Charleston Neapolitan: Don't Be an Invisible Library!

November 8, 2013 – 10:30 a.m. Gold Ballroom

Don’t Be An Invisible Library!

Rick Burke!Glenn Johnson-Grau!

Franny Lee!Moderated by:

Matt Goldner!

Shedding the Cloak of Invisibility

Glenn Johnson-‐Grau Head of Collec>on Development Loyola Marymount University

Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles, California

Howdy, partner •  We spend >me on rela>onship building. •  Rela>onships are built upon common interests. •  Exhibits serve as launchpads for collabora>on.

CASE STUDY

ON CAMPUS LMU Departments: Theological Studies, English, African American Studies, Campus Ministry, Center for Religion & Spirituality

OUTSIDE PARTNERS Inglewood Public Library, local churches RELATIONSHIPS BUILT ON COMMON INTERESTS SPARK NEW COLLABORATIONS Honors Program -‐>> Gospel performance

Partnership Breeds Partnership

Success with one exhibit leads to enthusiasm for another, even though the players are all different.

Photos: www.programminglibrarian.org/dustbowl/

Presto chango

Library = book to library = intellectual engagement

PUB NIGHTS: Four events each semester where faculty discuss their recent scholarly or crea>ve works over beer and pretzels.

Presto chango II Opening the door to students and their ideas

Providing selfie opportuni>es in forbidden library loca>ons

Know on which side your bread is bu[ered

Align unit with ins-tu-on’s mission. –  Reflect it in what we say and do

•  Mirror language

Par-cipate in strategic planning. –  Librarians develop a reputa>on for good ci>zenship

Encourage librarians to par-cipate in campus governance. –  Librarians on Faculty Senate & commi[ees – Develop peer rela>onship with faculty and administrators – beyond “library as support”

The Vision Thing

Adop>ng an expansive vision of the role of the library on campus – Leadership ma[ers – Librarian buy-‐in ma[ers

– Funding really ma[ers

Align Incen>ves

Give librarians tools and reward them for outcomes. Enact a promo-on plan with incen-ves. Provide travel/professional development funding for librarians.

Foster and Support Staff Ideas

Beyond the Walls

SCELC •  Benefits member libraries and member librarians •  Support for small libraries •  Con>nuing educa>on •  Research support

–  Research Day -‐>> IMLS Grant »  Ins>tute for Research Design in Librarianship

Catholic Research Resources Alliance (CRRA) Associa>on of Jesuit College & Universi>es (AJCU)

Par>cipa>on = Visibility = Impact

Be strategic

Be a partner

Be persistent

Be at the table!

18!

SIPX, Inc.A web service for managing and measuring digital course materials!

Franny Lee!Co-Founder, Vice President Business Development!

[email protected]!!

www.sipx.com!@SIPXCopyright!

19!

Increase Library’s Value and Visibility!•  Be proactive about your school’s needs – !

–  SIPX = Stanford-grown solution!–  Deep library involvement in building the solution and features!–  Easy to promote measured time and cost benefits!

•  Consider technology and interface design opportunities – library visibility should complement user experience!

•  Encourage inter-vendor cooperation – platforms working together benefit their mutual clients by creating more integrated user experiences!

•  Keep on top of new trends and opportunities to bring value – MOOCs, self-publishing!

•  Keep on top of actual usage and behaviors!© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!November 8, 2013!

20!

End-to-end solution to manage, distribute and measure course materials for higher education!

What is SIPX?!

•  Cloud-based technology service that solves many copyright frustrations!

•  Networks together all stakeholders and critical data; combines open, licensed and publisher content options !

•  Can blend into campus systems like LMS’ and online education platforms like MOOCs!

•  Uniquely capable of meeting challenges of new online and multi-institution education models!

© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!November 8, 2013!

21!

•  Began as Stanford Intellectual Property Exchange research project!

•  Broad vision to create an efficient copyright marketplace!

•  Understood copyright challenges in higher education firsthand!

•  Built and tested actual system at Stanford (launched 4/11)!

•  Venture-backed spinout based on Stanford-licensed research and IP!

•  Partnered with 17 leading schools – Stanford, SUNY, CSU, UT Austin, University of Illinois, Notre Dame… !

