Course Integration Exploratory Subgroup:
Final Report and Recommendations to the Web Services Steering Committee
February 2009
Kate Peterson (chair)
Elena Carrillo
Stephanie Crowe
Liz Fine
Jon Jeffryes
Caroline Lilyard
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Current Situation . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Course Reserves/E-Reserves Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Development and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Unresolved Issues Beyond Charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix B. Current View of LibData, MyU, MyLibrary Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix C. Landscape of Educational Technology Use on the Univ. of Minnesota Campus . . . 24
Appendix D. Needs Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix E. Media Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix F. Course Integration Best Practices at Other Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix G: Stakeholder and Instructor Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix H: Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix I: Instructor Survey and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Appendix J: Student Survey and Results . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Appendix K: Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
List of Figures
Figure 1. Phase I Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 2. Phase 2 Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 3. Development Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Figure 4. Ties to Existing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 17
Figure 5. Library Course Page (LCP) Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 6. Generic LCP (No Course Lib) Mockup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 7. Course-Specific Page (With Course Lib) Mockup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 8. Generic Course Page Integrated into WebVista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 9. Generic Course Page Integrated into Moodle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 10. Models of Course Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 11. Internet or Partially Internet-Delivered Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 12. WebVista Courses Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 13. WebVista Courses Pie Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Additional Documentation
RefWorks:
Username: libraryintegration Password: course
Basecamp:
Research materials and data located in Course Integration Basecamp
2
Executive Summary
Purpose
The Course Integration Exploratory Subgroup of the Web Services Steering Committee (WSSC) was
charged with examining the educational technology used in courses at the University of Minnesota,
Twin Cities campus (UMN-TC) and exploring possibilities and making recommendations for the
integration of library tools, resources, learning objects and e-learning modules into these course
technologies.
Methodology
We used both qualitative and quantitative methods to gain an understanding of our stakeholders’
(UMN-TC students, instructors and staff) current uses and needs for course-related educational
technology. Our methods included reviewing the professional literature; online surveys of instructors
and students currently using educational technology; in-depth interviews with faculty, instructional
designers, and staff who work with educational technology at UMN-TC; and an informal scan of the
landscape of educational technologies currently used on at UMN-TC and existing course support
materials available through the University Libraries. We also found examples of library integration at
other institutions. We used the data collected through these methods to make recommendations for
future library integration.
Note: For detailed methodological data, please see Appendices B-J.
Findings
 Course Management Systems (CMS), primarily WebVista and Moodle, are ubiquitous on
campus and are seen as a major method to share course related information.
 Instructors have difficulty integrating library content into CMS.
 Students have trouble accessing library content related to their courses.
 There are a variety of technical, political and organizational culture challenges to integrating
library materials into the CMS.
 Library collections and services need to be more integrated into the user’s workflow.
Recommendations
Library Course Page System
Based on our findings, we recommend the creation of a Library Course Page (LCP) system to address
the needs of students and instructors. This system will automatically create a customized library
resources page for every class offered at UMN-TC, which will make relevant resources easy for
students and instructors to find and use.



The LCP system would be built on top of the LibData resources database. The LCP system would
act as an aggregator, collecting information from the current different silos of library information (ereserves, reserves catalog, CourseLib) and make them available in one interface.
Each LCP would include all aspects of a course’s library presence (e.g. links to databases,
instructional materials, MNCAT search box, reference help, e-reserves, course reserves, etc.) on
one page with a minimum of mouse clicks and additional log-ins.
Each page would be customized by department/subject with the option of further librarian
customization at the individual course level.
3





The LCP should be designed to be technologically agnostic so that it works with all types of course
technologies (course management systems, blogs, stand-alone course site, Ning, etc).
We recommend that the Libraries work with WebVista and Moodle administrative bodies to create a
default link to the LCP that is posted in every course. We further recommend that the LCP be
included, as a default, in all University supported online course technologies (WebVista, Moodle,
UThink).
Further development is recommended to widgetize and further customize content in order to extend
use within and beyond courses as educational technologies are continuing to evolve and change.
We recommend development of a system to facilitate the integration of media (videos, images, etc.)
to be easily located and embedded within course technologies.
We recommend exploring working in partnership with other units on campus to explore a course
learning object repository.
Course Reserves/E-Reserves
Currently students access their library course reserves through two independent systems: the Library
Course Reserve catalog (MNCAT), and the Docutek electronic reserve system. Based on our findings,
we recommend that library reserve materials be seamlessly integrated into the Library Course Page
system.
4
Methodology
We gathered information on user behavior using a variety of methods, described below and in more
detail in the Appendices. We investigated how the library is currently included (or absent) in course
technologies; what library resources and services instructors, students and staff would find useful to
more fully integrate into their courses; how our existing course support systems may be integrated
more effectively into courses and course-related workflow; and what additional development of
resources and services is needed. Our methods included:

Stakeholder and Instructor Interviews
We conducted one-on-one interviews with a diverse sample of twenty-one instructors,
instructional designers, university and library staff to discuss their uses and needs regarding
course technologies. We kept the format of these interviews broad and informal to allow for
flexibility in the discussion. Many common themes were expressed from this diverse group,
including many ideas for how the library can be more fully integrated into courses. See
Appendix G for detailed results.

Instructor Survey
We created a survey in Survey Monkey and emailed a group of 289 instructors who had used EReserves or other course management systems in the past. We received 84 responses, for a
response rate of 29%. We asked questions regarding their use and preferences of education
technologies, who in their department creates course pages, if/how the Libraries are currently
included in courses, and their preferences for future integration. See Appendix I for detailed
questions and survey results.

Student Survey
We created a survey in Survey Monkey and emailed a group of 129 Libraries work-study
student employees. We received 51 responses, for a response rate of nearly 40%. Ninety
percent of the students who responded have taken courses that included some form of online
course technology. We asked questions regarding how they used various CMS features, their
preferences of features, and where they think other students have trouble using the Libraries.
See Appendix J for detailed questions and survey results.

Course Integration Best Practices at Other Institutions
Through personal contacts, posting questions on library association listservs, and examples
from the literature, we gathered examples of course integration from other universities. See
Appendix F for examples.

Review of Literature
Through an extensive review of the literature we discovered that much has been written on this
topic in the last decade as CMSs have become a major part of course technologies on college
and university campuses. Originally only used for distance learning, these CMSs are now a
central hub for a majority of courses, whether taught face-to-face, hybrid or online. Overall,
much of the literature discusses the challenges to integrating the library into CMSs, a variety of
possible solutions, and examples of small scale successes. See Appendix H for literature
review.
5
Findings: Current Situation
We analyzed the evidence that we collected on stakeholders’ and users’ needs to develop the following
five findings, which summarize the current situation of course technologies at UMN-TC.
1. Course Management Systems (CMS), primarily WebVista and Moodle, are ubiquitous on
campus and are seen as a major method to share course-related information.
 Course Management systems have matured and play a dominant role in supplying online
course information both for distance and on-campus students.
 WebVista and Moodle make up majority of CMS use on campus.
o WebCT Vista administration reported 2,604 individual WebVista sites in Fall 2008
(Blaine, handout in ATAC meeting).
o Moodle use is on the rise. In fall 2007, there were 189 Moodle pages. By the fall of
2008, there were 734 sites that autofetched students, a good indication that the Moodle
site is being used for a course (handout at ATAC meeting).
o 88.3% of students reported taking at least one course supplemented by online
educational technology in the past two years (OIT’s Net Generation of Students at the
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 2007 5).
o 84.6% of students accessed online course materials at least two or three times a week
(58.8% access online course materials at least daily) (OIT’s Net Generation of Students
at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 2007 5).
 “Faculty members appear to see educational technology primarily as a means for the efficient
delivery of information” (OIT’s 21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin
Cities Survey 5).
 There is a growing field of alternatives (blogs, wikis, standalone webpages, etc.) as Web 2.0
applications make it easier for instructors to post content online.
o Using an informal scan, we estimate that at least 80 UThink blogs were being used as
course pages in January 2008. Certainly more are actually being used to supplement
courses.
2. Instructors have difficulty including library content into CMS.
 50% of instructors are using course management software (Billie Wahlstrom quote from TEL
minutes).
o 71.5% of instructors have taught at least one course supplemented by online technology
during the past two years (OIT’s 21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota,
Twin Cities Survey 15).
 Faculty have a desire to increase students’ access to course materials, want to make teaching
more efficient, and want to use multimedia course materials — 3 out of top 4 reasons faculty
members are attracted to using educational technology in teaching (OIT’s 21st Century
Instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 12).
 Faculty members lack time to learn how to use new technology. Any solutions must respect and
even save faculty members’ time (OIT’s 21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota,
Twin Cities Survey 5).
 There are high barriers for faculty to find and reuse digital materials in course (lack of time, lack
of awareness).
o “Although a good percentage of library resources are digital and available online, issues
with persistent URLs and authentication can be significant barriers to their integration
into a CMS” (Gibbons 14).
6
3. Students have trouble accessing Library content related to their courses.
 Library content for courses is in silos of different systems and interfaces such as CourseLib,
Course Reserves, E-Reserves and more.
o CourseLib pages are our primary method to deliver course related content. These pages
get created based on individual contacts, and there is no systematic creation of pages.
Thus, students cannot rely on having such a page for their courses. (See Appendix B).
 Today’s students want to search a single, unified place to find the information they need--for
courses it is their CMS.
o “I hate it when an instructor uses their own course website instead of WebCT. It’s much
easier to just go to one place to check into all of your classes” (OIT’s Net Generation of
Students at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Survey 2007 1)
 Students are unable to match their information needs with appropriate subject guides (Gibbons).
 Instructors and students are unaware of the collections and services the Library has to offer to
supplement and enhance their course content.
 Instructors complain about students’ choice of sources for papers and projects. Students often
rely on easy and familiar sites such as Wikipedia and Google due to lack of searching and
evaluation skills.
o Instructors are unsure of how or unable to spend time in course to improve student
research.
4. There is a variety of technical, political and organizational culture challenges to integrating
library materials into the CMS.
 The University Libraries buy content from a large number of vendors who organize their
products in a large variety of ways. Although tools like OneSearch help to give a unified
interface, for the most part users must navigate our different systems.
 Due to branding and a variety of library jargon, there is a lack of transparency as to what is
available within a resource.
 Instructors and students use highly diverse materials (articles, books, media, primary sources
etc.) in teaching and learning.
 CMSs are administered by OIT (rarely does library have a role in selecting or administering
CMS).
 “Faculty, students and campus administrators all have a great deal invested in the integration of
libraries and CMS. Unfortunately, many are unaware of the cost this nonintegration causes in
terms of time, money, and the negative impact on the quality of education.” (Gibbons 21)
5. Libraries (collections and services) need to be more integrated into the user’s workflow.
 Current models of customization within library website are not adequate—users can’t/don’t
navigate to the rich content design for their needs.
o “Customization is central to the definition of technology of Net Geners. Technology is
something that adapts to their needs, not something that requires them to change.”
(Gibbons 5 as cited in Roberts 2005)
 In a climate of accountability, the Libraries need to be able to prove that our collections and
services are being used.
o “Libraries must learn to use courseware environment to take their services directly to the
students or face budget cuts as their services are seen as less relevant (Gibbons 5 as
cited in OCLC E-Resources Task Force 2003)
7


A majority of our users prefer to access library materials online.
o “Recommendations of relevant, contextual library resources provided at the time and
point of need is perhaps the strongest and most effective response that libraries can
make to the Googlization of information.” (Gibbons 5)
In a climate of declining budgets, the Libraries tools and services need to be more strategic and
scalable to get “more bang from our buck” including the money and time we spend collecting,
curating/creating and providing assistance to our users.
8
Recommendations
Based on users’ needs, the current situation, our existing course support technologies (LibData,
myLibrary Portal, affinity strings, etc.) and practices at other institutions, we developed the following
recommendations for increasing integration of the Libraries into course technologies. We prioritized our
recommendations into Phase I and Phase II. Phase I recommendations focus on high-impact, user
centered, integrative, strategic and cost-effective solutions based on the WSSC Project Criteria. Phase
II recommendations include additional functionality which would be of higher cost and possibly lower
impact, yet more experimental and potentially innovative.
Phase I Recommendations

We recommend the creation of a Library Course Page (LCP) system. This system would include
all aspects of a course’s library presence (e.g. links to databases, instruction materials, MNCAT
search box, reference help, e-reserves, course reserves, etc.) on one page with a minimum of
mouse clicks and additional log-ins.
o The LCP system should be built on top of the LibData resources database.
o The LCP system would live separately from CMSs, so as to be useful to those
instructors using other online technologies.
o Each page would be customized by department/subject with the option of further
customization by subject liaisons at the individual course level. The LCP should include
push functionality such as RSS to help librarians efficiently push content to the page.
o The LCP should be technologically agnostic so that it works with all types of course
technologies (WebVista, Moodle, UThink, course web page, etc.).
o The LCP should include an easy, standard URL naming scheme
o We recommend that the page be included as a default in all University-supported online
course technologies (WebVista, Moodle, UThink).
In the following chart (figure 1) we provide rationale and evidence for each of these recommendations.
Figure 1. Phase I Details
Recommendations
Rationale
Evidence
CI-1A: The LCP would
include all aspects of a
course’s library presence (e.g.
library links, instruction
materials, e-reserves) in one
page.
 All library content consolidated
on one page versus in different
system silos as in current
situation
 Seamless integration of all
systems within CMS
 Support the teaching and
learning at the University
 Decrease student library anxiety
 Decrease number of libraryrelated questions instructors are
asked
 Support off-campus and
distance students in addition to
on campus or hybrid students




Based on in-depth
interviews: Need to be
integrated within CMS, not
just link out to other sites.
Currently library resources
are highly decentralized,
forcing students to go to
multiple sites to access all
the appropriate information.
Instructors spoke of “a
unified locale for access” and
a desire for the creation of “a
UGVL type portal that was
course specific.”
“Librarians will gain
increased access to students
and instructors, which will
lead to enhanced integration
9

CI-1B:
The course page should offer
a base level of resources for
departments/subjects drawn
from LibData resources (RQS
core) with the option of further
customization by subject
liaisons at the individual
course level.



The LCP should include push
functionality such as RSS to
help librarians efficiently push
content to the page.


