50
EMBEDDING THE LIBRARY INTO THE ONLINE LEARNING EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Meredith Farkas Portland State University http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/wa/WAVASbike_kevf.jpg Monday, January 21, 13

Alcts farkas

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Alcts farkas

EMBEDDING THE LIBRARY INTO THE ONLINE LEARNING EXPERIENCE IN

HIGHER EDUCATION.

Meredith FarkasPortland State University

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/wa/WAVASbike_kevf.jpg

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 2: Alcts farkas

WHO ARE ONLINE LEARNERS IN HIGHER ED?

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 3: Alcts farkas

THEY ARE OLDER

85% ARE 25 OR OLDER,55% ARE 35 AND OLDER

Source: Noel-Levitz 2011 National Online Learners Priorities Report https://www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/2011/PSOL_report%202011.pdf

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 4: Alcts farkas

THEY HAVE COMPETING PRIORITIES

81% ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYEDTOP FACTORS DETERMINING ENROLLMENT:

CONVENIENCE, FLEXIBLE PACING, WORK SCHEDULE

Online Student Demographics Infographic http://www.classesandcareers.com/education/infographics/student-demographics-infographic/

Source: Noel-Levitz 2011 National Online Learners Priorities Report https://www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/2011/PSOL_report%202011.pdf

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 5: Alcts farkas

MANY SEE EDUCATION AS A MEANS TO AN END

THE MAJORITY ARE ENROLLED IN PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS

Online Learning Enrollment and Demographics, The Chronicle of Higher Educationhttps://chronicle.com/article/Online-Learning-Enrollment/125202/

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 6: Alcts farkas

TEND TO HAVE HIGHER EXPECTATIONS FOR THEIR

LEARNING EXPERIENCE THAN STUDENTS IN ON-CAMPUS

PROGRAMS

Source: Noel-Levitz 2011 National Online Learners Priorities Report https://www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/2011/PSOL_report%202011.pdf

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 7: Alcts farkas

ARE BECOMING THE NEW NORMAL

31.3% OF ALL STUDENTS WERE TAKING AT LEAST ONE ONLINE COURSE IN

2010

Source: Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011 http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 8: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 9: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 10: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 11: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 12: Alcts farkas

IF THIS IS THEIR CAMPUS...Monday, January 21, 13

Page 13: Alcts farkas

IF THIS IS THEIR CAMPUS...

Library

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 14: Alcts farkas

GET IN THEIR FLOWhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/yogendra174/5980718184

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 15: Alcts farkas

MANY LEVELS OF “EMBEDDING”

Macro-Level Library Courseware Involvement*

Micro-Level Library Courseware Involvement*

Molecular-Level Library Involvement

* From Shank, J. D. and N. H. Dewald. 2003. Establishing our presence in courseware: Adding library services to the virtual classroom. Information Technology and Libraries 22(1):38-43.

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 16: Alcts farkas

MACRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT

•One library presence for distance learners in the learning management system

• An external web page

• A presence in the LMS

• A course shell in the LMS in which every student is enrolled

• A module/widget in every classroom

• Could be a link or embedded content.

• Could be in every course or on the LMS home pageMonday, January 21, 13

Page 17: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 18: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 19: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 20: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 21: Alcts farkas

• Pros

• Easy to maintain

•No collaboration with faculty needed

• Good for universally-useful information, learning objects and resources for online students

• Cons

• Generic, not tailored to specific courses or programs

MACRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 22: Alcts farkas

• Library presence targeted to specific courses or programs

• Program/subject-specific presence or guide

• Course-specific presence or guide

• Learning objects to support specific programs

MICRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 23: Alcts farkas

MICRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT

• How does the content get into the classroom?

•One library presence that links to subject-specific content embedded automatically into each classroom (through the LOR)

• Subject/course-specific content embedded automatically into each classroom

• Faculty member must link to subject/course-specific content

• Librarian is given course-designer access

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 24: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 25: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 26: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 27: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 28: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 29: Alcts farkas

������������� � �� ����

���� ���� � ���������

� ��������� � ���

������������� �������������������

�������������� � ��������� ��

��

������������� � �� ���� ����

���� � ���������

� ��������� � ���

������������� ��������������������

�������������� � ��������� ��

��

���� � ���������

� ��������� � ���

������������� � ����� ���

�������������� � ��������� ��

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 30: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 31: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 32: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 33: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 34: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 35: Alcts farkas

MICRO-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT

• Pros

• More targeted to student research needs

• Can put more of a human face on the library (subject librarian)

