Meeting held in the Engineering Development Lab on Busch campus for Smart-Board demonstration.
Minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
Leslie spoke to Uma Swamy about changing field names. Leslie will continue to work on branch library statistics.
Outreach statistics that incorporate instruction has come up as an issue - how to attribute statistics. Jeanne stated that it is acceptable for statistics to be reported in two different places, i.e. instruction and outreach. Agreed that EOF will count as outreach for statistical purposes.
Eileen reported that the Shaping A Life plagiarism module is not finalized. It is up to the individual library instructor whether they want to let the students and class instructor know that the module is not available yet.
Scott demonstrated SmartBoard, a tool for instruction and for meeting facilitation. An image on a computer screen is also projected onto the large SmartBoard. What is normally done with a mouse on the computer screen is done with one's finger on the SmartBoard. Markups can be made on the screen with digitized markers. These markups (screen shots) can be captured directly into a Powerpoint file, but not in a Word file. SmartBoard costs approximately $10,000 (board and software is between $1,200-$4,000; projector is approximately $6,000). The cost is coming down. Portable SmartBoards are also available.
Leslie distributed articles she received at the 6-day Immersion Program as discussed at the last meeting. Especially recommended is Christine S. Bruce's article "The Phenomenon of Information Literacy" from Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1998.
Leslie reported that the Web page is almost ready to be rolled out. Leslie created instruction request forms. Sam McDonald is putting them in HTML. Committee members will review the request forms prior to being put on Web page. These online requests will be routed directly to the instruction coordinators' email accounts. This will give faculty another, more structured, way to reach coordinators/instructors and will provide coordinators/instructors with needed information. The Committee discussed how email requests should be handled if a coordinator is out. One possibility is the establishment of an e-mail account (separate from the coordinators' personal accounts), where requests can be retrieved by a substitute in the coordinator's absence. Another option is the creation of a reply message to be sent to the requester advising that the coordinator is not in and that they should re-send their request to another designated person. A decision was made to have requests sent to instruction coordinators' email accounts, recognizing that a more complex system may have to be set up.
The committee discussed the Scholarly Communication Center's online calendar and the scheduling practices of other libraries. The possibility of central Web-based scheduling for physical spaces and people was raised. Scott suggested that this could be hosted on a library server. It was suggested that the PC working group should look at this issue. Scott will take it to the October 16, PC working group meeting with the backing of the ISC and the interest of Public Services Committee.
Leslie suggested a private site for sharing instruction-related information (files) and for posting notices on professional development opportunities. Issues discussed included where to put the information, if and how access would be restricted, and how the information would be catalogued. Scott suggested the possibility of a Web-site that links to documents on the T: drive, similar to a site currently maintained by access services. A decision was made to first look at the types of information/documentation that ISC members currently use for instruction purposes. During the next meeting, Committee members will share their resources as handouts.
Market Intelligence List 2 prepared by Leslie was distributed to members. There was discussion on how to identify instructional needs in the university community. Approaches to gathering this information were also discussed. The "Curriculum" portion of the Market Intelligence List 2 was analyzed for potential sources of information: core general education requirements for undergraduate students will be assessed by looking at catalogs (Scott will do this with help from Julie for Camden and Bobby Roberta for Newark); Undergraduate majors and minors has already been done; Programs (honors, pre-college, writing, etc.) can be assessed using catalogs; Information on research methodologies courses and graduate programs can be obtained from subject specialists; and, information on orientation programs can be obtained from department secretaries.
Jeanne stated that Cabinet is very interest in having the Instructional Services Committee bring ACRL and "excitement" about instruction to the faculty of the libraries and the university.
Tricia raised that an instruction librarian is an entrepreneur - the best knowledge salesman picks up the language. Eileen suggested that we come up with an "entrepreneurial" way to communicate with "entrepreneurial" professors. The instructor and the professor should negotiate what is taught.
The discussion on instruction for graduate students in education was deferred to the next meeting.
The committee will also work to acquire more information about curriculum committees at the University, so that we can increase our participation in curriculum development.