Instructors and students want

resources related to their
coursework
We need to ensure pages are
of high quality (and revised in a
timely manner) in order for
instructors and students to see 
them as relevant and adopt
usage.
Minimal addition to librarians’
workload.
Push technology such as RSS
would allow for efficient

updating of content (e.g. such
as from blog, TOCs, database
search alert content, etc.)
Related to myLibrary
undergraduate pages



in the teaching and learning
process” (Shank 2006)
“Relevant library sources in
the CMS can decrease the
complexity of the library
research process, and
therefore lessen the anxiety”
(Gibbons 22)
Based on in-depth
interviews, instructors would
like a page to be customized
to their course—they do not
have time to do it
themselves.
Web Course Design Group,
College of Continuing
Education said they would
like to see a library-run, taskoriented, course-specific
portal of resources that they
could link to
Instructor quote: Some
students find the libraries’
collections “traumatic” to
navigate and that “being able
to find stuff immediately” is
critical to whether students
will even bother to use any
library resources.
Instructor quote: “Many of
the choices made regarding
online course content are
driven by simple
expedience.”
Student quote: “I don't think
students know everything
that is available to them.
Working at the library I am
always telling classmates
about different options they
have to get what they need.”
“MyLibrary now offers
recommendations based on
each course in which an
undergraduate is currently
enrolled, showing on a
semester-by-semester basis
the resources which are
most likely to be useful
10
(Hanson 2008).”
CI-1C
LCP must be technologically
agnostic
 Instructors are using different
types of online learning
technologies in support of their
coursework.
 Must have ability to use within
other course technologies,
including CMSs, blogs, wikis,
etc.
 Extend use of library content



Based on our instructor
survey (Appendix H), the
most commonly used course
technologies are E-Reserves
(74%), WebCT Vista (68%),
Moodle (51%), Course
Website (33%), UThink
(11.5%), Wiki (10.3%), and
other (7.7%).
Course technologies such as
CMSs change over time (for
example, Moodle is now
supported as well as
WebVista).
Although many instructors
are using WebCT and
Moodle many are
not…keeping LCPs separate
from CMSs and
technologically agnostic will
make the pages usable to a
wider audience.
CI-1D
Easy, standard URL naming
of Library Course Pages
 For those instructors not using
University-sponsored
technologies, easy to remember,
logical URLs would make
inclusion in their online
components easier (e g. current
course lib pages vs. NCSU URL
scheme – see Appendix F).
 Technological requirement of
large scale system
 Instructors spoke in favor of a
solution that “was very simple
to incorporate.”
CI-1E
LCP must appear as a default
in all University sponsored
online course technologies
(WebCT, Moodle, UThink,
myCourses Tab, etc.).




CMSs are the center of
course- related workflow.
The default inclusion of a
generic page in the CMSs
would bring library resources
to the user in a widespread,
proactive manner, bringing
library resources into the
students’ and instructors’
existing workflow
Should include ability to link to
LCP from within CMS week or
topic structure

Students prefer to have
course-related resources
within CMSs. Quote from
OITs student survey: “I hate
it when an instructor uses
their own course website
instead of WebCT.”
Instructors see CMS as
primary means to provide
course related information to
students. OITs Faculty
survey: “Faculty members
appear to see educational
technology primarily as a
means for the efficient
11


CI-1F
Course Reserves/E-reserves
should be integrated into LCP

Reserves are a highly used
course component that are
currently in multiple
locations/silos




delivery of information”
Instructor quote: History of
Medicine: She really liked
the idea of having a default
Libraries tab in Moodle and
WebVista
“From a student and
learning-centered
perspective on education,
making the library visible in
courseware is essential to
achieving student learning
outcomes (Bell & Shank
2004).”
Websites currently available
for instructors to learn how to
use Reserves are outdated
and confusing (on library,
bookstore, etc. websites)
Some instructors did not
realize that E-reserves was a
service provided by the
library
Instructor quote: Would love
to be able to do E-Reserves
on the fly - i.e. not sending
them through the E-Reserve
request system to get
posted. This takes time, and
I feel like I am bothering the
E-Reserve staff if I want to
add something at a later
date
In-depth interviews: Adding
readings to courses is
confusing and instructors are
unsure of copyright
implications.
12
Phase II Recommendations



Further development of the proposed Library Course Page system is recommended to
widgetize and further customize content to extend use within and beyond courses. As
educational technologies are continuing to evolve, the ability to break content up in widgets
would allow for maximum flexibility in future usage.
Upgrade Course Reserves/E-reserves (see Course Reserves/E-Reserves Recommendations
below).
Create system to help instructors and instructional designers easily locate and integrate media
(streaming video, etc.) and images to courses (see Appendix E).
In the following chart (figure 2) we provide rationale, evidence and criteria for importance for each of the
Phase II recommendations and additional LCP features.
Figure 2. Phase II Details
Functionalities
Rationale
Evidence
Importance
CI-2A:
Widgetize all parts of
LCP.
 Allow for integration at
point of need
 Extend use of library
content to CMS and
beyond
 Growing trends towards
personalization
 Reusable and shareable
 For use with mobile
devices
 Similar to layout on
myLibrary
 Academic Health Center’s
use of myLibrary to customize
pages
 iGoogle pages will grow with
Google pilot with
undergraduates
 EDUCAUSE webinar
(Widgets: The slicing and
dicing (and splicing) of
shareable learning content)
 Use of mobile devices
continues to grow in
education (2009 Horizon
Report)
 “The myLibrary team
envisioned a layout that
comprised a number of
smaller cells or widgets, some
of which would be universal to
all users and other of which
would be customized to
particular affinity string
groups” (Hanson 2008).
Critical
CI-2B:
 Large number of
 Based on in-depth interviews:
Further integration of
instructors posting PDFs
Instructors unsure of what do
cCourse Reserves/Ewithout copyright
to with readings
reserves system into LCP.
permission
 Often post PDFs into CMSAbility to incorporate
 Do not know how to post
potentially exposing
readings into the
persistent links
themselves to risk
topic/week of the course
 Readings should be at
in CMS (at point of need).
point of need (course
(see Course Reserves/Eweek/topic)
Critical
13
Reserves
Recommendations)
 Lack of instructor
knowledge of Course
Reserves and EReserves
CI:2C
Functionality for
instructors to easily locate
and add media, videos,
images, learning objects,
etc. to courses (e.g.
materials the Library pays
for and/or creates)
 Instructors want more
streamed media in
courses (enrich their
course content)
 Instructors do not have
time to search multiple
locations to try to find
such content
 In-depth interviews—This
topic arose with no prompting
time and again from
instructors across the
disciplines:
 Instructor, Social Work: He’d
like the ability to put video
excerpts on e-reserve or in
CMS
 Web Course Design Group,
CCE: Staff spoke highly of the
images library that the library
maintains. They’d like to see
that expanded and if it could
include video that would be a
plus.
 Instructor, History of Science
and Technology: Would like a
better way to incorporate
visual resources that are
already web-based but that
aren’t particularly accessible
because people aren’t aware
of them.
Critical
CI-2D:
Give instructors the ability
to add content from library
(website, books, articles,
etc.) into LCP using oneclick technology “Add to
My Course” type link
(similar to “Add to My
Library” link)
 Easy, one-click
technology.
 Raises awareness of
adding library materials
to courses
 Streamlines workflow of
adding content to
courses
 Instructors want their
resources to be as
specific to their class as
possible.
 In depth interviews:
Instructors spoke of a desire
to self-edit pages
 Instructors spoke of need to
make customization easy
 Instructors said they’d “like
editing functionality” and “liked
the idea of professors having
editing rights to CourseLib
pages”
 “Would like to see the option
of staff being able to make
changes, additions, etc.” and
thought “joint administrative
abilities would be best.”
Critical
CI-2E:
A centralized repository
for all course-related
 Instructors want
instruction modules to
assist students in
 In-depth interviews:
 Instructor, Social Work: He’d
like tools to help students
Critical
14
library research and
writing instructional
resources that would
allow for easy inclusion
into library course page.





CI-2F:
Inclusion of “helps” or
“how tos” and “FAQ” tied
to each library resources
(e.g. database would
have a link to a guide or
tutorial on using that goes
with database link)
research.
Currently these
modules, if they exist,
are scattered across
campus, causing
instructors to re-create
existing
modules/information
Beneficial to instructors
and time-saving for
librarians.
Centralized location
would enhance visibility
of offerings
Build partnerships with
other units across
campus to offer related
content such as Center
for Writing, DMC,
plagiarism, etc.
Need for instruction
applies for undergrads
but also Masters and
PhD students (e.g.
returning adult students)
 Need to align “how-to
guides” with resources
 Students don’t know
how to use resources
effectively even if they
get to the best one
CI-2G:
 Integration at point of
Functionality to move
need within course
content from LCP and add  CMSs are organized
to other pages within
around weeks or topics
course (e.g. include
of content
content within specific
 LCP would still be





learn search strategies
Instructor, Spanish and
Portuguese: Most useful
would be online tutorials on
subjects such as how to use
MLA, how to find and use
periodicals and newspapers
as sources, and an easy
reference on how to cite
sources.
Instructor, Art Studio: Would
like to see online tutorials for
using the library in general.
Instructor, English and African
American Studies: Would love
to see online exercises to help
develop skills.
Instructor, English and African
American Studies: Would like
to see some sort of online
writing diagnostic tool
Instructor, History of
Medicine: Tutorials would be
extremely useful on specific
subjects such as RefWorks,
citing sources (including
primary sources), evaluating
websites, and general
information literacy. They
should include quizzes at the
beginning and end so that she
doesn’t have to grade the
exercises.
 Instructor quote: Research is
difficult to teach. Anything that
would make it potentially
easier would be welcome
 Instructor quote: “I waste a lot
of time reinventing the wheel
for basic research skills for my
students.”
Important
 Instructors spoke of need to
make customization easy
Important
15
week/topic in course).
outside of CMS
organization
CI-2H:
Administrative abilities for
faculty to add selfselected resources,
delete, edit, reorganize
content on LCP page.
 Instructors want
flexibility in making the
page fit their needs.
 This functionality would
please instructors, but
adds little to the total
overall value of the
resource.
 Instructors would also
like to add web
resources and other
material they find to LCP
(so student don’t have to
consults multiple pages
on research resources)
 In-depth interviews:
 Instructor, Social Work: Would
like editing functionality so he
could add resources as he
finds them
 Instructor, Chemistry: Liked
the idea of professors having
editing rights to CourseLib
pages
 Web Course Design Group,
CCE: Would be useful if we
could update certain things
ourselves, such as the
semester identified at the top
of a CourseLib page
 Instructor, English and African
American Studies: Would like
to see the option of staff being
able to make changes,
additions, etc.
 Instructor, History of
Medicine: Liked the idea dragand-drop items to include if
faculty desired.
Important
CI-2I:
Customized search box
within the page (e.g.
OneSearch for
Anthropology, on
anthropology pages, etc).
 Allow for searching of
relevant resources with
a minimum of clicks,
bringing the library’s
resources directly to the
user.
 Most of the technology
already exists, making
this feature an easy,
high impact addition.
 Instructors do not have
time to search multiple
locations to try to find
such content
 Concern about possible
copyright implications
 One Search rationale
 Instructor, History of Science
and Technology: Would like a
streamlined way to specify
searches to specific libraries
or units.
 As one instructor said,
“students want resources
quickly and easily with a
minimum of clicks.”
 No system currently in place
at University
 Build partnerships and
relationships with other units
Important
CI-2J
Develop system
repository, in partnership
with other units on
campus, for instructors
and instructional
designers to easily locate
and add learning objects
both locally created and
created by others (e.g.
Creative Commons,
MERLOT)
Nice
16
Course Reserves/E-Reserves Recommendations
As indicated above, it is critical for library reserve materials to be integrated into the Library Course
Page system. Currently students access their library course reserves through two independent
systems: the Library Course Reserve catalog (MNCAT) and the Docutek electronic reserve system.
Current use statistics for these systems are as follows:
Print Reserves:
2007-2008
Internal Circulations: 25,328
Renewals: 1,313
Total Circulations: 26,641
E-Reserves:
Spring 2008
Total Courses (Wilson, BioMed): 240
Number of Documents: 2683
Number of Links: 1160
Course Page Hits (Jan-May): 44,032
Fall 2008
Total Courses (Wilson, Walter, Magrath,
BioMed, Vet-Med): 245
Number of Documents: 3273
Number of Links: 1226
Course Page Hits (Sept-Dec): 68,913
From: https://wiki.lib.umn.edu/CourseReserves/Reports
Recent changes that affect Course/E-reserves recommendations:
 University Libraries are many versions (10+) behind current Docutek electronic reserves system
 Sirsi Dynix bought Docutek (http://www.docutek.com/)
o Now offers integration with Blackboard (WebVista)
 Subgroup is working on how to proceed with Docutek and future E-reserves workflow
Unfortunately, we were limited in our ability to gather data for next steps of the E-reserves systems.
Thus, we created three generic scenarios envisioned for the handling of reserve materials, and these
are described below in formats that represent “good” (minimum), “better” (acceptable), and “best”
(ideal) means of integration.
Good
At bare minimum, it is important for students to be able to easily access course reserves from the LCP
system. A default link to existing electronic reserves and to the library course reserve catalog would
facilitate access. Even though links would take students to another page, the ease of access would be
an improvement over the current decentralized system.
Better
A better method for accessing the course reserves would be to have a module or widget within the LCP
that links to individual resources or readings. In this way, students would have relatively quick access to
their materials without having to leave the CMS page. Students would have instant access to check the
availability of their hardcopy reserves and download electronic reserve documents.
Best
The ideal scenario for handling course reserves includes the “better” option above with the added
functionality of giving faculty the capability to integrate specific readings into each week/topic to match
with course content.
17
Development and Implementation
Due to the exploratory nature of our group there are many specifics that were beyond the scope of our
group’s charge. Here is a high-level description of how the LCP system could be developed and
implemented.
Step 1: Creation of LCP System
Create LCP system based on LibData database. Include the following
information on the page (see Figure 5):
 Search box with tabs for MNCAT Plus: Books and Media, e-Journals
list, and Articles to OneSearch (based on discipline of course)
 Box for key resources pulled from RQS/Subjects or CourseLib page
 Box for liaison librarian (with photo and contact information)
 Box/Link to Course Reserves (if available for course)
 Box/Link to E-Reserves (if available for course)
 Box for MyAccount/Checked out items
 Box for Library News/Events/Workshops (centralized creation of
content (e.g. by Communications Office) to pull from)
 Box for Reference (chat, email, etc.)
 Integration of context-specific help such as future FAQ system
 Building on push technology such as RSS to help librarians push
content to LCP pages (blog, TOCs, search alerts, etc.)
 Box for selected e-learning modules
 Box for Course integration instruction and assessment
Figure 3. Development Timeline
Step 1:
LCP Development
Default Integration into
CMS
Step 2:
Further Flexibility
Step 3:
Faculty Editing Capability
Integration into CMS:
 Work with WebVista and Moodle administrative bodies to create a default link to the course
page that is posted in every course.
Ties to Existing Systems
Our recommendations are a departure from our current “hit and miss” system of supporting courses
using multiple systems. The Library Course Pages (LCP) system would bring together existing
disparate systems and provide resources systematically for all courses.
Figure 4. Ties to Existing Systems
Currently available
 CourseLib page only on
instructor request/librarian
initiative
 E-reserves and course reserves
in separate systems—not tied
to course page
 Reference help not included in
course
 Moodle includes default link to
Library homepage. WebVista
does not include link to library
homepage.
LCP system
 Page for every course
generated automatically
 Link to e-reserves and course
reserves system on page
 Reference help included within
course
 Default inclusion in CMSs.
Optional inclusion into other
educational technologies.
18
Step 2: Further Flexibility (Widgets)
Develop further flexibility in all aspects of LCP and allow users to include in a variety of educational
applications, such as wikis, blogs, stand alone course pages, etc. Widgets seem to make the most
sense in terms of a systematic method to accomplish this. From our readings of the NCSU Library tools
systems, it seems they widgetized the content into block. The goal of this flexibility would be to allow
the same content to be re-purposed and re-used in a variety of course-related settings.
Step 3: Faculty Editing Capability
Based on information gathered from instructor interviews and the survey, the idea of administrative
rights for faculty came up again and again. Faculty would like to be able to add, edit, and delete and
otherwise customize the content within their courses—the LCP being no exception. Overall, faculty felt
comfortable with the idea of librarians creating pages, but generally wanted the ability to add their own
favorites (e.g. web sites, etc.) that they use in teaching. This capability does seem to be resourceintensive to build and thus we are unsure of the cost/benefits. This feature is due for further
investigation to determine how important it is for instructors.
Figure 5. Library Course Page (LCP) Components: Schematic of components that could be included in LCPs.
19
Library Course Page (LCP) Mock-ups
Based on developments currently underway, our desired features, and examples from other institutions,
we have developed rough mock-ups of what an LCP may look like.
Stand-alone LCP (outside CMS for use with other course technologies)
Generic Page (no Course Lib)
Course specific page (with Course Lib)
Figure 6. Generic LCP (No Course Lib)
Figure 7. Course Specific Page (With CourseLib)
Within CMS (includes LCP and example of location of default link to the Library)
Location of Library Link
Location of Library Block
Implementation Plan
Phase 1:
LCP Development
Figure 8. Generic Course Page Integrated into
WebVista
Figure 9. Generic Course Page Integrated into Moodle
20
Appendix A. Unresolved Issues Beyond Charge
(a.k.a Notes to the Implementation Group)
What else should be done to prepare for the design and implementation of the LCP?
Customization
 Additional research needs to be conducted to determine the best LCP customization based on
high level course categories such as:
o
Discipline (e.g. Social Science, Science, Humanities, etc.)
o
Level (e.g. lower undergraduate, undergraduate within major, graduate student, etc.)
o
Writing intensive
o
Liberal Education requirements (Core, theme, etc.)
o
High enrollment courses
o
Student Learning Outcome integration
 Gateway, keystone and capstone courses
o
We recommend prioritizing gateway, keystone, and capstone courses to invest
additional resources in creating customized LCP pages.
 For example: including more extensive library resources, embedded librarians,
instructional modules, and other specialized tools.
Statistics
An important aspect will be to determine how statistics will be collected for the LCP system (e.g. using
Central Authentication Hub). To make this system user-friendly and effective, it will be vital to know
what users are using and to be able to tie usage to user groups (e.g. first year students, grad,
engineering students, etc.). We also recommend building from an analysis of data collected from the
MyLibrary Portal project. This data will help with continued development of the LCP system.
Collaboration with Units across Library System
Additional units, collaboratives, and liaison librarians need to be utilized to help design the features and
workflows the LCP will effect. A partial list includes:
 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 while 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 built 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.
21
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



