1 / 26

Using Collaborative Design to Provide Instruction and Information in Libraries

Using Collaborative Design to Provide Instruction and Information in Libraries. Alan W. Aldrich I. D. Weeks Library University of South Dakota. Goals of this presentation. Analysis of different models of reference Design of a collaborative workstation Easily implemented Inexpensive

kim
Download Presentation

Using Collaborative Design to Provide Instruction and Information in Libraries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Collaborative Design to Provide Instruction and Information in Libraries Alan W. Aldrich I. D. Weeks Library University of South Dakota

  2. Goals of this presentation • Analysis of different models of reference • Design of a collaborative workstation • Easily implemented • Inexpensive • Appreciated by patrons and librarians • Multiple uses

  3. Core values of reference (Tyckoson, 2001) Access Accuracy Authority Individualism Instruction Knowledge Timeliness Thoroughness

  4. Structure+ Values= Outcomes

  5. Face-to-Face Reference Models • Traditional Reference Desk/Station • Teaching Library Model • Roving Reference

  6. Structure- Traditional Reference Model • Physical desk or station • Computer workstation(s) • Synchronous in location • Synchronous in time

  7. Values – Traditional Reference Model • Access • Accuracy • Individualism • Knowledge • Timeliness

  8. Outcomes- Traditional Reference Model • Instruction is deemphasized • Thoroughness is deemphasized • Reference librarian as expert • Patron is dependent (Doherty, 2006). • Lack of co-browsing or collaboration • Lack of socially constructed knowledge • Lack of active learning

  9. Structure – Teaching-Library Model • Computer equipped classroom • One workstation per student • Master workstation under control of librarian • Synchronous in time • Synchronous in place (physically) • Asynchronous in the search space

  10. Values – Teaching-Library Model • Authority • Critical Thinking • Knowledge • Instruction • Thoroughness

  11. Outcomes – Teaching-Library Model • Values of accuracy, timeliness, and individualism deemphasized • Control/expertise paradigm reinforced • Lack of socially constructed knowledge ala Vygotsky • Lack of active learning

  12. Structure – Roving Reference Model • Lack of a fixed desk or supplements a traditional reference point • Mobile devices to extend the reach of reference • Devices located near the stacks • Dedicated staffing

  13. Values – Roving Reference Model • Access • Accuracy • Individualization • Knowledge • Timeliness

  14. Outcomes – Roving Reference Model • Meeting patrons at the point of need • Meeting patrons at the place of need • Opportunities for collaboration i.e., co-browsing • Very short interactions • Need to pass patron off to a traditional reference desk • Instruction is deemphasized

  15. Computer Mediated Communication Reference Models • Email reference • Instant Messenger (IM) reference • Chat reference

  16. Structure – Email Reference • Asynchronous for location • Asynchronous for time • Loss of most communication channels • Loss of question negotiation (Pomerantz, 2005)

  17. Values – Email Reference • Access • Accuracy • Individualism • Timeliness

  18. Outcomes – Email Reference • Can be a long delay • Good for questions • Not as good for detailed help due to asynchronous response times • Instruction not valued due to timeliness concerns • Thoroughness not always valued

  19. Structure – Instant Messaging (IM) Reference • Freeware or commercial software • Asynchronous for location • Synchronous for time • Loss of most communication channels

  20. Values – Instant Messaging (IM) Reference • Access • Accuracy • Individualism • Timeliness

  21. Outcomes – Instant Messaging (IM) Reference • Immediate and real time interaction • Good for quick questions/short answers • Uses the tools younger patrons are familiar with • Interaction limited to only text, hypertext links, files, and emoticons • Question negotiation (Pomerantz, 2005) is limited • Instruction deemphasized

  22. Structure – Chat Reference • Asynchronous location • Synchronous communication • Some to many communication channels available • Shared interface

  23. Values – Chat Reference • Access • Accuracy • Individualism • Instruction(facilitated by the structure) • Thoroughness

  24. Outcomes – Chat Reference • Can enable co-browsing • Immediate and real time interaction • Potential for real collaboration and interactive learning • High costs of software and training • Dual staffing - need to have chat ref separate from the physical reference desk (Pomerantz, 2005).

  25. What can we do with reference… • to facilitate instruction? • that is simple? • that is inexpensive? • that is practical? • that supports the values of reference?

  26. References • Doherty, J. (2006). Reference interview or reference dialog? Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 11(3), 97-109. • Pomerantz, J.(2005). A conceptual framework and open research questions for chat-based reference service. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(12), 1288-1302. • Tyckoson, D. A. (2001). What is the best model of reference service? Library Trends, 50(2), 183-196.

More Related