The meeting started at 10:38 am.
No comments being offered, previous minutes unanimously approved.
DEODATO reports on findings (report attached).
AGNEW: What's the next step? We should set a close timeframe because others in the state will modernize. One cannot find videos, no way to break down by media. VuFind is a live community, and its mobile app is stunning
MULCAHY agrees and asks: Can we save money by not working with SIRSI?
AGNEW: No, but we'll be preparing migration to OLE (2015). Timeframe could be January 2013 or June 2013.
DEODATO recommends adding catalogers to the transition team, MULCAHY suggests a representative from LRC.
BARTZ asks what happens with the LCC; AGNEW responds, it will go away after the transition to VuFind.
MULCAHY requests previews and notices impact on BI; AGNEW notes that it is open source (OS) so it can run in parallel with current product and can be switched over when we feel the time is right. Foreign language support is very good and RUL is working more and more in that area.
Conclusion: USC agrees to form a committee (TBD) and endorses speedy transition.
MULCAHY reminds the USC of the ILIAC report and asks for additions, clarifications.
GLYNN: What about assessment? Assessment would be more effective on a class-by-class basis.
MULCAHY: We could do that with the online tutorial/testing system.
JUST: Deodato & I meeting Monday on student transition folks (RIOT tutorial); would like to convene a WG how we do instructions in the Libraries. NBLF has agreed to push the agenda
MULCAHY: Pedagogical issues same across campuses, staffing might be different.
AGNEW would like to see the highlights of the report as a 1-pager and recommends publicizing it more broadly than USC; MULCAHY suggests, emphasizing the initiatives and recommendations would meet that need. JUST: Combining 7 recommendations, 2 of them would be more engaging. MULCAHY suggests a final rewrite to tighten it up.
JUST suggests, on #3, that RUL should look into utilizing videos as assistance tool to maintain interest and help instructors. AGNEW reminds of Jane Otto's findings that professors also use videos when classes get restive. MULCAHY adds, students like looking at screens. DEODATO notes that [BI instructional] videos wouldn't be as interesting. AGNEW notes that teaching videos of Photoshop are very entertaining. PURGER adds that video tutorials must be professionally produced. MULCAHY notes that it means hiring or developing additional skills; wonders if SCI has similar courses. AGNEW: Wouldn't be bad to hire consultants but it's better to develop skills here. Lots of training is available in the tri-state area. JUST: We could partner with groups on campus; or it could be group class projects.
MULCAHY: Our success problem is scalability: How to reach more people than just classes? ANDERSON reminds of the Web Board's (WB) Tutorial Group. PURGER notes that a WB subteam is looking into the tutorial videos as a temporary effort. DEODATO: WB Help Team is also looking into those issues. AGNEW suggests that tutorials should surface better. DEODATO: Subgroups to focus on various aspects: assessment, tutorials, instruction needs + a core for the Just task force. GLYNN: People outside RUL could be engaged as well.
Conclusion: The USC endorses the report. JUST will send out a draft charge and begin to assemble a group.
AGNEW: OLE is moving forward, target date 2015. We'll probably end up doing our own implementation.
Jane Otto & Agnew met with GSE's Continuing Education leaders and looked into their use of video; they're strictly focused on videos uploaded by faculty; talking to Janice Pilch about rights; finalizing contract with firm to oversee tech support to Cont. Ed. Marianne Gaunt's guidance: RU is going more actively into digital education; it is going to be huge - a brave new world, somewhat scary as well.
JUST: Starting to meet with external folks to coordinate: meeting with NBLF librarians 1-on-1; working on new job description for the Chemistry position; has discussed LSM work distribution.
PUNIELLO: Good amount of year-end money being used for: carpeting of TSB; furniture in Camden, Newark; tables with wheels; vending machines at LSM; compact shelving for NJ room and Art Library; tiles for Alexander Library lobby. Café closing for the summer. E-display planned for Alexander Library's lobby.
PURGER: Reports on year-end purchases (staff PCs, monitors, IHL screen replacements) and major projects started/underway (backup generator for TSB, TLH audio/visual equipment rebuild through competitive bid).
The reports were acknowledged without request for follow-up.
MULCAHY: Reviews USC goals (attached) and the Committee rates them regarding completion stage.
Several members and the USC as a body thank KEVIN MULCAHY for his service as (Co-)Chair
MULCAHY nominates ANDERSON as "ideal co-chair candidate" and notes that co-chairship is a good way to run the committee.
ANDERSON accepts the nomination.
USC approves ANDERSON as Co-Chair.
Scheduling the next meeting: ANDERSON and PURGER to send out doodle poll as no regular meeting schedule has been approved.
Minute-takers for next meetings: MARDIKIAN, MAXYMUK, PERRONE
MULCAHY adjourns the meeting at 11:14 am.
ATTACHMENTS [Reference copies of documents originally available elsewhere]
1. Promote LibGuides; Work with appropriate committees/groups (WebBoard and the LibGuides working group) to evaluate effectiveness and use of the library Research Guides; establish baseline usage data.
Outcome: Better research guides, with strategies for continued improvement.
Indicators: Usage data (by guide); user feedback; updated guides for all programs.
In support of IB, IG, IJ, IIIC.
2. Implement first release of the new RUL web-site. Work with the Web Board to establish appropriate policies and procedures for the library web-site; establish schedule of releases; provide feedback whenever solicited; review usage and feedback.
Outcome: Intuitive, transparent, and more easily navigated web-site.
Indictors: Usage statistics; user feedback; successful releases.
In support of IB, IG, IJ.
3. Establish RUL mobile presence through input into the creation of RUL mobile pages (WebBoard) and promotion of new and already available mobile resources.
Outcome: Improved Mobile Device Access to RUL Web Pages.
Indicators: Increased usage via mobile devices; user feedback
In support of IB, IG, IJ, IIB.
4. Explore instructional effectiveness and efficiency in order to transform teaching and learning.
Outcome: Improved knowledge of faculty awareness of, and expectations for, information literacy; increased knowledge of library information literacy programs on part of key stakeholders.
Indicators: Completion of Information Literacy Implementation Advisory Committee's interviews and focus groups; submission of ILIAC report and recommendations to USC.
In support of I.C
5. Review core responsibilities of reference librarians.
Outcome: Consensus on service priorities and reasonable distribution of responsibilities.
Indicator: Completion-and endorsement by USC-of Core Reference Responsibilities for Public Service Librarians Task Force Report.
In support of I.J
6. Assess current reference statistical practices, including what we collect, how we collect it, why we collect it; and investigate relevance for RUL of Reference Effort Assessment Data Scale (READS) program.
Outcome: Improved use of reference resources.
Indicator: Development and adoption of consistent standards.
In support of I.J
7. Investigate new open source public Interface and discovery layer for VALE & RUL catalog, with appropriate committees/groups.
Outcome: Initial steps toward new catalog and discovery layer
Indicators: Preliminary Report/Recommendations
In support of IB, IG, IH, IIIE.
8. Support incorporation of streaming media (reserves and instructional material) into RUL web presence, with marketing through news releases, web announcements, BIs, etc.
Outcome: increased usage and improved instruction.
Indicators: usage statistics; faculty and student feedback (individual and aggregate); assessment of instructional materials.
In support of IB, IC, IJ.
9. Investigate expanding remote access to restricted databases to Rutgers alumni if vendor contracts permit without additional expenditures).
Outcome: greater support from RU alumni
Indicators: usage statistics, alumni feedback, increased alumni fiscal support for libraries.
In support of III.A, III.B.
Revised and approved on September 7, 2011 by User Services Council