Pros





Generic library presence in all courses
(through CMS)
Automated solution
Library resources become a de-facto
part of a class’s online presence
Standardizes materials in courses
Easy to maintain
Increases visibility of library resources
Capitalizes on technological solutions
currently available
Pro-active
Cons
 Generic pages may not fit expectations
of customization
 Challenging to get feedback on content
on pages
Individual-level integration


Pros




Customized content through personal,
one-to-one contacts to individual
courses
Usually related to in-class instruction
Library more-fully integrated into
course
Provide more human connection with
library and librarians
Librarians become partners in teaching
Easier to gain feedback on contents of
LCP
Cons
 Time and resource intensive; not
scalable
 Different levels of support in specific
courses
 Must be reviewed and maintained often
Liaison Development and Training
To make the LCP system successful, it needs to be more than just a page in the CMS. As listed above
in the “Customization” section, we recommend prioritizing gateway, keystone, and capstone courses for
investment of additional resources in creating customized LCP pages. To make this approach
successful, we recommend investigating the training needs to support such a system. This may be
supported by other groups, such as liaison or information literacy training. Librarians would work indepth with instructors to customize pages for strategically targeted classes. Additional resources such
as access to syllabi and assignments would be needed. Also, librarians would need training on CMSs,
on topics such as how they are organized, how students and faculty use them, and more.
22
Instructor Considerations
Instructors play a vital role in the academic success of students. Instructor buy-in is important to make
any system effective. Whatever system is created, it must respond to faculty needs such as time
savings, ease of use for themselves and students, and seamless integration into their CMSs and
course technology.
Since “providing information” is one of the primary uses of CMSs which helps to extend
information to students 24/7, there is a need to be able to include library resources both within an
individual unit/week, as well as in one centralized location in the course. One concern s that adding a
Library Course Page (LCP) will add yet another page to look at for information. It would be useful to
continue to explore providing editing abilities (Faculty Editing Capability) to the LCP to instructors, TAs,
librarians, etc. This would allow instructors to edit, add to and delete content from the LCP based on
their course content and needs.
Many instructors are unaware of the MyLibrary tab, and that there is currently customized
content based for undergraduates based on Affinity Strings. The way these ideas are introduced to
instructors will be important to make sure instructors encourage students to use the LCP, and integrate
it fully within their course. Additional research is needed to determine if the creation of an
Instructor/Faculty toolkit (designed to give faculty a one-stop shop to find resources to include in their
course) would help facilitate richer courses by providing a place for faculty to learn more of our
collections and services. We recommend either utilizing an existing group of faculty and staff (Library
Advisory Board?) or forming another group of instructors, faculty, TAs and IT Fellows or other
departments’ course designers to provide cross-disciplinary advice on their informational needs while
building courses and how the Libraries can best support this process.
CMS in the life of the user
Similar to the idea under instructor considerations, additional research needs to be conducted to
investigate how instructors and students are using the CMSs.
LibData Foundations
For this tool to be widely used by librarians, LibData (which would undergird the LCP) needs to be
revamped to be more user-friendly and provide more flexibility. The database of resources is excellent
for saving time and updating links. However, over time this system has become outdated in the current
Web 2.0 environment. We recommend a group be tasked with recommending and implementing
updates to this system to make it fit librarian workflow, and provide the customization (include images,
how-to guides, video integration, etc.) to support the LCP. The categories, naming conventions and
style guidelines should be addressed as well (e.g. default alphabetical order-users expect relevancy
ranked lists, etc.). Since this system as grown organically in the last years, a systematic examination
should be made to determine if the RQS, core, and other categories of resources adequately match the
output desired on LCP.
Course integration instruction and Assessment
The LCP system should work with in-class course integrated instruction and assessment efforts. These
could include the ability to insert recorded in-class sessions with librarians, customized handouts or
web guides, etc. The LCP should have the ability to be modified quickly and easily based on liaison
librarians’ and instructors’ needs. The ability to include assessment, including quizzes and surveys
(using the features of the CMS), are important for the long term accountability of our instructional
efforts.
MyLibrary
Further investigation is needed to determine how the LCP and MyLibrary would work together, overlap
or duplicate each other.
23
Appendix B. Current View of LibData, myU, and MyLibrary Usage
LibData
 Total CourseLib visits for 2007 (HTML visits): 50913
 Total PageScribe visits for 2007 (HTML visits): 541903
 Total RQS visits for 2007 (HTML activity): 358589
 Number of Subjects/RQS pages: 255
 Number of items in CourseLib database: 15,197
 Number of “published” CourseLib/PageScribe pages: 1160
o Last modified in 2003: 11
o Last modified in 2004: 66
o Last modified in 2005: 107
o Last modified in 2006: 177
o Last modified in 2007: 197
o Last modified in 2008: 295
o Last modified in 2009: 81
o Total last modified between 2007-present: 573
MyU*
 140,000 registered users (13,619 Academic Health Center)
o 47,000 (2,971 AHC) unique logins monthly
o 34,000 unique logins weekly
o 9600 unique logins daily
*Unsure of date of statistics. From
https://wiki.lib.umn.edu/wupl/IT.DigitalLibraryDevelopmentLab/mylibrary.ppt
MyLibrary
MyLibrary statistics (unavailable at this time) may be useful to help inform how we think of course
integration.
24
Appendix C: Landscape of Educational Technology Use on the University
of Minnesota Campus
In order to get a better picture of the current state of course technology on the University of
Minnesota—Twin Cities campus, the group conducted an informal scan of the use, types, and
prevalence of different technology currently being used on campus. We ultimately focused our search
to users of Moodle, WebCT Vista, and UThink. Contacting Moodle Support directly by email, we
received a link to a statistics webpage that they have put together (http://www1.umn.edu/moodle/about/
statistics.html). According to this site, Moodle usage is on the rise. In Fall 2007 there were 189 Moodle
pages. By the fall of 2008, that number had more than doubled, with 384 pages. We also directly
contacted WebCT Vista administration, who reported 2,590 individual WebVista sites in Fall 2008
(Blaine, personal correspondence).
To get an idea of the use of UThink on campus, we conducted a scan of what UThink designates as
“active blogs” – blogs that have been active within the last three months (dates scanned January 6-7,
2009). When possible, these blogs were accessed (some blogs are password protected) and evaluated
to see if they were blogs tied to a course or courses and created by an instructor (as opposed to
student-created blogs created as an assignment). Using this rather informal methodology, 87 blogs
were identified as being course-related.
Internet-Delivered Courses at the University of Minnesota
Figure 11. Internet-delivered or partially Internet-delivered (Spring 2009)
Course
NURS - Nursing
PUBH - Public Health
OT - Occupational Therapy
CI - Curriculum and Instruction
BBE - Bioproducts and Biosystems
Engineering
ABUS - Applied Business
CMGT - Construction Management
EDPA - Educational Policy and
Administration
PHAR - Pharmacy
WRIT - Writing Studies
MT - Manufacturing Technology
ADED - Adult Education
COLA - Collaborative Arts
Interdisciplinary Program
HRD - Human Resource
Development
HSM - Health Systems Management
BIOC - Biochemistry
INET - Information Networking
LGTT - Language, Teaching, and
Technology
PSY - Psychology
Number of
courses
offered
34
34
26
18
15
14
13
11
11
10
7
6
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
25
CLS - Clinical Laboratory Science
FSCN - Food Science and Nutrition
FSOS - Family Social Science
HORT - Horticultural Science
IS - Innovation Studies
JOUR - Journalism and Mass
Communication
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of WebVista Courses by College or School
Figure 12. WebVista Courses chart
Fall 2005 (most recent available)
College or School
CFANS
COD
College of
Biological Science
College of
Continuing
Education
College of
Education and
Human
Development
CLA
CSOM
College of Public
Affairs
IT
Health Science
Number
of
WebVista
courses
96
13
32
41
Figure 13. WebVista Courses pie graph
CFANS
COD
College of Biological
Science
College of Continuing
Education
College of Education and
Human Development
367
444
81
21
147
242
CLA
CSOM
College of Public Affairs
IT
Health Science
26
Appendix D. Needs Analysis
Using data from in-depth interviews, faculty and instructor surveys, and literature reviews, we analyzed
needs of instructors, students and the University Libraries.
Instructors:
Needs
Challenges
Issues
Build richer/better
courses
Want to include media
(video, images) in course
Save time
Little time for building
Easy to include
Develop CMS content
quickly (week or two)
Seamless for students
Don’t want to link out to
another system to navigate
Hard to find
Lack of awareness of resources
and services
Doesn’t work well in course
Hard to find
Lack of awareness
Don’t have time to spend
hunting
Instructors deal with students
who have trouble with access
Instructors deal with students
who have trouble with access
Students don’t know how to
use library resources
Instructors don’t have time to
teach in their own courses
Important
Unsure strategies to help
students avoid plagiarism
No time to teach within their
course
Nice
Challenges
Issues
Not good a selecting
subject guides or finding
CourseLib pages
Often no existing resources that
match their research needs
Severity/
Importance
Critical
Currently only link to
Library homepage
Currently in Course
Reserves catalog and ereserves and in course
Don’t know how to find high
quality research
Hard to navigate Library
homepage
Spend time hunting for reading
versus reading
Critical
Use Google and Wikipedia due
to familiarity
Important
University Libraries:
Needs
Challenges
Issues
Ratio of librarians
to courses is low
Few ways to standardize
across all disciplines
Severity/
Importance
Critical
Technology must
be easy to use
Must be
embedded within
the course
Support for
teaching “how to”
use library
resources
Support on
plagiarism
Students:
Needs
Want connection
between course
content and
research tools
Want everything
within CMS
Course Readings
all in one place
within CMS
Want to succeed
academically
-Very large, distributed
University
-Impossible to make
Severity/
Importance
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Important
27
Shift to electronic
access
To reuse and repurpose
collections and
services
Branding and
marketing
Need to provide
evidence of use of
library spending
personal connections with
all instructors
-Library no longer only
place to find information
-Vendors and access to
resources in all different
ways
Different technologies used
in course delivery
-Often still thought of as
physical places
-Organization and
authentication problems
Important
Best delivery method may be
different based on discipline or
course
Important
Lack of awareness that
library provides materials
-Resources not being used
-Often still thought of as
physical places
Important
Not part of revenue
generating unit
Few ways to tie use back to
learning outcomes/academic
success
Nice
28
Appendix E. Media Integration
One theme that arose throughout many of our in-depth interviews with faculty and instructors was their
need for easier access to media that they could integrate into their courses. Faculty indicated that they
were interested in providing image sharing capability (similar to Flickr), integration of currently available
image databases (e.g. ArtStor), podcast recording and sharing, and general integration of “hidden”
visual resources (e.g. media that isn’t used much now because instructors aren’t aware of its
existence). Also faculty would like to include media content such as streaming media and video clips
into their CMSs. These materials, such as FMG on Demand-Film Media Group (to which the library
buys access), are not in MNCAT; therefore they are difficult for instructors to find. Further investigation
is needed to determine to what level the Library Media Collection can facilitate this desire of faculty.
Jason Roy is currently working on the alpha version of the Libraries’ Media Repository, a database of
the Libraries’ images and rich media. The repository will be dynamic (University-affiliated users will be
able to upload their own products) and socially interactive, containing tagging and sharing features.
Including the Media Repository in any LCP product should be a fairly easy step, and it would allow
instructors to create their own “collections” of media that they could push out to their students through
the LCP. It would also easily allow student interaction with media resources.
29
Appendix F. Course Integration Best Practices at Other Institutions
Methodology: The Course Integration Subgroup employed a variety of techniques to determine
practices at other institutions, including querying listservs, conducting literature reviews, and consulting
with colleagues on and off campus.
North Carolina State University:
More information: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/dli/projects/courseviews/
From http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/recommended/about/faculty.html:




