars enables instructors to “promote constructionist and experiential learn-ing ‘where knowledge is constructed by learners in an authentic context viasocial interaction, rather than as a result of traditional instruction’“ (Luo andKemp 2008, 147; cited by Williams 2010, 159). The Wilson Library has identi-fied and preliminarily discussed incorporating this technology in the library’stutorial collection.

Because of challenges in times of reduced budgets and limited staffing,libraries are actively seeking ways to optimize existing resources. One suchexperiment hosted by California State University at San Luis Obispo is called“Lib Rats.” This program involves using trained undergraduate students forpeer-to-peer information literacy instruction. As presented at the April 2012CARL conference, librarians from California State University at San LuisObispo said the peer-to-peer instruction is generally evaluated more pos-itively than traditional librarian instruction simply because communicationis more relevant to the user community. The Wilson Library is presentlyinvestigating opportunities to have trained students teach each other infor-mation literacy using combinations of technologies for core undergraduatecourses.

Another promising initiative with infinite possibilities is the AnimatedTutorial Sharing Project (ANTS; Kazakoff-Lane 2010). This collaborative en-tity seeks to build library learning objects and make them available as opensource content. There is a separate site for housing information literacy calledthe Library Information Literacy Online Network, or LION TV, at BLIP.TV(Animated Tutorial Sharing Project 2011). Content is available as FLV, MP4,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Combining Technologies 227

and M4V files. Innovations such as the ANTS will remain critical to libraries’ability to support the user demand for 24/7 access to information. The con-cept of making common, open source content modules readily availablefor Webcasts and other virtual modalities with appropriate attribution are aboon to libraries with scarce staffing and budgets. Rather than reinventing thewheel, energies can be directed to created new content or other innovativeprojects.

CONCLUSION

Information literacy not only involves critical analysis and validation of in-formation, but it also involves the ability to communicate ideas effectivelywithin individuals’ specific environments. Communication technologies inacademic, community, and business venues require an ability to functionboth face-to-face as well as virtually (Gurney and Wilkes 2008; Williams2010). There is an increased emphasis on information literacy in the work-place (Katz, Haras, and Blaszcynski 2010). Today, the ability to succeed inany workplace setting requires good communication and technology skills.

In an era when libraries are challenged both in terms of budget forpersonnel as well as resources, and their students may prefer virtual com-munication with others, libraries are positioned to satisfy mutual needs byharnessing the power of streaming video services including open source orcooperative content (Kazakoff-Lane 2010; ACRL 2009). ACRL predicted in-creasing demand for mobile smart devices (2009). By 2020, and as predictedby The Future of the Internet III , most people will be using mobile service toconnect to the Internet (Pew 2008, 3, as cited by Kazakoff-Lane 2010, 749).

Using existing remote RCA classroom podium computers to project theAdobe Connect live video feed into classrooms via the overhead projector,while feeding free Business Skype audio through the classroom podiumspeakers, and equipping classrooms with microphones for two-way audio todeliver basic information literacy instruction was very successful. It proved tobe an excellent communication model for the Library Connect project duringPhase I. A review of the literature suggests that the use of live streaming videofor communicating basic information literacy to large numbers of studentsacross various disciplines for both undergraduate and graduate students isuncommon. Delivering that video synchronously to multiple remote campuslocations in multiple classrooms is quite novel.

While present bandwidth and system limitations reduced the potential50 simultaneous “receiver” nodes (users) available under the Adobe Connectlicense and Business Skype to 24 due to limited bandwidth, by grouping allstudents in two classrooms at each of the nine RCA campuses, the librarywas able to connect with over 500 students each of the four evening sessionsof delivery, for a total of an estimated 2,655 students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

228 D. J. Swarm et al.

Two unexpected but valuable benefits of the project were (1) senioradministration’s support for Library Connect and the use of Webcasts foroutreach on a large scale to the RCA campuses and (2) the creation ofa “community” of cross-functional and interdisciplinary student “connec-tions” established among all of the RCA campuses during the President andProvost’s “open mic” sessions. To quote one student’s comments,

The presentation helped bring a sense of community within the regionalcampuses, in connection to the main campus. There was ample infor-mation given in the video session, and one could learn a lot within ashort period of time about issues and advancements at the university.The question and answer segment was useful, being that all regionalcampuses interacted in the same session. This was helpful in identifyingwith the other campuses, and created a shared sense of community.

The Library Connect project, while not new in terms of using live, in-teractive Webcasts to present to students, is unique in its configuration forsimultaneously using two separate technology platforms to deliver Web-casts. Couple the combination of technology platforms with the ability topresent synchronously to multiple remote campus locations, each with mul-tiple classrooms, and the novel application becomes highly innovative. Theforegoing was ample success for the Wilson Library. However, the truly dra-matic innovation of Library Connect was the ability to create a community oflearners among all off-campus RCA campus locations. The realization of thiscommunication innovation has forever changed the way the distant studentswill connect with one another and the main campus community.

REFERENCES

Adobe. 2012. “Adobe Connect.” Accessed April 17, 2012. www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html.

American Library Association. 2008. “Information Literacy Competency Standardsfor Higher Education.” Last modified November 9. Accessed January 23, 2012.http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.