•  Content agreements with over 50 leading publishers and platforms – Elsevier, T&F, Nature, university presses, open access publishers…!

Background!

Same Singular Focus = !©

Today!

From Research to Ramp!


22!

Educator Student

Publishers and Creators

Public Domain

HathiTrust

#*¥?! Can’t figure out condi>ons of use

^*@#?! Can’t find the

owner!

#%&?! What can I use? Is there an open

version?

#%$?! Too expensive!

#@?? Where is my content going?

?&@? Can I put this

online?

#%&?! Permission denied!?

@?#$? Which

subscrip>ons ma[er most?

@!#$? Legal liability?

Crea>ve Commons Copyright Agents

Librarian

Schools and Libraries

MOOC Provider

#*@?! Is this fair

use?

/%$&?! I have to pay for the whole

class!?

Today’s Copyright Maze!


23!

SIPX’s copyright-intelligent links give users contextually appropriate access and pricing, with no re-training of

faculty and students needed, and usage analytics!

SIPX in LMS Use!


24!

Flexible SIPX links can be posted anywhere, ensuring each student authenticated, easy access at the lowest price (MOOCs span >140

countries and many school affiliations)!

•  Professors assign what they want!•  Save schools time and $ from

clearing readings!•  Pay-per-use for students to buy and

access their own copies!•  Students benefit from their school’s

library holdings!•  Publishers experiment with options!

SIPX in MOOCs and Online Education !


25!

Participate in Policy with Usage Insights!•  Course development insights!•  Tools development insights!•  Collections development insights!–  What subscribed content is selected? !–  What non-subscribed content is selected?!

•  Student retention and completion rates!•  Efficient market pricing!

–  “Perfect” price points; Cost tolerance across geography!

•  Content discovery and recommendations!–  Readings used in other astronomy courses?!

•  Predictive data – student success factor?!–  Inter-platform sharing of data to fully understand user behavior!


26!

Evaluate, Share and Apply the Data !EARLY OBSERVATIONS IN CAMPUS COURSES!•  What content are instructors assigning? Where?!•  Student engagement levels in course readings

and reserves !–  # of students who actually retrieved readings!–  Most popular readings!

•  Instructors’ choice of readings influenced by cost, effort to clear, ability to add mid-stream in course…!–  An accessible market of viable options!


27!

EARLY OBSERVATIONS IN MOOCS!

•  Generally…!–  Very big classes, high attrition rates, global reach!

•  Most MOOC students differ from campus students!–  Different motivations, desired outcomes and

commitment levels!–  Long tail of interest!–  There is a subset who engages in readings!

•  Instructors assign combination of $0 and non-$0 readings!!

Evaluate, Share and Apply the Data !


28!

•  Publishers are experimenting – unbundled options, context- and geography-based pricing!

•  Instructors and schools are experimenting – self-publishing, services for faculty!!

!value we affix to these scenarios. In the logic of consequence model, we calculate the expected util-ity of each scenario. To do this, all we have to do is multiply the chance of rain (which is 40%) by the preference we have for the scenario of not bringing an umbrella and it rains (which is -10). That gives us the first value of -4.0. That’s the ex-pected utility of not bringing an umbrella and it rains on us. But say it does not rain and we do not bring an umbrella. Then we take the chains of no rain (%60) and multiply it by the value we affix to that outcome (+6). As such, the we have 0.6 times 6 = 3.6. That's the expected utility of not bringing umbrella if it doesn't rain. If we add the two to-gether – of not bringing an umbrella in both cases - then we get the net expected utility of not bring-ing an umbrella = -4.0 + 3.6 = -0.4.