Library Tools web pages are sets of library recommendations built around courses and
curricula. There's a Library Tools page for every course at NC State!
Library Tools pages include:
o E-Reserves for your course
o Article databases
o Librarian Recommendations
o IM a Librarian for help
o Citation Tools, including the Citation Builder
o and more...
Library tools pages can be customized. If you'd like to tailor a Library Tools page to a specific
assignment or other course needs, contact Librarian for Digital Technologies and Learning.
You can incorporate Library Tools into your online course environment in several ways:
o Library Tools in BlackBoard Vista - just check the box to include library resource
and/or e-reserves for your course when signing up for a Vista section. This is what it
looks like.:
30
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Library Tools in Moodle - a Library Tools "block" is available for Moodle course sites.
Course Websites - you can insert a link to the Library Tools page for your course right
into your course website.”
31
Ohio State University




Just published an article on their early efforts:
Black, E. L. (2008). Toolkit approach to integrating library resources into the learning
management system. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(6), 496-501. (see more quotes
below in Lit Review)
Below is a screen shot of an example from winter 2008, when they delivered pages similar to
this one in about 10,000 courses that were created by 15 subject librarians.
Soon they will be allowing more choices for box headings, though still limiting them for
consistency of user experience. Those librarians who do not want their picture on the page can
use a male or female avatar. In the long run they plan to integrate the content creation tool,
which was created locally by one of their web programmers, into their web content management
system.
32
University of Northern Texas:


Persistent URLs + Stem (to put through proxy) to library resources
-problems with dead links
-inconsistent proxy server also causes issues
VPN (Virtual Private Network)
-Some firewalls do not allow the security exceptions that are required.
-VPN is a “resource hog” and can be quite slow on older machines
Stanford University



Linking e-books and e-articles into courses using DOI or other URLs
Link Research Guides developed for the courses
Role of the librarian is limited because of access restrictions of the systems
University of Wisconsin-Madison


Enhancements to their current Library Course Page to allow for more granularity and
modularization of content…individual components can be accessed and used flexibly by faculty
Automatic links to Library Course Pages in Learn@UW (D2L) and working towards
incorporation in Moodle as well.
33
34
University of Toledo


Internal library page on process: http://instructionalcontent.pbwiki.com/
A link to their portal: http://www.utoledo.edu/library/eng/portal.html
Temple University



“Course sites are ready made for links to library content. Academic librarians are making it
easier than ever for faculty to integrate an array of research tools into course management
software or even a faculty member’s personal website. At the Temple University Libraries the
librarians create customized content packages that contain just the right databases that
students need for their assignments. They can even add in custom Google search boxes and
non-library links that may be of use to instructors and their students. If faculty desire links to
specific articles, those can be added as well. The content package is sent to faculty as an e-mail
attachment. Faculty then simply upload it to their course site. The content installs itself as a
unique courseware page and even adds a library link to the course menu. It eliminates any
faculty excuses for not integrating the library into their course.” From
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/02/17/bell
Integrating the Library into your Blackboard courses:
http://library.temple.edu/services/faculty/support/?bhcp=1
o Offer a service called Library Express
(http://library.temple.edu/services/faculty/support/library-express.jsp?bhcp=1) with
different levels of pages for specific courses—must contact a librarian to have course
page created
Blackboard Sampler which demos a few different types of pages:
https://blackboard.temple.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fb
lackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_35257_1%26url%3d
35
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill






They use Blackboard as their CMS.
Librarians create course guides upon faculty request/collaboration. They are straight HTML
type pages that conform to a style and template. A list of the current pages is at
http://www.lib.unc.edu/coursepages/.
These pages are then linked to the course in Blackboard, so when a student clicks on the library
resource button, they get this page UNC library systems and IT worked out this technology and
might be willing to share.
They are working to integrate e-reserves into Blackboard with Docutek’s Blackboard module
Individual librarians have also been embedded into some online classes.
Have the idea of creating online library instruction sessions but have not worked anything out
yet.
36
University of Texas at Austin



The Blackboard support group agreed to put a “Start Your Research” link on every course page
leading user to a lot of how-to and help content, as well as some search tools (catalog, etc.)
Web services librarian figured out how to get discipline-specific content into Start Your
Research link. The guide and subject librarian contact information that shows up is based on
the course prefix (ENG, HIS, etc.)
Hoping to further develop it so that if a librarian is working with a specific course and has
created materials for that course, those materials will show up in addition to the subject guide.
University of North Carolina-Greensboro

Has a two-tiered approach based on some specialized programming. They have libraries
choose resources for courses with links pulled from a database and placed on pages created
with a wireframe website, and they have a major-specific library tab in each student’s
Blackboard account.
37
UC Berkeley Interactive University Project: Scholar’s Box (2004)
http://interactiveu.berkeley.edu:8000/IU/SB and http://okapi.wordpress.com/projects/fipse-thescholars-box/



“Digital library and museum collections are inaccessible to the authoring tools and learning
management systems being used to develop online educational services and course materials;
these digital materials exist within different standards regimes and are managed and delivered
with incompatible protocols.”
“The Scholar's Box software helps to address important interoperability issues at the
intersection of four information technology domains: (1) digital libraries and repositories; (2)
educational technologies and learning management systems; (3) web syndication and portal
technologies; and (4) desktop applications and structured content authoring tools.”
38
Additional Examples:







Tab or Library Course page
o Rochester Institute of Technology (http://library.rit.edu/desire2learn/)
o UT Austin
o North Carolina State University (http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/course/EAC/580)
E-Reserves
o NotreDame uses WebCT for e-reserves (Black 497)
o Ryerson uses Blackboard for e-reserves (Black 497)
o Northwestern uses Blackboard for e-reserves (Black 497)
o Ohio State U uses D2L for e-reserves (Black 497)
o Philadephia University trains faculty to post their own reserves using links from the
databases or through Docutek (Bell, Shank 3)
o LinkMaker was designed to work with Blackboard (building block) to create links to
readings in library databases (http://www.bb-opensource.org/download/linkmaker.html)
Information Literacy Instruction
o St. Mary’s offers IL course in Blackboard available to all students (Black)
o New York University includes instructional materials organized by goal (Black)
o Penn State College of Medicine included tutorials in ANGEL CMS (Gibbons 25)
o Oakland University created WebCT module on using library (Gibbons 25)
Authentication
o EZproxy/Blackboard Build Block developed by OCLC
Reference
o University of Illinois, Chicago uses Questionpoint and created a form to allow users to
access email/chat reference from within Blackboard (Gibbons 25)
RefWorks
o Northwestern University created feature to access RefWorks from within Blackbooard.
Instructors can set up links to RefWorks databases from within courses (Gibbons 25)
Librarians given access to CMS
o Babson College gained access through certain departments to review syllabi and course
assignments (Gibbons 25)
39
Appendix G. Stakeholder and Instructor Interviews
We targeted a diverse sample of twenty-one faculty members, instructional designers, staff instructors
and library staff to sit down for one-on-one interviews to discuss the specific needs and desires of those
who work with CMSs and other educational technologies. We kept the format of these interviews broad
and informal to allow for flexibility in the discussion, but were
Departments & Units consulted:
careful to cover some specific areas of interest.
 History of Science and Technology
In analyzing the data gathered from these interviews some
 History of Medicine
trends became readily apparent. Generally, instructors want a
 Public Health
library resource that is course-specific, but also covers
 Academic Health Center Learning
general informational literacy instruction on how to search,
Commons
access and evaluate materials. They want a central resource
 Occupational Therapy
that incorporates various technologies already in use,
 Physical Therapy
something simple for students to access and simple to
 Nursing
administer by faculty or staff. Some more specific trends that
 Economics
arose in our interviews include:
 Human Resources and Industrial
Relation Department
Media Integration (see Appendix E)
We noticed a desire to use a greater variety of media by
 Instructional Designer CSOM
instructors in their classes. A theme that occurred throughout
 Hubert H. Humphrey Institute
the interviews was a desire for more access to different kinds
 African American Studies
of media as well as more support in its use. Many instructors
 Distributed Education & Instructional
brought up the desire to incorporate more audio and video
Technology
into their course’s online presence and wanted a library
 Digital Media Center
resource that could stream video and audio as well as make
 Animal Science
editing existing media easier. The incorporation of media
 Continuing Education
makes the online presence more dynamic.
 Educational Policy and Administration
 Spanish and Portuguese
Instructor administration of Library Course Page
Instructors had mixed feelings towards the ability to edit their
 Chemistry
own library course page. Although a significant portion of
 Post Secondary Teaching and Learning
instructors still rely on support services through OIT and the
 Social Work
library to help them set up websites, reserves and other
 CLA Instructional Technology
technology for their students, many instructors we talked to
 University Libraries: DLDL
were inclined to want some administrative access over their
 University Libraries: Digital Collections
course pages. Supporting staff and instructors to set up
resources initially is important, but providing the option to
make changes and additions to their content once the course is underway is an added functionality that
would be welcomed by some faculty. Also, some instructors expressed a desire for the flexibility to
easily move specific library resources out of the course page and into other contexts (such as a general
“recommended links” page for their students).
Instructional materials
Instructors believed that along with the incorporation of library resources into their courses, they’d also
like to see accompanying online research instruction that students could use at their point of need.
Instructors felt that students need more assistance with using the library-supported tools and learning
library and research skills, and welcome instructional resources that teach critical thinking and problemsolving related to library tools.
40
Centralization of resources
The idea of visibility was prevalent among faculty concerns about students and technology. Some
instructors feel that being able to find information “immediately,” with a minimum of clicks and
authentication requirements, is critical to whether students will even bother to use a given technology.
A general feeling is that library resources are often confusing and difficult to find, and having coursespecific resources integrated directly into the user workflow (course page) would be extremely helpful.
Discovery of new resources and services
In general, instructors feel like there are many useful library tools or services that they do not know
about. They expressed a desire for an easy mechanism, integrated into their workflow, to heighten
awareness of potentially helpful resources. Many instructors recognize that librarians have deep
expertise in this area, and welcome their assistance, though they often forget about what the library can
offer.
Summary
Overall, instructors are eager for something that will help to seamlessly integrate disparate pieces of
their course materials into one easily-accessible place, so long as it is tailored to the specific needs of
their course. They want something that is easy to implement, maintain and use.
41
Appendix H. Review of Literature
Our literature review provided evidence supporting the importance of integrating library
resources into the online technologies used for courses. Gulbahar and Yildirim note the importance of
having “a wide range of pre- and post activities (additional resources, additional materials, self
assessment utilities etc.) apart from content” available to students using online learning technologies in
the findings of their “Assessment of Web-Based Courses” (377.) Although not explicitly stated, the
additional resources could be a place for the library to strategically integrate its offerings into online
course technology. Christopher Cox posits in “Becoming Part of the Course” that University-sponsored
online course technologies are a strategic location for libraries to integrate their resources:
“…Blackboard and similar courseware packages offer librarians an opportunity to participate more fully
in the coursework of our university’s students.” (39). The primacy of connecting library resources to
online course technology gets explicitly championed in “Blackboard on a Shoestring: Tying Courses to
Sources,” by Dan H. Lawrence. Lawrence (citing Gibbons) writes: “If the library can push relevant
content into this domain, the resources gain importance to the students simply by their presence within
the course .” (247). Not only does Lawrence view the integration of library materials as beneficial to
student learning, he also believes that successful integration will be vital for the future of libraries:
“Libraries must also insert themselves into the CMS to preserve and/or reinvent their symbolic place in
the institution.” (248)
Lawrence strongly advocates for a top-down approach to the integration of library resources into
online course technology: “Rather than establishing a desired level of deep course integration with only
one or two courses, it can be argued that a generic, global link to the library will better serve all
students by increasing the ease of access to library resources.” (246). Citing the work of Shank &
Dewald, he writes that “macro-level approaches make the provision of library services a scalable
endeavor while working to increase the ease of access for students and faculty.”(257) A top-down
generic approach also has pedagogical benefits, as noted by Gulbahar and Yildirim. They advocate
“[k]eep[ing] the design of web pages simple and consistent” from an instructional design standpoint
(377). The presence of a single location of a library resources link in an instructional technology’s
layout included as a default by the software administrators (instead of added anywhere, if at all, by
instructors) would be the ideal.
This top-down approach was also supported in the research of Lau and Woods. Their study
illustrates the time intensiveness of a micro-level, bottom up approach of course integration. They
found that the acceptance of objects is a slow and gradual process: “Potential adopters must first learn
about the innovation and be persuaded to try it out before deciding to adopt or reject it.” (695) This
description of the process of adoption makes a micro-level, one-on-one, librarian-to-individual-instructor
approach almost untenable. A top-down approach would expedite the process, making the library
resources a de-facto portion of a class’s online presence. Lau and Woods also found that once users
42
are made aware of learning objects two key factors to consider to ensure adoption and future use are
ease of use and perceived usefulness (693). The authors state in their conclusion, “Therefore,
educators and instructional designers must consider not only the ease of use of learning objects, but
also their usefulness, in order to promote and encourage end-user acceptance of learning objects.”
(696) The library must tailor its presence to fit both of these criteria in order to be effective after gaining
entry to the course technology interface.
The idea that libraries must be the actors in course integration, instead of passive responders to
instructors’ requests, also gets reiterated in “Course Management Software: Where is the Library?”, an
editorial from Online Libraries & Microcomputers. Here the author notes, “Librarians will need to
become more proactive in working with faculty and software developers to leverage what has already
been done.” Instead of waiting for instructors to come to the library, we need to bring the library and its
services to them.
“If Higher Education Listened to Me…” an article co-written by four students taking
undergraduate courses, shows the importance of an Internet presence to all aspects of university life
for students spanning the age spectrum. Bill Phillips writes, “The four of us agree—across the
generations—on the importance of providing a minimum Web presence for all courses by posting
handouts, syllabi, and class schedules online.” (18). His co-author Jessica Vargas makes a case for
tying library materials into this online presence: “I’m a history major, and I’m trying to do research. I’d
prefer to have the resources made available to me at any time.” (26). Phillips makes a case that library
instructional support is especially needed: “When I go into the library to do research, either face-to-face
or online, the library is just darn hard for me to use.” (26). Students want online access to resources, to
utilize at their point of need, and library instruction is still required and desired. As Lawrence also
notes, “It is widely accepted that online access and exposure to information technology from an early
age has created expectations for ease of access and use.” (245-6).
Additional Information from Literature
1. Gladstone, R., Kenausis, V. (2006). Creating an Electronic Toolkit: From Discovery to
Delivery. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve. 16 (4) 73-83.
 “Each product we introduced can be considered a success on its own; but taken together, they
create a complete Electronic Toolkit, empowering both library faculty and faculty with the ability
to expand our collective reach to relevant materials and make them available to our users.”
2. Lawrence, D. (2006). Blackboard on a Shoestring: Tying Courses to Sources. Journal of
Library Administration. 45 (1/2) 245-265.
 “One way to help ensure students and faculty will use library resources is to provide just-in-time
access to information within the context of their academic work, that is, from their classes.”
(246)
 “That is to say, librarians must be responsible for creating a mental picture of the library for
students that is central and relevant to their academic experiences.” (248)
 “In fact, the time and effort required to establish relationships with individual faculty, and then
the work involved in maintaining support for individual classes, is the primary drawback to
micro-level approaches to CMS integration (Gibbons, 2005b, Shank & Dewald, 2003).” (256)
 “This paper advocates the use of a generic, global, macro-level insertion into Blackboard as a
first step toward full integration—before turning attention to more staff intensive projects.” (256)
 “Macro-level approaches make the provision of library services a scalable endeavor while
working to increase the ease of access for students and faculty (Shank & Dewald, 2003). (257)
3. 21st Century instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 2007 (2007). Digital
Media Center (DMC), Office of Information Technology.
 258 faculty surveyed
43





