An analysis of Library 2.0 in academic libraries

From LIS5313

by Jeannie Downey

Contents 1 Introduction via audio 2 Introduction to the paper 3 Research on Web2.0/Library 2.0 3.1 General Research 3.2 Library 2.0 Research 4 Libraries endeavors into Library 2.0 4.1 Wake Forest 4.2 Yale University 4.3 Emory University 4.4 Georgia Tech 5 Library 2.0 Challenges 6 Conclusion 7 References 8 Resources

[edit] Introduction via audio

Audio introduction to Web 2.0[9] Please note, since this is an audio component, clicking the link will take you to another page.

Highlights from the Audio

• Web 2.0 facilitates use of the Internet and Web design
• Library 2.0 shares the same philosophy as Web 2.0
• RSS feeds, wikis, blogs, and podcasting can be used to facilitate learning
• Högg, Meckel, Stanoevska-Slabeva, and Martignoni (2006) define Web 2.0 as "…the philosophy of mutually maximizing collective intelligence and added value for each participant by formalized and dynamic information sharing and creation."

[edit] Introduction to the paper

There are quite a number of universities that have successfully implemented Library 2.0 in their institutions. Yale, Wake Forest, and Emory are a few of them. In one particular instance, the Georgia Institute of Technology (GT) has had a difficult time implementing Library 2.0 into their library. The purpose of this paper is to show how libraries have implemented Library 2.0 into their universities. Particular emphasis has been placed on GT because of their difficulty in implementing Library 2.0. Casey and Savastinuk (2006) say succinctly in the September 2006 Library Journal [10] article: "At its most basic level, the Library 2.0 model gives library users a participatory role in the services libraries offer and the way they are used."

In learning about Library 2.0, it is imperative that libraries begin to embrace technologies such as mashups, RSS feeds, and/or podcasting within their libraries in order to not lose the user. The mindset of the user is changing and libraries must change with the user. Library 2.0 is about effecting change in order to keep the user satisfied. With participatory services the library can exercise some control in how Library 2.0 is used. The library can take over the teaching of the technology in a way that is conducive to learning rather than playing. Change is good in any venue. However, some academic libraries do not have the necessary funding to institute some of the sweeping changes needed for Library 2.0. Using open source software is a way for libraries to combat any funding issues.

[edit] Research on Web2.0/Library 2.0

[edit] General Research

• Academic libraries must change the way they meet the user expectations of the millennial generation, or generation M, as these young adults become college freshmen. Vie (2008) defines generation M as "individuals, born between the early 1980s and late 1990s, are fascinated by and often highly comfortable with technology” (p.12).

• These students do not view computers as an object, but as a viable medium that is an integral part of their day-to-day activities and an important part of their daily lives.
• Most come armed with laptops to take notes in class and do not use the library’s computers to do their school work, but instead use the library’s wifi system.

This is important to note because most librarians, who are not recent library school graduates, school media specialists, or school teachers, do not identify with the computer the way the students do and it has led to a digital divide between the older, more established librarian and the student.

• Libraries must keep up with the change in students. We are losing their interest; they no longer think they need librarian services and typically find that what librarians think of as traditional services are outmoded and antiquated (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007). Librarians need to approach students, not with the methodologies they have always employed, but with an in-depth knowledge of the students' skill set. Academic librarians can’t seem to find a way to link to student interest and their connection to its evolving technologies. This is where Web 2.0, and consequently Library 2.0, fits into the library schema.

• Students have become more proficient in conducting research over the years (Smith, Mitchell, and Numbers, 2007). The Googlization of research has made information available to them with a couple of keystrokes. They do not see how digital library resources can help them with their research and it is up to us, as librarians, to instruct that Google doesn’t always provide the most appropriate information. Librarians need to retrain themselves to think in terms of new information literacy skill sets in order to reach a new type of user. Information literacy may be defined as “the set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information" (Association of College & Research Libraries, 2007).