If we go through the same kind of operation in the lower branch for bringing the umbrella, we will find the net expected utility to be 0.6. If we compare the two, then it is clear that bringing um-brella - given our preferences or our sense of costs and rewards for each outcome – is better than not bringing an umbrella because we really do not want to be wet. Now let’s do this for a more interesting case - dating! Many of you are single and perhaps look-ing for love. Say you are wondering whether to ask someone out. Let’s consider the scenarios. (i) You do not ask them out when they would have said no. That is good, right? You're not embar-rassed! (ii) You do not ask them out and they would have said “yes”. In that case, you miss out on someone quite interesting and wonderful. That is a downer. (iii) You do ask them out and they say “no”. That is kind of, mortifying, right? That may be terrible. (iv) And then, there is the last sce-nario which is you ask them out and they say “yes”. When that happens it is quite gratifying. How would you value each of these options from positive ten to negative ten? It all depends. Are you a high-interest, low-cost person? Meaning, you ask people out all the time and you do not see much cost to it. Or are you a low-interest, low-cost person? Meaning, you seldom ask people out and you do not worry

about it. Or are you a high cost person? Here you see it as risky no matter what happens. Let’s say you find it mortifying to be re-jected, and you are a high cost person. We can de-pict this in the table you see here. (i) Not asking someone else and them saying “no”, hey, that is good for us. It saved us the trouble, so it is a plus two. (ii) Not asking them out, and they would have said “yes” - that is a downer. Let’s give that a negative eight. Pretty bad, but not terrible. (iii) But then, asking them out, and them saying “no” is just awful. We feel miserable over that, so it is a negative ten. And last, (iv) us asking them out and them saying “yes” is a plus ten and that couldn't be better. Best of all worlds right there!

No#(90%)# Yes#(10%)# Net#Expected#U4lity#

Don’t&Ask&Out&+2& .8& (2*0.9)&–&(8*0.1)&=&1&

Ask&Out&.10& +10& (.10*0.9)+(10*0.1)&=&.8&

Don’t&As

k&Out&

Accept&(0

.1)&

Accept&(0.1)

&Ask&Out&

Reject&(0.9)&

Reject&(0.9)&

EU=&.0.8&

EU=&1.8&

EU=&1.0&

EU=&.9.0&

Net&Expected&UClity&=&1&

Net&Expected&UClity&=&.8&

Ambiguity)or)uncertainty)about)consequences)and)costs?))

Figure. Decision Tree for Asking Out

If we go through the decision tree again, we can predict the net utility of each option of asking someone out or not. Let’s even say they are very attractive so our chances are low at 10%. If we go through the math again like before where we don't ask them out and get a yes, that equals negative eight. Then we multiply that by the probability of yes at 0.10 (10% chance). As such, negative 8 times .1 = -0.8 expected utility. The opposite of not asking them out and they reject you has a posi-tive utility of 1.8. So, we have a net expected util-ity of not asking people out equal to one.

19

Organizational Analysis

Daniel A. McFarland and Charles J. Gomez

Evaluate, Share and Apply the Data !


29!

Worldwide View of 3 Fall 2013 SIPX MOOCs!

Interest by subject matter – !Early data for September 2013 courses: “Age of Globalization” (edX),

“Ideas of the 20th Century” (edX), and “Organizational Analysis” (Coursera)!© 2013 SIPX, Inc.!November 8, 2013!

30!

Subset of 127 countries represented in overall transaction data; !50% of transactions occur from users outside of US and Canada!

Transactions by Country!


31!

Volume by Price!


•  Price and volume reflect usage, content, visibility and timing within courses!•  Price is a key factor but volume is affected by other characteristics too!•  Data above shows similarly situated cost-comparables, but readings are

from different courses and of different lengths, and not exact substitutes!

!

Role of the library

MATT GOLDNER!Product and Technology Advocate!

OCLC Online Computer Library Center OCLC Online Computer Library Center

Library Rela>onship with its users


…where your users are?


! ?


Today’s online informaGon seekers have many choices


Requirements for change


Today’s online informaGon seekers have many choices

• Select • Acquire • Describe • Preserve • Expose


How OCLC is working with members

•  Managing down print •  Understanding our cons>tuencies •  Libraries of the Web


REGISTRATION AGGREGATION SYNDICATION

libraries

content partners

library service partners

consumer service partners

•  Place(s) •  Collec>ons •  Services •  People •  Events •  Concepts


Content Partners

Text


Library service partners


Consumer service partners

personal consumer services insGtuGon consumer services


Charleston Neapolitan: Don't Be an Invisible Library!

Education

Transcript of Charleston Neapolitan: Don't Be an Invisible Library!