“Faculty members appear to see educational technology primarily as a means for the efficient
delivery of information” (5)
Lack of time is big concern for faculty (inhibits use of technology—too much time to learn)—
must respect faculty members time (5)
Faculty are concerned about lack of standardization with educational technologies (6)
Faculty have desire to increase student’s access to course materials , want to make teaching
more efficient, and want to use multimedia course materials —3 out of top 4 reasons faculty
members are attracted to use ed tech in teaching (12)
71.5% have taught at least one course supplemented by online technology during the past two
years (15)
4. Net Generation of students at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities: Student educational
technology survey 2007(2007). Digital Media Center (DMC), Office of Information Technology.
 1378 students sampled (half grad students)
 “I hate it when an instructor uses their own course website instead of WebCT. It’s much easier
to just go to one place to check into all of your classes” (1)
 Strongly positive attitudes toward educational technology (5)
 88.3% reported taking at least one course supplemented by online ed tech in the past two years
(5)
 84.6% accessed online course materials at least two or three times a week (58.8% access
online course materials at least daily)
 92.9% experienced using WebCT
 “Students appear to view educational technology primarily as a means of delivering information
efficiently and in new, more convenient ways.” (5)
 Still like to print—and it is often a frustration (6)
 2.7% of students on dialup (7)
 78% own laptops (12)
 Students want ed tech that helps them complete academic work (12)
 Third most popular answer to “rate each of the following statements about the role of
educational technology has played in your learning experiences” was “Online library resources
and services have helped me succeed in my coursework” (13)
 Preference for taking courses with moderate to large amount of technology (77.5%) (14)
5. Black, E. L. (2008). Toolkit approach to integrating library resources into the learning
management system. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(6), 496-501.
 Based on Ohio State University—large, decentralized institution (60,000+ students)—uses
Desire2Learn
 “In order to encourage better integration of library resources…pursuing multiple strategies of
integration at the same time” (498)
 Toolkit approach includes using both Micro level and Macro level
o Ereserves—use of Learning Object Repository (LOR) in the learning management
system as the storage place for the e-Reserve files themselves (498)
o Seamless Authentication to paid resources from links within the learning management
system (uses Shibboleth for both CMS and EZproxy)
o Librarians are tool in toolkit (working on the individual course level)—they created
“librarian” as an option in their roles (e.g. instructor, student, librarians) of who
participates in course—same access as instructor but no grade book access
o Librarians create Library Resource Pages
44



Pilot 9 librarians created 345 courses—one for instructors; one for students—the instructors
didn’t find the pages useful (they used other means to do their research) but were excited for
student pages—41% of the instructors who completed the survey reported that they would like a
customized library resource page for their courses.
o Students were more likely to click on “Library” link in course
Experimented with creating pages for instructors (so they could do research) but found they
didn’t use them—had other ways to do their research.
“The learning management system is heavily used on college campuses and rapidly becoming
an essential extension of the physical classroom. It is important that libraries and librarians are
present in this learning management system.” (500)
(Image from p.499)
6. Gibbons, S. (2005). Integration of libraries and course-management systems. Library
Technology Reports, 41(3).
 Great resource—basically a short book on this topic. Chapters include:
o Defining the challenge
o Course Management Systems
o Integration of Libraries and Course Management Systems
o Who should Care and Why
o Strategies for the Library: CMS Integration Barriers
o Library Course Pages
o Going Forward
o Works Cited
 “The silos of information with a physical and virtual library remain just as separate when
transported into a CMS. In fact, adding a courseware system to the equation make the solution
just that more complicated.” (13)
 Faculty have a …“desire for students to have unfettered access to high-quality information
sources for their research. This should in turn lead to better student scholarship.” (21)
 “The Library and CMS integration is a time saver for faculty. A library resources guide tailored
specifically to the curriculum of the course within the CMS will have a significant impact on the
number of students who come to the faculty member with base-level library research question”
45


“Relevant library sources in the CMS can decrease the complexity of the library research
process, and therefore lessen the anxiety” (22)
“The presentation of library resources in the CMS is a time saver for students” (22)
7. Collard, S., & Tempelman-Kluit, N. (2006). The other way in: Goal-based library content
through CMS. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 11(4), 55-68.
 “Designing the Library/CMS interface using a goal-based approach speaks to users’ mental
models by directly aligning resources and services with the completion of tasks. Further, it
creates the opportunity for useful and meaningful library resources to be excavated from the
link-heavy library homepage model where relevant research resources are often hidden several
tiers below the homepage.”(55)
 “Our web sites have become so focused on comprehensiveness that many find it extremely
difficult even to locate the resources that might be key to their research.” (56)
 “Librarians tend to see research as the goal in and of itself, and to arrange library resources
accordingly. Users, in contrast, tend to see library research as a necessary task within the larger
goal of completing a paper or another assignment.” (56)
 “By adding library links within the course environment, we were more able to present library
research as a necessary skill needed for students in order to attain the larger goal of
successfully completing the class.’ (57)
 “Feedback from faculty members indicated that the inclusion of these resources by default in
their sites was a time- and effort-saving enhancement, and that they were pleased to have an
easy way to refer their students to appropriate resources for their research purposes.” (66)
 Used a goal based model of ranking and describing resources
8. Costello, B., Lenholt, R., & Stryker, J. (2004). Using Blackboard in library instruction:
Addressing the learning styles of Generations X and Y. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 30(6), 452-460.
 Generation X and Y preferences (as cited in Lee)
o Present material in short, focused segments
o Design materials that are concise and engaging
o Capitalize on students enthusiasm for technology
o Provide opportunities for personal contact
 Quoting Cannon: “Librarians must spend less time in building and controlling collections and
more time in distilling information into near, ready-to use packages” (452)
 “As consumers of information students expect to find what they need quickly and effortlessly”
(452)
 Using Micro level in CMS to provide instruction (MiLLCI) (453)
 “By limiting the number of databases and web sites…the library instructors provided a concise
handout in an easy to use format that catered to the [sic] some of the learning preferences of
the Net Generation…” (457)
 Seeing the library in their course helps students see that the library is still part of their academic
needs (457)
 Goal: “to reduce the amount of time students spend on ineffective research methods by helping
them quickly and easily link to online resources such as course-specific databases and
websites. Less time spent on fruitless searching should hopefully translate to more time
available to students to develop the critical thinking and analysis skills, which are a guarantee of
successful life-long learning” (458)
9. DaCosta, J. W., & Jones, B. (2007). Developing students' information and research skills via
Blackboard. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(1), 16-25.
46




Very successful pilot offering instruction in Blackboard (one class traditional, one class online)
Students liked 24/7 access
Reduced grading time by librarians
Once the content was created it was easy to transfer to other departments
10. Jackson, P. A. (2007). Integrating information literacy into Blackboard: Building campus
partnerships for successful student learning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4),
454-461.
 “Learning management systems make it increasingly possible for faculty and librarians to
collaborate on information literacy instruction and outreach to students” (454)
 “…LMS software vendors have not regularly treated information literacy or library resources as
a priority for successful student learning” (455)
 “Collaboration with the campus LMS administrator and with individual faculty members is
essential to the successful incorporation of information literacy into online course.” (455)
11. Karplus, S. S. (2006). Integrating academic library resources and learning management
systems: The library Blackboard site. Education Libraries, 29(1), 5-11.
 “Agreements have been made between electronic database vendors and Blackboard. For
example, ENCompass provides an interface on Blackboard that allows student to search three
different Lexis-Nexis databases.”
 “A library Blackboard site provides tutorials, information and links in a pedagogically viable
format that can be accessed by the entire campus community anytime, anywhere.”
 “The site can be the focal point for many librarians in one location thus ensuring a consistent,
collaborative instructional program.”
12. The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008
 “Technology basics for course work-college and university websites, course management







systems (CMSs), presentation software and spreadsheets—are very widely used.” (46)
93.4% of students use the college/university library website weekly (47)
“Respondents have confidence in their skills with presentation software, spreadsheets, CMSs,
and college and university library websites, generally rating themselves between “fairly skilled”
and “very skilled” (50).
“For using the institution’s library website, 54.9% of seniors rate themselves as “very skilled” or
“expert”, compared with 37% of freshman” (51).
67.7% of students used the college or university library website in the previous
quarter/semester. “Surprisingly the range of use reported by different majors is relatively small.
All majors other than engineering show between 67% and 77% of respondents using the library
website during the quarter/semester of the survey” (60)
82.3% of students had taken a class using a CMS (67).
“Most respondents say their overall CMS experience is either positive (57.8%) or very positive
(11.7%).” (67)
Positive comments “focusing on the convenience of tracking grades and getting posted
assignments and readings” (68)
Information Literacy
 “79.5% give glowing reports of their ability to search the Internet effectively and efficiently.
Almost half (46.4%) rate themselves “very skilled” and another third (33.1%) rate themselves as
“experts” (52).
47




“Although their confidence in their ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of online
information and their understanding of related ethical and legal issues are lower, overall ratings
are still high (52).
“Many educators believe that students’ perceptions about their net savviness are questionable.”
(52)
“It is a do-it-yourself approach to information literacy; students rely on peers (and may
perpetuate misinformation from peers) rather than on library staff or faculty” (52)
“students may have excessive confidence because they are unaware of the complexities
involved or just because they have grown up with technology” (52)
13. Shank, J., & Bell, S. (2006). A_FLIP to courseware: A strategic alliance for improving student
learning outcomes. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(4) Retrieved from
http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=46&action=synopsis.
 “…failing to achieve this coordination makes ineffective use of important and costly institutional
assets: the library and its extensive electronic collections as well as librarians and their
knowledge of the library’s collection and resources.”
 “courseware can be a valuable tool that helps librarians forge collaborative linkages with
instructors and allows instructors to connect their courses to the valuable resources available in
the library.”
 “…librarians should have an ongoing role in the administration of the campus courseware
system. The library director or other senior library administrator, for example, should serve on
the institution’s courseware committee.”
 Importance of RSS as push technology into courseware including library events, search results,
journal feeds, etc.
 “we believe that as librarians become more integrated into courseware at the courses level,
efficiencies in collaborating with faculty through the courseware environment can be achieved”
 “Faculty members will save valuable class time and also have increased ease in communicating
with the librarian”
 “Librarians will gain increased access to students and instructors , which will lead to enhanced
integration in the teaching and learning process”
14. Bell, S., & Shank, J. (2004). Linking the library to courseware: A strategic alliance to improve
learning outcomes. Library Issues, 25(2), 1.
 “Failure to include the library in the courseware equation deprives faculty and students of a
convenient access path to valuable library content and services (1).”
 “From a student and learning-centered perspective on education, making the library visible in
courseware is essential to achieving student learning outcomes (2).”
15. OCLC E-Learning Task Force. (2003). Libraries and the enhancement of E-learning.
Taskforce Powerpoint http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/ccald/elearning.ppt.
 “Currently, vendors market course management systems to academic information technology
units or to individual faculty departments. Typically, libraries are left our of the decision-making
and implementation processes. This means that libraries have the challenge of deploying their
services in a new learning environment using a technology outside of their control.”
 “The Task Force agreed unequivocally that the faculty, the library, and the IT and instructional
design departments need to collaborate in developing sustainable and seamless infrastructure.
… very few institutions have systemically attained such a coherent strategic approach,
principally because there is no common shared language on which to build strategic initiatives.”
48
Libraries and the Enhancement of E-learning: OCLC E-learning Taskforce 2003. Retrieved
from: http://www5.oclc.org/downloads/community/elearning.pdf.
 CMS: ”…have moved swiftly from scattered implementations that support a few online classes
to enterprise-wide services that support and extend the entire curricula and related institutional
services.” (4)
 CMS: ”…are becoming a tangible place where the work of teaching and learning can occur” (5)
 “Currently, vendors market CMS to academic information technology units….Typically libraries
are left out of the decision-making and implementation processes. This means that libraries
have the challenge of deploying their services in a new learning environment using a technology
outside of their control” (5)
 Integration of Library and Learning Management Systems Environments (or CMS)
o Technical and Functional Requirements: (partial list)
 Aggregate access (discovery and exchange) to content in any given learning
context
 Provide bibliographic tools that permit easy searching and reference
completions.
 Access to tools that render and present content in user-customized formats
o Technical and Cultural Requirements: (partial list)
 Embed library resources in course management systems
 Provide easy access to virtual reference services at the point of need
 Embed training modules to assist in information seeking.
 Included another section on the role of the library as a repository of learning objects.
16. Hanson, C., Nackerud, S. and Jensen, K. (2008). Affinity strings: Enterprise data for resource
recommendations. The Code4Lib Journal, (5) Retrieved from
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/501




