ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ April 2000 / 313 CONFERENCE CIRCUIT University Libraries Section at Midwinter A wrap-up of activities by Anne Garrison and Jennifer Evans Public Service Directors at Large Research Libraries The ACRL/ULS Public Service D irectors at Large Research Libraries Discussion Group, chaired by Faye Backie, met at Midwinter to discuss the latest developments of the Asso­ ciation of Research Libraries (ARL). lending laptops for student and staff use. and plan­ ning for a science library in the 21st century. Mary Jackson of ARL updated the group on the various activities of the North Ameri­ can Interlibrary Loan and Document Deliv­ ery Project (NAILDD). ARL is continuing to offer workshops designed to help interlibrary loan managers implement performance-im­ proving strategies as identified by the recent ARL Performance Measures Study. Informa­ tion about the workshops can be found on the ARL Web site. The group then discussed various strate­ gies for lending laptops to students within the library. University of Washington, NYU, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have implemented successful lending programs. The laptops have mainly been used for word processing and e-mail. Most libraries are limiting the circulation of the laptops to several hours and are asking us­ ers to sign a statement agreeing to pay for replacement costs if the laptop is lost. The final topic under discussion—the construc­ tion of new science libraries— inspired a lively debate about the importance (or lack thereof) of shelf space in new science li­ braries and the definition of “digital” librar­ ies. ARL measurements, real time reference, and needs assessment will be topics under consideration at the ALA Annual Conference in Chicago. ULS Executive Committee The ULS Executive Committee, chaired by James Estrada, met twice during Midwinter. The 2000 Annual Conference Program Com­ mittee for ULS reported on plans for the Chi­ cago conference. The committee is pulling together an ex­ citing program entitled “20/20 Vision for the Future.” It will provide perspectives on the library of the future in the context of the vast changes impacting the competitive environ­ ment of higher education. The Executive Committee also continued to craft and refine the ULS Vision and Goals statement to bring it into accord with the new ACRL S trategic P lan .— A n n e G a rriso n , S w a rth m o re College Library, a g a r r is 1@ swarthmore.edu About the authors Anne Garrison is humanities librarian a t Swarthmore College, e-mail: agarrisl@swarthmore.edu; Jennifer Evans is research express and acting Pacific N orthw est librarian a t the University o f Washington, e-mail: jrevans@u.washington.edu swarthmore.edu mailto:agarrisl@swarthmore.edu mailto:jrevans@u.washington.edu 3 1 4/ C&RL News ■ A p ril 2000 A discussion about learning comm unities The ULS Current Topics Discussion group, chaired by Aline Soules, and the Community and Junior College Libraries Section o f ACRL, worked together to present a thoughtful and lively discussion on learning communities and their place in library instaiction. T h e d iscu ssio n , led by D eb G ilch rist (Pierce College) and Randy Hensley (Univer sity o f Hawaii), asked participants to reflect on the ways a learning community differs from traditional approaches to teaching. Several differences w ere highlighted: • shared teaching betw een all membe o f a learning community; • support o f different learning styles and differences among members o f the learning community; • appreciation for affective, as w ell as cognitive, learning • responsibility o f students to learn from each other; • potential expense; and • issues in m em bers developing as equal partners. With these ideas as a background, the fa cilitators developed the discussion around the attributes, form s, and the library’s role in learning communities. A ttributes Hensley suggested several attributes o f learn ing communities. Learning communities in clude the teach er as learner, w hereby the teacher facilitates the student in making con nections. There was discussion about the chal lenges o f breaking down traditional authority barriers. Collaboration and active learning are two important attributes, and each student will connect with the material, and each other, in different ways. Learning communities are stu dent-driven, with more dynamic structures and involvement from participants shaping where the class travels with the material. Learning communities necessitate a degree o f com fort with flexibility and failure as they are experiential and experim ental, and the members o f the community look to find their own and each other’s connections with the material. Finally, learning communities rely on critical thinking environments w here mul tiple discipline approaches and opinions form a core o f exploration. r L ea rn in g com m unities ta k e m any f o r m s Learning communities by their very nature c a n ta k e m any form s, in c lu d in g lin k e d courses, team-taught courses, and integrated courses with merged content. Som e learning communities extend beyond the classroom and incorporate outside activities or living arrangements. T hese forms lend themselves well to show casing the principles o f infor mation literacy and use the natural talents o f librarians as teachers and facilitators. Gilchrist developed the discussion in terms o f the attributes o f libraries in learning com munities. Librarians are good at building com s munity and interdisciplinary work and so can aptly step into the role o f participant learner. Our expertise lies in connecting knowledge to others’ experiences and skills and w e can use this to build context. As a dynamic structure, learning