260 likes | 358 Views
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
E N D
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 • Appreciated by patrons and librarians • Multiple uses
Core values of reference (Tyckoson, 2001) Access Accuracy Authority Individualism Instruction Knowledge Timeliness Thoroughness
Structure+ Values= Outcomes
Face-to-Face Reference Models • Traditional Reference Desk/Station • Teaching Library Model • Roving Reference
Structure- Traditional Reference Model • Physical desk or station • Computer workstation(s) • Synchronous in location • Synchronous in time
Values – Traditional Reference Model • Access • Accuracy • Individualism • Knowledge • Timeliness
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
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
Values – Teaching-Library Model • Authority • Critical Thinking • Knowledge • Instruction • Thoroughness
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
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
Values – Roving Reference Model • Access • Accuracy • Individualization • Knowledge • Timeliness
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
Computer Mediated Communication Reference Models • Email reference • Instant Messenger (IM) reference • Chat reference
Structure – Email Reference • Asynchronous for location • Asynchronous for time • Loss of most communication channels • Loss of question negotiation (Pomerantz, 2005)
Values – Email Reference • Access • Accuracy • Individualism • Timeliness
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
Structure – Instant Messaging (IM) Reference • Freeware or commercial software • Asynchronous for location • Synchronous for time • Loss of most communication channels
Values – Instant Messaging (IM) Reference • Access • Accuracy • Individualism • Timeliness
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
Structure – Chat Reference • Asynchronous location • Synchronous communication • Some to many communication channels available • Shared interface
Values – Chat Reference • Access • Accuracy • Individualism • Instruction(facilitated by the structure) • Thoroughness
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).
What can we do with reference… • to facilitate instruction? • that is simple? • that is inexpensive? • that is practical? • that supports the values of reference?
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.