“…the myLibrary team envisioned a layout that comprised a number of smaller cells or widgets,
some of which would be universal to all users and other of which would be customized to
particular affinity string groups.”
“The myLibrary team determined that the simplest and most sustainable method for providing
relevant information in the myPortal would be to match a user’s affinity string to one of our
approximately 250 existing subject guides.”
Affinity strings were not useful to recommend resources to undergraduate as they take classes
from many departments both before and after picking a major.
“MyLibrary now offers recommendations based on each course in which an undergraduate is
currently enrolled, showing on a semester-by-semester basis the resources which are most
likely to be useful.”
17. Flecker, D. and N. McLean. (2004). Digital library content and course management systems:
Issues of interoperability. Washington D.C.: Digital Library Federation. Retrieved from:
http://www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf100/.


“The size, heterogeneity, and complexity of the current information landscape create enormous
challenges for the interoperation of information repositories and systems that support course
integration.”
“The universe of systems containing materials useful in teaching and learning is very
diverse….represents a major challenges in creating a coherent and easily useable information
environment for instructors assembling resources for a course.”
49


Interesting “Use Cases” include:
o Appendix 4.1: Use Case Example #1 -- Adding an Online Resource List to a Humanities
Seminar Course Website from within a University Library's Portal
o Appendix 4.2: Use Case Scenario #2 -- University Faculty Using IU Scholar’s Box To
Create Reusable Teaching Materials With Images
o Appendix 4.3: Use Case Example #3 – Faculty creates a search criteria box and adds a
search criteria box to a CMS assignment
Support for using library repositories for educational content repositories
18. Hawkins, B., & Rudy, J. (2007). EDUCAUSE core data survey 2007 summary report. Retrieved
from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/Abstract/EDUCAUSECoreDataService20/47414



93% of ALL responding campuses reported currently supporting at least one CMS (33)
Doctoral institutions more likely to use hybrid of commercial, homegrown, and/or open source
CMS
64.9% of respondents report that “faculty use selectively” the CMS and 35.1% is “ubiquitous,
employed for nearly all courses”. This is an increase of 4% over last year. (34)
19. Sabharwal, A. (2005). Vision and strategy towards the course-embedded library: New
possibilities for a "virtual carrel" initiative. MLA Forum, 4(2).
50


“CMSs can provide and effective platform for these services (virtual reference, research
assistance, document delivery, library instruction), thus facilitating the process for online faculty
and students to access course content and library resources seamlessly.”
Nano-level strategy—“would target the information architecture of master courses
(coursescape) in order to improve usability and allow the embedding of the library into the
coursescape.
20. Shank, J., & Dewald, N. (2003). Establishing our presence in courseware: Adding library
services to the virtual classroom. Information Technology & Libraries, 22(1), 38.
 Advantage of courseware for students, “ability to access much of their course content from one
Web location completely independent of, and agreeable to, both their physical location and
schedules.”
 Advantage of courseware for instructors, “ability to extend the classroom (independent of time
and location) and the ability to collect and archive class assignments, activities and resources.”
 Use courseware as resource sharing, communication and assessment
 Macro-level library courseware involvement (MaLLCI)
o Virtual reference desk services
o OPAC and database links
o Global pathfinders and help guides
o Document Delivery including Course reserves
 Micro-level library courseware involvement (MILLCI)
o Library instruction outline
o Pathfinders, bibliographies and webliographies
o Recommended databases for the assignment
o MLA, APA, or other style sheets
o Reference Services with subject liaison
o Tutorials and quizzes
o Feedback from students
21. Pyatt, E., & Snavely, L. (2004). No longer missing: Tools for connecting the library with the
course management system. Campus Technology. Retrieved from:
http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2004/03/No-Longer-Missing-Tools-for-Connecting-theLibrary-with-the-Course-Management-System.aspx.
 Library links in ANGEL CMS
 “While a link to the library homepage is a good start, many students are easily disoriented
by the many layers of resources available at the library Website.”
 “The Library no longer will live outside the CMS. Instead, the CMS will serve as a door to the
library—a most important campus resource.”
 “Reserves tool allows instructors to generate a pre-programmed link to material posted
within the Libraries’ Electronic Reserves System.”
22. McLean, N., & Lynch, C. (2004). Interoperability between library information services and
learning environments--bridging the gap: A joint white paper on behalf of the IMS Global
Learning Consortium and the Coalition for Networked Information. IMS Global Learning
Consortium.
 “resources have been traditionally organized by supplier interests and sources, rather than
by scholarly or pedagogical value or user preference. “ (3)
 “Library systems and e-learning systems actually will, in our view, need to interact in a rich
variety of ways” (5)
51


“From the library perspective the most sensible starting point is to plan both conceptually
and practically for the exposing of existing library services into the LMS environment which
will include virtual reference services, training modules, access to their party commercial
information services and access to bibliographic tools. Perhaps more interesting, and more
challenging…are the import and export of objects that…inhabit both the library and learning
management worlds.” (7)
Overview of IMS digital repositories interoperability framework:
(Image from p.9)


“This approach requires a conceptual shift away from a traditional systems architecture
viewpoint to one where applications become defined by the services provided and the
services that can be accessed. Groups of functions or services can then be put together
more flexibly and new architectures developed which are not restricted by traditional views
of systems applications and services.” (14)
“And it is essential that we bring all of the real users and stakeholders – teachers, students,
teaching assistants, librarians, records managers, graduates (former students), instructional
technologists, course authors, and others – into the design, use and evaluation of these
testbeds.” (15)
23. Cohen, D. (2002). Course-management software: Where's the library? Educause Review,
37(3), 12.
 “CMS programs may lead a student to a range of course-relevant materials from anywhere
in the world that the Web reaches—except, it often seems, from the library on the student’s
campus.” (12)
52

“Integrating course-management software with the library’s digital offerings is essential for
getting the maximum value from the institutional investments of both money and expertise.”
(12)
24. Buehler, M. A. (2004). Where is the library in course management software? Journal of
Library Administration, 41(1), 75-84.
 Course Management Systems (e.g. Prometheus, First Class, Blackboard, WebCT) don't
include the library as a curricular component in their design.
 Librarians have to creatively partner with faculty to have library resources included in CMS.
 Distance learners in particular will benefit from the inclusion of library resources in the CMS
because they usually find the library particularly confusing.
 This will also be a good tool for promoting librarian interactions with students.
 “It is important for librarians to be knowledgeable about navigating and using courseware to
solve occasional student questions and to work with faculty within the online class
environment.” (77)
 “Partnering within our own institutions with faculty and other support departments, such as
an Online/Distance Learning or the campus IT department is essential to create optimal
learning environments to benefit students.” (82)
 “Universities and college need to encourage and put pressure on courseware companies to
incorporate the Library as a prominent feature for faculty and students to have direct access
to library resources and services.” (83)
25. Doan, T., & Ferry, K. (2006). Providing one-stop shopping for the faculty's teaching needs.
Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserves, 16(4), 57-63.
 The Kresge Business Library at the University of Michigan has been able to integrate library
resources into the business school curriculum.
 They created a “one-stop shopping” department for faulty teaching needs and leverage that
department to promote library services.
 Faculty support was previously fragmented; creating one department for all curricular needs
was successful in integrating the library into curriculum.
26. Ficek, R., & Segovia, J. (2006). Instructional technologies that support learning preferences
of today's students. Educational Technology, 46(6), 29-34.
 Lists instructional technology tools used by educators to support communication: such as
email, discussions boards, IM, blogs, conferencing systems, CMS, class websites, web
based collaboration systems.
 To support assessment: online discussion areas, listservs, blogs, online polling sites.
 To support teaching methodologies: blogs, WebStreaming audio/video, Tegrity Weblearner,
podcasts, RSS feeds, interactive whiteboard software and sympodium tablets.
27. George, J., & Martin, K. (2004). Forging the library courseware link. College & Research
Libraries News, 65(10), 594-613.
 Key catalyst to change has been CMS. Eastern Kentucky University got a grant for an
initiative for librarians to focus on collaborative relationships to better meet information
needs of students.
 List seven steps to integrate library into CMS: work with CMSP administrator, brainstorm
content, network with faculty, integrate resources, teach the sessions, evaluate integration,
seek other opportunities.
53

Ideas for integration: external links, assignments, course documents, tools, staff information,
announcements, virtual classrooms
28. Guess, A. (2008). A widget onto the future. Inside Higher Education. December 8, 2008.
Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/08/widgets on 2/23/2009.




“The portable, Web-based gadgets are an ideal medium, they say, for creating interactive,
individualized instructional materials that can live on a course Web site, a personal blog or even
an mobile phone.”
“While widgets aren’t nearly as ubiquitous in learning circles as are PowerPoint presentations or
online quizzes, some educators hope the time is ripe for them to catch on.
“As the latest versions of course management packages adopt module-based interfaces and as
colleges’ Web portals cull together widget-like boxes for the latest news and email, the objects
are becoming more familiar to students—even if they don’t realize it yet.”
“The widget itself can be modified and pasted into other environments, like Facebook and
MySpace, and Marino encourages students to use and modify the tools to match their learning
styles.”
29.Jayasuriya, K. P., & Brillantine, F. M. (2007). Student services in the 21st century: Evolution
and innovation in discovering student needs, teaching information literacy, and designing
library 2.0-based student services. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 26(1), 135-170.





The needs of law students is changing as technology and legal publishing evolve.
Focus groups and usability tests can illuminate students research skill level and info needs.
There should be a minimal level of legal information literacy upon graduation from law
school.
Law librarians could create literacy tutorials and/or tutorials using Shockwave Flash
technology. They could also employ Web 2.0 tools such as IM chat, content creation tools,
RSS feeds, and social interaction venues.
Social reference managers (SRM) (de.li.ci.ous, etc.) will help students pool research
resources. Second Life may be a helpful venue for reference desk placement.
30. Markgraf, J. S. (2004). Librarian participation in the online classroom. Internet Reference
Services Quarterly, 9(1), 5-19.




New challenges and opportunities exist as distance learning goes increasingly online
UW-Eau Claire
Collaboration with faculty is critical.
One way to do this is "lurking" in online classrooms and monitoring discussion threads
regarding library research.
54


Advantages: introduce yourself, broadcast messages, benefit from other’s questions, pointof-need instruction, access to class and students, enhanced collaboration with faculty, rich
sources of data, assessment opportunities
Disadvantages: privacy, changing technology, another communication tool to monitor, time
consuming, took many cooks?, volume of reading in online classroom, unrealistic
expectations
31. Romero, C., Ventura, S., & Garcia, E. (2008). Data mining in course management systems:
Moodle case study and tutorial. Computers & Education, 51(1), 368-384.




Data mining in education is an emerging field.
Survey of application of data mining in LMS and case study of Moodle.
Process described step-by-step in article and how to apply data derived from statistics,
visualization, classification, clustering and association rule mining of Moodle data.
They used free tools so any group can do data mining in educational systems.
32. Stinson, C., & Loveland, G. (2006). Collaborating to improve CMS-based courses. Virginia
Libraries, 52(1), 35-37.



CMS has changed teaching and librarian work.
Facilitate collaboration between librarian, faculty and IT staff.
Library staff will have to be more knowledgeable about course content.
33. Willett, H. G. (2002). Not one or the other but both: Hybrid course delivery using WebCT.
Electronic Library, 20(5), 413-419.