com m u nities con n ect student perspective to their skills and help librarians create a relation ship betw een the information and the appli cation o f that information. Finally, librarians help bridge the virtual and the physical worlds and teach the ways technology can b e used to advance the knowledge o f the com m u nity. Roles W hen the facilitators opened the discussion to questions, the ensuing conversation e x panded on attributes and our role, and the group helped to further define som e o f the issues involved in working with learning com munities. For exam ple, students are often al ready skilled multitaskers and have a degree o f com fort with a flexible structure. Vulner ability remains an issue with many instruc tors however, as they seek to give up their role as the expert and open their classrooms to a different model o f teaching. Second, evaluation can b e an issue, as many learning communities are ahead o f in stitutions or accreditation organizations. In learning com munities, the focus is on the outcom es, rather than process. T he satisfac tion o f the learner is an ultimate measure o f success. Student’s self-assessm ent and group assessm ent are key in measuring satisfaction and understanding. Furthermore, reflective exercises can of ten gauge m em bers’ con nections with the course material. Learning communities must C&RL News ■ A p ril 2000 / 315 also have good communication and structure so that all participants understand their respon sibilities to themselves and the group. The structure is dynamic but the processes for learn ing can b e articulated within that structure. Comfort with risk-taking on the part o f stu dents and instructors is one important goal. T h e discussion en d ed by sharing indi vidual highlights. Memorable aspects o f the discussion for participants included rem em bering to em b race the m essier aspects o f learning, seeking to balance cognitive with affective learning, searching for collaboration (Tips … continued fr o m p a g e 290) establish the reference area as a place for active learning w here the focus is on dia logue and interaction. R esearch d on e by Sw ope and Katzer m ore than 25 years ago revealed that 65% o f users w ho have a ques tion in mind said they w ould not ask a librar ian for help.3 Roving offers a way to draw out those unasked questions. • Refer questions fro m th e referen desk to th e rover. Even with an active rov ing service, it’s important to maintain a pres en c e at the referen ce desk. Librarians sched uled at the desk should try to refer patrons who n eed to use a public workstation to the rover. This will allow d esk librarians the flex ibility to work with users w ho may have more com plex questions and steer the user to the rover, w ho will b e in a better position to of fer follow-up assistance. • Keep statistics. Many reference depart ments report declining numbers o f reference questions. This d ecrease may b e b ecau se few er transactions take place solely at the desk, but m ore users are helped at public workstations. This may b e difficult to do, but look for ways for rovers to keep accurate count o f the num ber o f questions they an swer. Your statistics should jump dramatically! A final recom m endation While it’s helpful to share our experiences and ideas, it may b e m ore beneficial to move toward a codification o f specific behaviors for roving. Considerable attention has been devoted to the behavior and perform ance o f librar ians working at reference desks, as seen in guidelines prepared by ALA’s Reference and User Services Association.4 O n o n e level, roving opportunities with new partners, and stress ing the primacy o f outcom es while w e e x perim ent and take risks. Learning com munities have a lot to teach us as w e continue to develop library instruc tion programs for our diverse student popu lations. The opportunities provide for rethink ing how w e approach our patrons and our teaching. Dynamic learning com munities of fer attributes that can b e adapted into librar ies or programs o f any size.—Jen n ifer Evans, University o f Washington Libraries, jrevans@ u.washington.edu ■ is an extension o f traditional reference; working at the reference desk and roving re quire many o f the same skills and behaviors. Roving, however, brings to play interper sonal dynamics that can b e quite different from those encountered in a reference desk setting. Further exam ination and discussion will help to identify standards that will in crease the overall quality and consistency o f roving reference. Notes 1. Adeane Bregm an and Barbara Mento, “Reference Roving at Boston College: Point o f Use Assistance to Electronic Resource Us ers Reduces Stress,” College a n d Research Li braries News 53 (N ovem ber 1992): 6 3 4 -3 5 ; Eileen H. Kramer, “Why Roving Reference: A Case Study in a Small Academic Library,” Ref eren ce Services Review 24 (Fall 1996): 6 7 -8 0 ; Jen n ifer M endelsohn, “Human Help at OPAC Term inals is U ser Friendly: A Preliminary Study,” RQ 34 (Winter 1994): 173-90. 2. “Roving Reference: A Human Presence for the Information A ge,” RUSA/MOUSS Per form ance Issues for Reference and Informa tion Service Librarians Discussion Group, ALA Annual Conference, New Orleans, Ju n e 26, 1999; Martin C ourtois and Maira Liriano, “Summary on Reference Roving,” posted to L IB R E F -L , M ay 1 8 , 1 9 9 9 . http:// listserv.kent.edu/archives/libref-I.html [9/29/ 991. 3. Mary Ja n e Sw ope and Jeffrey Katzer, “W hy D o n ’t They Ask Questions?,” RQ 12 (W inter 1972): 161-66. 4. “Guidelines for Behavioral Performance o f Reference and Information Services Pro fessionals,” January 1996. http://www.ala.org/ rusa/behavior.html [9/29/99]. ■ ce http://www.ala.org/ 316 / C&RL News ■ A p ril 2000