———. 2010. “Association of College and Research Libraries: Instruction SectionResearch and Scholarship Committee Bibliography of Citations Related to theResearch Agenda for Library Instruction and Information Literacy.” Last mod-ified March 1. Accessed January 23, 2012. http://www.ala.org/acrl/aboutacrl/directoryofleadership/sections/is/iswebsite/projpubs/bibcitations.

Animated Tutorial Sharing Project. 2011. “Adopt a Tutorial.” Last modified June 7.Accessed February 11, 2012. http://ants.wetpaint.com/page/Adopt+a+Tutorial.

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). 2009. “ACRL 2009 Strate-gic Thinking Guide for Academic Librarians in the New Economy.” Ac-cessed January 24, 2012. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/value/acrlguide09.pdf.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Combining Technologies 229

Bottorff, Tim, and Andrew Todd. 2012. “Making Online Instruction Count: StatisticalReporting of Web-Based Library Instruction Activities.” College and ResearchLibraries 73 (1):33–46.

Gurney, Lisa J., and Janelle Wilkes. 2008. “Creating a Library Presence in OnlineUnits.” Australian Academic and Research Libraries 39 (1):26–37.

Harvard Business School. 2005. Harvard Business Essentials: Create and Implementthe Best Strategy for your Business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Katz, Irvin R., Catherine Haras, and Carol Blaszcynski. 2010. “Does BusinessWriting Require Information Literacy?” Business Communication Quarterly 73(2):135–49.

Kazakoff-Lane, Carmen. 2010. “Anything, Anywhere, Anytime: The Promiseof the Animated Tutorial Sharing Project for Online and Mobile In-formation Literacy.” Journal of Library Administration 50 (7/8):747–66.doi:10.080/01930826.2010.488961.

Kirlew, Peter. 2007. “Enhancing Synchronous Online Library Instruction Ser-vices in Blackboard Using the Wimba Live Classroom System.” Spe-cial Libraries Association. Accessed March 3, 2012. http://www.sla.org/pdfs/sla2007/kirlewonlinelibinstrsvcs.pdf.

Kraemer, Elizabeth W., Shawn V. Lombardo, and Frank J. Lepkowski. 2007. “TheLibrarian, The Machine, or a Little of Both: A Comparative Study of ThreeInformation Literacy Pedagogies at Oakland University.” College & ResearchLibraries 68 (4):330–42.

Larson, Travis R. 2012. “Live Inspired with Famous Inspiring Quotes.” Ezine Arti-cles.com. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://ezinearticles.com/?Live-Inspired-With-Famous-Inspiring-Quotes&id=6961339.

Lewis, David W. 2004. “The Innovator’s Dilemma: Disruptive Change and AcademicLibraries.” Library Administration and Management 18 (2):68–74.

Luo, Lili, and Jeremy Kemp. 2008. “Second Life: Exploring the Immersive Instruc-tional Venue for Library and Information Science Education.” Journal of Educa-tion for Library and Information Science 49 (3):147–66.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2010. “Library Statistics Program: CompareAcademic Libraries.” Accessed February 7, 2012. http://nces.ed.gov//libraries/compare/Default.aspx.

Skype. 2012. “Business Skype.” Accessed April 17, 2012. http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/business.

University of La Verne. 2010. “Wilson Library Fact Book.” Accessed March 24, 2012.http://library.laverne.edu/reports/.

———. 2011. “University of La Verne Fact Book.” Accessed March 27, 2012.http://sites.laverne.edu/institutional-research/files/2011/10/2nd-fact-book.pdf.

Williams, Simone. 2010. “New Tools for Online Information Literacy Instruction.”Reference Librarian 51 (2):148–62. doi:10.1080/02763870903579802.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13

230 D. J. Swarm et al.

APPENDIX

Library Connect Program Phased Roll-Out

Date Phase Description Location Comments

August 17, 2011 Phase I Pilot 1 RCAcampus withoutstudents

CCC Successful

September 21,2011

Phase I Pilot 3 campuseswithout students

SFVC, CCC, andVandenberg

Successful

November 8,2011

Phase I Pilot 2 campuseswith students

SFVC, IEC, DeanRCA

Successful

Week ofFebruary 20,2012

Phase I Pilot all RCAcampuseswithout students

SFVC, CCC,Vandenberg, Pt.Mugu, VCC,Kern, HDC,OCC, IEC

Discoveredbandwidthissues. Only24 nodesoptimalbeforeconnectionslost.

Week of March26, 2012

Phase II Pilot all RCAcampuses twoclassrooms eachwith students

SFVC, CCC,Vandenberg, Pt.Mugu, VCC,Kern, HDC,OCC, IEC

LibraryConnectincludedaddress byPresi-dent/Provost(Phase IV)Successful.

Fall 2012 &spring 2013

Phase III Deliver LC in thefall and spring of2012–3 AT allRCA campuses

SFVC, CCC,Vandenberg, Pt.Mugu, VCC,Kern, HDC,OCC, IEC

TBD

TBD withRCA/LibraryWinter 2013

Phase IV Prioritize andinvestigate LCdelivery byprogram orcourse;off-campuslocations not atthe RCA campus;onlinecourses/students,co-curricular oruniversityparticipation.

TBD TBD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:08

24

Sept

embe

r 20

13