Hybrid course delivery is both face-to-face and distance instruction
Rowan University in New Jersey uses WebCT for graduate classes
Each course is password protected and provides access to lecture notes and class
discussion, etc.
Technical difficulties with WebCT frequent.
34. Transforming the University: Final Report of the Knowledge Management Technology Task
Force. (2006). University of Minnesota Academic Health Center Knowledge Management
Technology Task Force. http://www1.umn.edu/systemwide/strategic_positioning/tf_ahc_kmt.html



Proposed a knowledge management system for the AHC that is supported by technology,
and integrated into learner-centered health professions curricula. System would integrate all
pieces of knowledge and technology necessary for learning, teaching and clinical practice.
Knowledge management system would be a learner-centered system, accessible to
students, faculty, and staff at all times and from all places.
Opportunities to work with the AHC to integrate library resources into knowledge
management system.
55
Appendix I. Instructor Survey
To obtain quantitative and qualitative data on instructors’ use of course technology, we focused
on instructors we knew were using some version of course technology in their classes. Though this
slanted the sample group, we did not feel this was problematic because we are interested in the way
instructors are currently using the tools.
We obtained a list of instructors who had used E-Reserves or other course management
systems in the past, and emailed them a link to a survey we created in Survey Monkey.
The survey questions were:
1. What is your department?
2. Are you currently, or have you previously, used online learning tools (including, but not limited
to, Moodle, WebVista, blog, wiki, website, e-reserves) as a component of a course you teach at
the University of Minnesota?
3. What online learning tools have you used for your courses at the University of Minnesota?
Choose all that apply.
a. E.g. Moodle, WebVista, E-reserves, etc.
4. Of the technologies that you have used, which do you prefer? Choose all that apply.
a. E.g. Moodle, WebVista, E-reserves, etc.
5. Who puts together your online course components? Choose all that apply.
a. E.g. self, TA/RA, support staff
6. How do you use online learning tools in your courses? Choose all that apply.
a. E.g. grading, online discussion, posting syllabus, etc.
7. What University of Minnesota Libraries resources do you use in the courses that you teach?
Choose all that apply.
a. E.g. RefWorks, Assignment Calculator, E-reserves, etc.
8. How do you provide access to Libraries resources in your courses?
a. Link from online learning tool, listed in syllabus, etc.
9. What Libraries resources would you like to provide within your current course that you currently
cannot? (For example, "real-time" librarian chat reference.) Feel free to "think big." How do you
imagine them being integrated, ideally?
10. If there were a Libraries "toolkit" of resources you could easily incorporate into your course,
would you consider using it? Why or why not?
We emailed the instructor survey to a group of 289 and received 84 responses, for a response
rate of 29%. 99% of the respondents are currently using online learning tools, but as previously
discussed, this was skewed by sample to which we sent the survey. The most commonly used tools
are E-Reserves (74%), WebCT Vista (68%), Moodle (51%), and Course Website (33%). The majority
of respondents to this survey are using WebCT or Moodle, but a third are using stand-alone course
websites. Additionally, though WebVista was the most used Course Management System, other
technologies were more strongly preferred. The table below shows the percentage of respondents
that use a certain technology (blue bar) and the percentage of respondents that prefer a technology
(red bar). Any tools that are designed would ideally be able to interface with any of these platforms,
as well as be flexible for future, unknown technologies.
56
Tools Used and Preferred
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Used
30%
Prefer
20%
10%
0%
Moodle
WebVista Uthink or
other blog
Wiki
Course E-reserves
Website
Other
Most respondents (89%) build their own online courses themselves, and others have their
pages built by teaching or research assistants or support staff. Instructors use the most popular
course technologies for posting readings (86%), posting syllabi (82%), posting assignments (69%) and
providing access to library resources (56%). The table below shows the distribution of uses.
Tools Used By Instructors In Online Courses
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
The most common library resources used by instructors in their online classes are E-reserves (71%),
online articles or e-journals (62%), MNCAT (56%), and Library indexes or databases (38%). The table
below shows the complete dataset.
57
Library Resources Used By Instructors
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
When asked how they provide access to library resources, 42% say they link from an online
learning tool and 71% say they list the resources in the syllabus.
When asked what library resources they would like to provide but cannot, a number of themes
emerged:
 many thought real-time librarian chat was a good idea, but we mentioned it as an example in
the question so that might have skewed results.
 Instructors liked the idea of having ways to teach students to interact with librarians, and help
with finding references
 Instructors want library instruction modules that could be inserted into the course, and tutorials
on accessing and using primary sources.
 Things should be very relevant to the class.
 Would like the ability to design, through click-and-drag or other easy gestures, a ‘resources’
page for each class.
 Would like easier access to e-resources (copyright issues, multiple clicks to get to things)
If there were a Libraries “toolkit” of resources that could be easily incorporated into courses, 86%
said they would consider using it. Feedback reported that anything to simplify the process would help,
and if the toolkit were applicable and relevant to the class, it would be used.
Overall, we take these results to mean several things:
 People are seeking an easy way to get the most relevant resources to their students. If a toolkit
were available that made this easy, it would be used.
 The majority of respondents to this survey are using WebCT or Moodle, but a third are using
stand-alone course websites. Any tools that are designed would ideally be able to interface
with any of these platforms, as well as remaining flexible for future technologies.
 Ease of access to library resources (readings, databases, journals, etc.) was a common desire,
but also access to library instruction and reference services.
58

A useful toolkit would have things like relevant databases that could be dragged and dropped,
as well as tools like chat reference, tutorials on finding materials, understanding LC/Dewey
etc., library floor plans, plagiarism, etc.
Instructor Survey Questions and Responses
2. Are you currently, or have you previously, used online learning tools
(including, but not limited to, Moodle, WebVista, blog, wiki, website, ereserves) as a component of a course you teach at the University of
Minnesota?
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
98.8%
83
Yes
No
1.2%
1
3. What online learning tools have you used for your courses at the
University of Minnesota? Choose all that apply.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
Moodle
51.3%
40
67.9%
53
WebVista (WebCT, Blackboard)
UThink (or other blog technology)
11.5%
9
Wiki
10.3%
8
33.3%
26
Course Website
Electronic reserves through the Libraries
74.4%
58
7.7%
6
Other (please specify)
Sample responses for “other”:
 WebAssign
 Listservs
 Websites to be researched by the students
4. Of the technologies that you have used, which do you prefer?
Choose all that apply.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
Moodle
42.3%
33
28.2%
22
WebVista (WebCT, Blackboard)
UThink (or other blog technology)
5.1%
4
2.6%
2
Wiki
Course Website
19.2%
15
62.8%
49
Electronic reserves through the Libraries
10.3%
8
Other (please specify)
Sample responses for “other”:
 WebAssign
59

PBWiki
5. Who puts together your online course components? Choose all that
apply.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
Me
88.5%
69
17.9%
14
Teaching Assistant/Research Assistant
Support Staff
24.4%
19
Other
12.8%
10
6. How do you use online learning tools in your courses? Choose all
that apply.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
38.5%
30
Grading
Online discussion
41.0%
32
82.1%
64
Posting syllabus
Posting readings
85.9%
67
69.2%
54
Posting assignments
Turning in assignments
38.5%
30
Group work/collaboration
16.7%
13
38.5%
30
Accessing media files (e.g. video; audio)
Journaling/blogging
16.7%
13
56.4%
44
Providing access to library resources
Other (please specify)
9.0%
7
Sample responses for “other”:
 Posting slides from lecture
 Course listserv
 Schedule updates, communicate with students
 Posting lecture notes and handouts; using SafeAssign
 Mapping / field trip guides
7. Which of these online tools have you used in your coursework?
Please choose all that apply. Do not choose items that you have used in
your job but not in courses.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
RefWorks
6.5%
5
Assignment Calculator
6.5%
5
71.4%
55
Electronic reserves
MNCAT
55.8%
43
6.5%
5
Undergraduate Virtual Library
60
Library indexes or databases
Online articles or e-journals
Archives and Special Collections finding aids
CourseLib
Subject-specific Libraries page
Do not use any
Other (please specify)
37.7%
62.3%
2.6%
13.0%
3.9%
9.1%
10.4%
29
48
2
10
3
7
8
Sample responses for “other”:
 Make up reading packets
 Have used subject specific page.
 Walter Reserve/Smart Commons DVDs . . .
 Handouts about how to use various library resources; how to tell popular from scholarly texts,
etc.
 Smart learning library for videos, hard cover reserves
8. How do you provide access to Libraries resources in your courses?
Choose all that apply.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
Link from online learning tool
41.6%
32
71.4%
55
Listed in syllabus
Course-specific page created by a librarian
15.6%
12
19.5%
15
Other
9. What Libraries resources would you like to provide within your current course that you
currently cannot? (For example, "real-time" librarian chat reference.) Feel free to "think big."
How do you imagine them being integrated, ideally?











I didn't realize that it's an option to have a librarian designed web page. This might be very helpful.
I'm not really sure, although I love the idea of a real-time librarian chat reference.
Having a "real-time' chat might be interesting concept
Reference librarian for foreign language questions.
This does not apply to a language course, even if I would like to "think big".
Some way of helping students distinguish reputable from dubious sources of information on the web
I'd love it if UThink Blogs could be more easily restricted to the class only
I think the "real-time" librarian chat reference mentioned above sounds useful, especially because
my class requires students to use library resources to write a research paper.
I'd love to teach my students how to interact with reference librarians, how to use on-line article
databases more effectively, and how to search books in other (non-U) libraries.
Online help for undergrads in finding references--guidance on searches for specific topics
I would love to have everything, every book accesible [sic] online!
61















More readings on line. Copyright limits what I can put online and my course is one that most
students do not need to own the books for. I hate to push them to buy them. I put multiple copies on
reserve, but it's 2 hr and several students. And I only put hard copy when there's too much to
ethically put on e-reserve.
A more updated subject page with specific 'undergraduate' resources (dictionaries, interdisciplinary
indexes, full-text indexes/databases)
The ability to design, through click-and-drag or other easy gestures, a 'resources' page for each
class (thinking medium-big here!).
Integration of the e-reference resource with moodle,
Integration of French-language resources
A virtual bookshelf of books the library owns (i.e. a representation from the PQs to show students
what they would find if they went to the library.)
Library chat
I wish there were a page with all the periodical holdings from the 18th and 19th century. It would be
wonderful if they were listed separately by what we had in text and what we had in microfilm.
Wouldn't it be great if I could click on the title and learn what the bias of the newspaper/periodical
was and who wrote/edited it?
Right now, I teach students myself about how to search for references, how to avoid plagiarism,
how to navigate a scientific paper. I like tailoring those things to my students' specific needs, so I'm
not sure that I can think of other resources I need. I LOVE e-reserves
Would love a 24/7 AI monkey to search the Web for me and my students. Soon plan to have each
of my students construct a personal wiki for knowledge production, invention, and innovation
purposes. Need some help with that
Student portal to task-based links; the "real-time" chat with a librarian is a good idea, also
Something as easy to use as wikipedia, but with considerably more depth. An on-line, available
librarian would be one possibility. Something that would walk students through the process of doing
a thorough periodicals search would be another possibility
I think the Library has lots of great ways to find info, but there may be too many for students to
navigate--the undergrad virtual library is a good start--students use Google Scholar because it is
easier than navigating around the library website
Would love to be able to do E-Reserves on the fly - i.e. not sending them through the E-Reserve
request system to get posted. This takes time, and I feel like I am bothering the E-Reserve staff if I
want to add something at a later date
Ideally, it would be *much* easier to link to electronic journals. As it is, I almost always just upload
the PDF, which undermines student research skills
10. If there were a Libraries "toolkit" of resources you could easily
incorporate into your course, would you consider using it?
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
Yes
85.7%
66
No
14.3%
11
62
Sample responses:



