• Cons

• Requires significantly more effort to build and maintain

• Depending on the approach, may require significant programming and/or significant librarian involvement to embed the content into the LMS

• Sometimes requires more collaboration with facultyMonday, January 21, 13

Page 36: Alcts farkas

MOLECULAR-LEVEL LIBRARY INVOLVEMENT

• Involvement in the design or teaching of the course itself

• Collaboration with faculty on course and research assignment design

•Developing learning objects to support specific assignments or providing synchronous online instruction

• Librarians embedded in individual courses

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 37: Alcts farkas

COLLABORATING WITH FACULTY ON COURSE-DESIGN

•Macro-level

•Workshops for faculty on research assignment design and/or embedding of information literacy instruction into courses

•Micro-level

•Working with individual faculty

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 38: Alcts farkas

PORTLAND STATE’S ADVANCED DESIGN PROCESS

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 39: Alcts farkas

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 40: Alcts farkas

COLLABORATING WITH FACULTY ON COURSE-DESIGN

• Pros

• Can integrate information literacy instruction much more deeply into a course

• Cons

• Requires significant librarian time working with faculty

• Many faculty will not be open to this type of collaboration

• Not every faculty member is interested in teaching information literacy instruction

• Doesn’t create library presence, per seMonday, January 21, 13

Page 41: Alcts farkas

LEARNING OBJECTS AND SYNCHRONOUS INSTRUCTION

• Learning objects

• HTML tutorials

• Video tutorials

• Interactive learning objects

• Synchronous instruction

• Video conferencing is becoming more mainstream

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 42: Alcts farkas

LEARNING OBJECTS: CONSIDERATIONS

• Available at a user’s point-of-need

• Have to be updated as interfaces and technologies change

•Must focus on accessibility (ADA and mobile)

•Different modalities for different

• Learning styles

• Programs

• Topics

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 43: Alcts farkas

SYNCHRONOUS INSTRUCTION: CONSIDERATIONS

• Can provide tailored instruction to students, active learning

• Social presence

•Mirrors what we can do for f2f classes

• Technical barriers and cognitive load should not be underestimated

• Can’t cover as much as during a f2f session

•Often a poor fit in programs that are totally or largely asynchronous

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 44: Alcts farkas

EMBEDDED LIBRARIANS•Many, many models

• Librarians involved in building the course

• Librarians with course design privileges

• Librarians involved in the teaching of the course

• Co-teaching the course

• “Lurking” in the course

• Involved in a discussion board in the course

• For the entire term or for specific period(s) of timeMonday, January 21, 13

Page 45: Alcts farkas

EMBEDDED LIBRARIANS• Considerations

• Requires a tremendous time commitment; not easily scalable

•Must be integrated meaningfully into the course

• Requires significant collaboration with faculty to be successful

• Librarians need to apply the same standards to responding to students as they do at the reference desk

• Has the potential to significantly increase the sense of social presence and support in an online course

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 46: Alcts farkas

EMBEDDED LIBRARIANS

• Considerations (cont’d)

• Sometimes embedding simply shifts reference help burden onto the embedded librarian

•Not a right fit for every program or course

• Better for programs/courses where faculty do not feel comfortable teaching research skills

•While some embedded librarian projects in the literature demonstrated efficacy, no tests have measured the efficacy of embedding vs. other methods of info lit instruction

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 47: Alcts farkas

CONSIDERATIONS• Sustainability should be a top concern

• Consider what it will take to maintain (or grow) the service one year from now, five years from now, etc.

• Pilot projects have pros and cons

• Librarians must develop strong connections with the units that administer the LMS and support online teaching

• Subject librarians are critical

• Every subject librarian should be a distance learning librarian too

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 48: Alcts farkas

CONSIDERATIONS

• Ignore the hype and focus on the specifics of your College/University’s online programs

• Institutional culture

• Learning outcomes and program structure

• Available resources

•No one approach will be a right fit for all programs/courses

• If you do something time intensive, be strategic

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 49: Alcts farkas

CONSIDERATIONS

•Depending too much on the LMS may create problems if the University switches to a new LMS or upgrades

•Not every LMS has a role that makes sense for a librarian

• Putting a human face on the library (“presence”) is so valuable online

Monday, January 21, 13

Page 50: Alcts farkas

QUESTIONS?

Find me atmeredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress

gmail: mgfarkastwitter : librarianmer

facebook: meredithfarkas

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trucolorsfly/2401196653/

Monday, January 21, 13