I would use this, especially if it could be specific to Humanities courses or research papers, or
Humanities research papers, because I think students will be more likely to use all of the resources
available through a "one stop shop."
Because of the quality of the U of M Library and its resources, I would guess the toolkit would be a
valuable resource to include.
It's a great idea.
I am relatively low-tech.
I only use what I know and I do not have time to learn more.
A "menu" of options would be useful; I'd probably select from the menu and list only things I wanted
students to use or refer to.
A kind of Library resources Onestop would be convenient for me and my students.
I like using things that are easily accessible for the students that don't have extra and hidden costs.
Anything to simplify the process would help me (and the students).
If the toolkit was easy to use and had remote access, I would consider using it.
Part of the joy of liberal education is learning to find resources, not just use the ones handed to you.
It would never be specialized or specific enough for our courses; already the 'resources' page for
our field is too general.
Current resources are working well.
I think students should have more exposure to the library and the resources it offers. That said, I
would use the Libraries "toolkit" if it was applicable to my class. So, I think I would use it, but it
would depend on what was in the "toolkit."
Research is difficult to teach. Anything that would make it potentially easier would be welcome
If there was something that was relevant to my class that I could make easily available, I would
If it were germane to the nature of the course, it would be extremely helpful for the students,
certainly as regards researching the subject being taught
Depends - it may not apply to our clinical course.
I waste a lot of time reinventing the wheel for basic research skills for my students. I have been
really grateful for all of those handouts (I've used almost all of those that are out in Wilson -- the eversions), and for the links on the undergrad virtual library.
63
Appendix J. Student Survey
For the student survey, we elected to focus on a group we knew we had easy access to: library
student employees. Although the range was clearly not as broad as it would have been with a more
general sample from the student body, it did allow us to gain an “insider” perspective that was helpful
for several of the questions. Many of these students work with patrons and are familiar with common
trends in “problem areas” that other students face in accessing information. It also had the added
advantage of preventing us from spending too much time on acquiring a list of email addresses rather
than actually administering the survey.
We obtained a list of work-study students who work in the Libraries and e-mailed them a link to
a survey we created in Survey Monkey. The survey questions follow. Please see Appendix C for
detailed questions, including multiple choice options, and responses.
1. What year are you in?
2. Have you taken a class that has had an online component (e.g. Moodle, WebVista, blog, wiki,
website)?
3. How have you used these online course components? Please choose all that apply.
e.g. Checking grades; Online discussion; Viewing syllabus
4. Which of these did you find the MOST useful? Please choose all that apply.
e.g. Checking grades; Online discussion; Viewing syllabus
5. Which of these online tools have you used in your coursework? Please choose all that apply.
Do not choose items that you have used in your job but not in courses.
e.g. MNCAT (library catalog); Assignment Calculator; Electronic Reserves
6. Which of these online tools is MOST useful? Please choose all that apply.
e.g. MNCAT (library catalog); Assignment Calculator; Electronic Reserves
7. What do you think are some common problems that students run into when using the Libraries
(in person or online)?
We emailed the student survey to a group of 129 Libraries work-study student employees and
received 51 responses, for a response rate of nearly 40%. 90% of the students who responded have
taken courses that included some form of online course technology. This data confirmed the findings of
other reports and articles that reported that online course technology has become an increasingly
significant component to university instruction. We were able to conclude from the survey results that
there is a real need to make the Libraries more relevant within online course technology. Although 61%
of students stated that they use their online course technology to access Libraries resources, only 30%
found it to be particularly useful to use course technology to access these resources. The drop-off
indicates that there is work to be done in making course integration more seamless and user-friendly.
In the chart below, the green bars equal the number of respondents who used online course technology
for a given function, and the red bars equal the number who found that function most useful.
64
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Another interesting result was the overwhelming number of respondents who, when asked about library
tools that they have used in their coursework and which ones they found useful, chose MNCAT (at a
rate of about 80% for both questions, compared with about 55% for the next highest rated tool). This
result may indicate a number of things (the fact that all respondents were Libraries employees may
have drastically skewed the responses) and demonstrates the great potential value of including a
MNCAT search box within the course pages that we create.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Other
Instructional workshops
myLibrary in Libraries…
myLibrary in myU
ILL
Course reserves catalog
ASC finding aids
Articles/E-journals
Chat with Librarian
Email Librarian
Google Scholar
Citation Linker
OneSearch
Indexes/Databases
Zotero
RefWorks
Undergraduate Virtual Library
E-reserves
Assignment Calculator
MNCAT
Used
Useful
65
Finally, the question we posed about common problems that students face when using the
Libraries provided us with information on trends that were useful in putting together our
recommendations. As a whole, our respondents believed that students find the Libraries overwhelming
and confusing. The most common issues cited were finding books within the LC Classification system,
physically navigating the Libraries, understanding how to search for materials online, not being
overwhelmed by the universe of information that exists, and understanding what help is available to
them as library users. These problems could be improved through the creation of a suite of tutorials on
the above topics mentioned above that would be available for embedding into individual course pages.
Student Survey Questions and Responses
What year are you in?
Answer Options
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate student
Other (please specify)
Response
Frequency
11.5%
28.8%
21.2%
32.7%
0.0%
5.8%
Response
Count
6
15
11
17
0
3
Have you taken a class that has had an online component (e.g. Moodle,
WebVista, blog, wiki, website)?
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
Yes
90.2%
46
9.8%
5
No
How have you used these online course components? Please choose
all that apply.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
Checking grades
87.2%
41
48.9%
23
Online discussion
Viewing syllabus
91.5%
43
91.5%
43
Accessing readings
Accessing assignments
85.1%
40
Turning in assignments
59.6%
28
19.1%
9
Group work
Accessing media files (e.g. video; audio)
48.9%
23
14.9%
7
Journaling/blogging
Accessing library resources
61.7%
29
2.1%
1
Other (please specify)
66
Which of these did you find the MOST useful? Please choose all that
apply.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
Checking grades
69.6%
32
8.7%
4
Online discussion
Viewing syllabus
58.7%
27
Accessing readings
65.2%
30
52.2%
24
Accessing assignments
Turning in assignments
34.8%
16
4.3%
2
Group work
Accessing media files (e.g. audio; video)
15.2%
7
Journaling/blogging
4.3%
2
30.4%
14
Accessing library resources
Other (please specify)
2.2%
1
Which of these online tools have you used in your coursework? Please
choose all that apply. Do not choose items that you have used in your
job but not in courses.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
MNCAT (library catalog)
83.3%
40
4.2%
2
Assignment Calculator
Electronic reserves
37.5%
18
10.4%
5
Undergraduate Virtual Library
RefWorks
16.7%
8
Zotero (or other software to create a
8.3%
4
bibliography or collect sources)
Library indexes or databases to find articles
47.9%
23
18.8%
9
Libraries OneSearch to find articles
Citation Linker
8.3%
4
27.1%
13
Google Scholar
Email a librarian
2.1%
1
Chat with a librarian
8.3%
4
54.2%
26
Online articles; e-journals
Archives and Special Collections finding aids
14.6%
7
16.7%
8
Course reserve catalog
Interlibrary Loan to borrow materials not
16.7%
8
available on campus
myLibrary tab in myU
18.8%
9
myLibrary tab on Libraries homepage
4.2%
2
10.4%
5
Libraries instructional workshops
What other tools have you used?
4.2%
2
67
Which of these online tools are MOST useful? Please choose all that
apply.
Response
Response
Frequency
Count
Answer Options
MNCAT (library catalog)
81.3%
39
4.2%
2
Assignment Calculator
Electronic reserves
29.2%
14
Undergraduate Virtual Library
4.2%
2
10.4%
5
RefWorks
Zotero (or other software to create a
4.2%
2
bibliography or collect sources)
Library indexes or databases to find articles
27.1%
13
10.4%
5
Libraries OneSearch to find articles
Citation Linker
8.3%
4
Google Scholar
8.3%
4
0.0%
0
Email a librarian
Chat with a librarian
10.4%
5
35.4%
17
Online articles; e-journals
Archives and Special Collections finding aids
6.3%
3
10.4%
5
Course reserve catalog
Interlibrary Loan to borrow materials not
8.3%
4
available on campus
MyLibrary tab in MyU
8.3%
4
MyLibrary tab on Libraries homepage
4.2%
2
2.1%
1
Libraries instructional workshops
Other (please specify)
2.1%
1
What do you think are some common problems that students run into when using the Libraries
(in person or online)?
Sample responses:






Lack of knowledge. I think most students do not realize how much could be at their fingertips if
they used the library effectively. There are a lot of resources that most haven't even heard of.
I think in general students are unfamiliar with the LC filing system and get intimidated when
looking for materials on their own.
It is surprising the number of students who don't know how to navigate the library either in the
physical building of the library and/or online.
They don't know where to start and can't understand the information that is given to them. i.e.
call numbers.
Students don't know how libraries work. Using call numbers to find books, performing general
topic or specific searches for materials (i.e. book title / author), and printing all seem to give
students pretty large headaches. Many seem confused and aggravated when some, but not all,
journal articles are available online and wont [sic] bother using the journals if the one they want
is only available in print.
Students don't realize how much information they can really find and how much the librarians
really know
68



They get confused on where to find the books, so they don't even bother to go in person. They
just use on-line sources then.
I don't think they know everything that is available to them. Working at the library I am always
telling classmates about different options they have to get what they need.
It can be confusing if you've never done it before, but the reference librarians are always very
helpful. I think that most students don't know what is available for them to use.
69
Bibliography
21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities(2007). Digital Media Center (DMC),
Office of Information Technology.
Aviles, K., Phillips, B., Rosenblatt, T., & Vargas, J. (2005). If higher education listened to me.
EDUCAUSE Review, 40(5), 16-18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28.
Bales, A., Taylor, C., Havert, M., & Lehman, T. (2001). Electronic reserves and WebCT: Using
courseware to implement electronic reserves at the University Libraries of Notre Dame. Journal of
Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 11(4), 37.
Bell, S., & Shank, J. (2004). Linking the library to courseware: A strategic alliance to improve learning
outcomes. Library Issues, 25(2), 1.
Black, E. L. (2008). Toolkit approach to integrating library resources into the learning management
system. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(6), 496-501.
Brunvand, A. (2004). Integrating library reference services in an online information literacy course: The
internet navigator as a model. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 9(3), 159-178.
Buehler, M. A. (2004). Where is the library in course management software? Journal of Library
Administration, 41(1), 75-84.
Case study: A linked open data resource list management tool for undergraduate students. Retrieved
1/14/2009, 2009, from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Talis/
Cheung, O., & Patrick, S. (2007). E-reserve in Blackboard: Chalk it up to collaboration. Journal of
Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 17(3), 129-143.
Cohen, D. (2002). Course-management software: Where's the library? Educause Review, 37(3), 12.
Collard, S., & Tempelman-Kluit, N. (2006). The other way in: Goal-based library content through CMS.
Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 11(4), 55-68.
Costello, B., Lenholt, R., & Stryker, J. (2004). Using Blackboard in library instruction: Addressing the
learning styles of Generations X and Y. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(6), 452-460.
Cox, C. (2002). Becoming part of the course. College & Research Libraries News, 63(1), 11.
Cubbage, C. (2003). Electronic reserves and Blackboard's course management system. Journal of
Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 13(4), 21.
DaCosta, J. W., & Jones, B. (2007). Developing students' information and research skills via
Blackboard. Communications in Information Literacy, 1(1), 16-25.
Doan, T., & Ferry, K. (2006). Providing one-stop shopping for the faculty's teaching needs. Journal of
Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 16(4), 57-63.
70
Ficek, R., & Segovia, J. (2006). Instructional technologies that support learning preferences of today's
students. Educational Technology, 46(6), 29-34.
Flecker, D. and N. McLean. (2004). Digital library content and course management systems: Issues of
interoperability. Washington D.C.: Digital Library Federation.
Ganster, L. A., & Walsh, T. R. (2008). Enhancing library instruction to undergraduates: Incorporating
online tutorials into the curriculum. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 15(3), 314-333.
George, J., & Martin, K. (2004). Forging the library courseware link. College & Research Libraries
News, 65(10), 594-613.
Gibbons, S. (2005). Integration of libraries and course-management systems. Library Technology
Reports, 41(3).
Gladstone, R., & Kenausis, V. (2006). Creating an electronic toolkit: From discovery to delivery. Journal
of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 16(4), 73-83.
Golderman, G. M., & Connolly, B. (2007). Infiltrating NetGen cyberculture: Strategies for engaging and
educating students on their own terms. The Serials Librarian, 53(3), 165-182.
Guess, A. (2008). A widget onto the future. Inside Higher Education. December 8, 2008. Retrieved
from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/08/widgets on 2/23/2009.
Gulbahar, Y., & Yildirim, S. (2006). Assessment of web-based courses: A discussion and analysis of
learners' individual differences and teaching-learning process. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 33(4), 367-378.
Hanson, C., Nackerud, S. and Jensen, K. (2008). Affinity strings: Enterprise data for resource
recommendations. The Code4Lib Journal, (5) Retrieved from
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/501
Hawkins, B., & Rudy, J. (2007). EDUCAUSE core data survey 2007 summary report. Retrieved from
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/Abstract/EDUCAUSECoreDataService20/47414
Holobar, J. C. (2006). Electronic reserves and course management software: A collaborative model for
large institutions. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 16(4), 6571.
Jackson, P. A. (2007). Integrating information literacy into Blackboard: Building campus partnerships for
successful student learning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 454-461.
Jayasuriya, K. P., & Brillantine, F. M. (2007). Student services in the 21st century: Evolution and
innovation in discovering student needs, teaching information literacy, and designing library 2.0based student services. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 26(1), 135-170.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium. Retrieved from http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2009/.
71
Karplus, S. S. (2006). Integrating academic library resources and learning management systems: The
library Blackboard site. Education Libraries, 29(1), 5-11.
Kearley, J. P., & Phillips, L. (2004). Embedding library reference services in online courses. Internet
Reference Services Quarterly, 9(1/2), 65-76.
Kraemer, E. (2003). Developing the online learning environment: The pros and cons of using WebCT
for library instruction. Information Technology & Libraries, 22(2).
Lau, S., & Woods, P. C. (2008). An investigation of user perceptions and attitudes towards learning
objects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 685-699.
Lawrence, D. H. (2006). Blackboard on a shoestring: Tying courses to sources. Journal of Library
Administration, 45(1/2), 245-265.
Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of
e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873.
Marino, M., & Metros, S. (2008). Widgets: The slicing and dicing (and splicing) of sharable learning
content. EDUCAUSE Webinar. Retrieved from
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/Abstract/WidgetsTheSlicingandDicin/48097.
Markgraf, J. S. (2004). Librarian participation in the online classroom. Internet Reference Services
Quarterly, 9(1), 5-19.
McLean, N., & Lynch, C. (2004). Interoperability between library information services and learning
environments--bridging the gap: A joint white paper on behalf of the IMS Global Learning
Consortium and the Coalition for Networked Information. IMS Global Learning Consortium.
Morgan, G. (2007). Faculty use of course management systems. ECAR, Educause Center for Applied
Research. Retrieved from
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/Abstract/FacultyUseofCourseManagem/39089
Net Generation of Students at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities: Student Educational
Technology Survey 2007 (2007). Digital Media Center (DMC), Office of Information Technology.
OCLC E-Learning Task Force. (2003). Libraries and the enhancement of E-learning.
Poe, J., & Skaggs, B. (2007). Course reserves: Using Blackboard for E-reserves delivery. Journal of
Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 18(1), 79-91.
Pyatt, E., & Snavely, L. (2004). No longer missing: Tools for connecting the library with the course
management system. Campus Technology. Retrieved from
http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2004/03/No-Longer-Missing-Tools-for-Connecting-theLibrary-with-the-Course-Management-System.aspx.
Rempel, H. G., & McMillen, P. S. (2008). Using courseware discussion boards to engage graduate
students in online library workshops. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(4), 363-380.
72
RIT D2L library integration project. (2003). Retrieved from http://library.rit.edu/desire2learn/.
Romero, C., Ventura, S., & Garcia, E. (2008). Data mining in course management systems: Moodle
case study and tutorial. Computers & Education, 51(1), 368-384.
Sabharwal, A. (2005). Vision and strategy towards the course-embedded library: New possibilities for a
"virtual carrel" initiative. MLA Forum, 4(2). Retrieved from
http://www.mlaforum.org/volumeIV/issue2/article3.html.
Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., Nelson, M. R., Ellison, N. B., & EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
(2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008. Boulder,
Colo.: ECAR, Educause Center for Applied Research.
Scruton, C. (2007). The U of M learning technology platform: Integrating online tools to support hybrid
education Retrieved from http://dmc.umn.edu/spotlight/lt-platform.shtml
Shank, J., & Bell, S. (2006). A_FLIP to courseware: A strategic alliance for improving student learning
outcomes. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(4) Retrieved from
http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=46&action=synopsis
Shank, J., & Dewald, N. (2003). Establishing our presence in courseware: Adding library services to the
virtual classroom. Information Technology & Libraries, 22(1), 38.
Stinson, C., & Loveland, G. (2006). Collaborating to improve CMS-based courses. Virginia Libraries,
52(1), 35-37.
Teixeira, C., Pinto, J. S., & Martins, J. A. (2008). User profiles in organizational environments. CampusWide Information Systems, 25(3), 128-144.
Transforming the University: Final Report of the Knowledge Management Technology Task Force.
(2006). University of Minnesota Academic Health Center Knowledge Management Technology
Task Force. http://www1.umn.edu/systemwide/strategic_positioning/tf_ahc_kmt.html
Vovides, Y., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Mitropoulou, V., & Nickmans, G. (2007). The use of e-learning course
management systems to support learning strategies and to improve self-regulated learning.
Educational Research Review, 2(1), 64-74.
Willett, H. G. (2002). Not one or the other but both: Hybrid course delivery using WebCT. Electronic
Library, 20(5), 413-419.
Witte, B. (2006). Electronic reserves at Columbia University: A technical overview of automation and
integration. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 16(4), 135-142.
Young, J. R. (2008). Blackboard customers consider alternatives. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
55(3), A1, A17-A18.