[edit] Library 2.0 Research

• Rabiovitch (2008) refers to Web 2.0 as a still progressing technology. The technologies are still not robust enough to replace more traditional forms of outreach. Rabiovitch discuss that “Web 2.0 … introduced a whole new array of security exposures and malware” (p.24) to college campuses. His advice is to be somewhat paranoid when it comes to utilizing Web 2.0. No doubt, on college campuses this has IT departments scrambling to keep up with the latest infection preventative software. Conversely, Pogue (2008) contends that Web 2.0 offers a direct line of communication, a more trusted line of communication, than any other Web service offered. Using Web 2.0 within an organization will gain the goodwill, trust, and positive attention an organization needs to put a human face on the organization.

• Rosenfeld (2007), on the other hand, encourages the use of Web 2.0 in the classroom. Academic librarians often teach information literacy to freshmen and new graduate students on how to use the library for their specific subject fields. The type of collaboration established by Library 2.0 should be made a priority. Rosenfeld emphasizes a staff development role, even in an informal setting, such as short tutorial sessions either on the Web, such as Learning 2.0, or face-to-face interactions. Getting participation may be difficult with budget constraints, curriculum planning, and the research component which drives academicians.

• More importantly, is how to introduce Library 2.0 to a library. It is about efficiently providing Web 2.0 strategies without sacrificing the quality of services users expect from librarians. Library 2.0 is essentially the same model geared toward libraries and the participatory culture users bring to the forefront. The model espouses constant and purposeful change though user driven services (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007). The purpose of Library 2.0 is to improve library services by giving users “the opportunity to assist in the creation and content management of services” (Casey & Savastinuk, p. 6).

The essential ingredients of applying Library 2.0 are to bring librarians closer to the user.

• The cost of this is change in the traditional services librarians usually provide. Coupled with change is the value-added by user participation within the library’s scope, vision, and mission. The participatory Web seeks to harness the power of its users in order to enhance content” (Casey & Savastinuk, p. 59).
• Users have taken advantage of customized interfaces, tag creation and blog writing for personal use, but they can carry it one step further by applying their knowledge in perpetuating Library 2.0 enhancements.

Casey & Savastinuk advocate understanding the library’s clientele, demographics, and usage data before applying Library 2.0. Public services staff can accurately gauge what users are doing and how they are performing these activities by using the traditional reference interview. The traditional reference interview can serve by querying users about their uses of the blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, and podcasts to enhance the service the library can provide as well as helping them with their research. By querying users about Library 2.0 technologies in this way, public services staff can gain an insight into what will best serve users.

• Cohen (2007), in her now defunct blog, Library 2.0: An academics' perspective [11] states that academic libraries perform educational and leadership roles. These roles can be formal or embedded into the library environment. It's the mission of the library to support scholarship for both students and faculty. This can be done in a Library 2.0 environment. The culture is evolving, according to Cohen, rapidly. Libraries, students, and faculty need to evolve to fit into this culture. She formalizes librarians roles as:

1. instructors about society's information environment
2. role models in creating an optimal information environment for research and our ease with using it
3. experts in supporting scholars in their research
4. professionals who study and teach best practices in the research process
5. keepers of the flame of scholarly communication
6. purveyors of services in a modern information environment
7. champions of a democratic information culture
8. conservators of our institutions' history, including the artifacts of their 2.0 history

[edit] Libraries endeavors into Library 2.0

[edit] Wake Forest

Wake Forest University Library approached Library 2.0 by focusing on information literacy. They saw the students coming to the library with an already established skill set for conducting research via the Internet. The librarians wanted to get the students to abandon those practices in favor of the more traditional way to approach research (Sharpless Smith, Mitchell, Numbers, 2007).

Information literacy is comprised of life long learning goals and has the following standards:

• Determine the extent of information needed
• Access the needed information effectively and efficiently
• Evaluate information and its sources critically
• Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base
• Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose
• Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally

(Assocation of College and Research Libraries, 2000)

They developed a class and approached it with a constructivist teaching method and social software. The information literacy class showed the students that their technological skills can be used and re-used in a variety of information environments. Wake Forest librarians also demonstrated that there is no correct approach to research and that the solutions were unique to the student. Additionally, they illustrated that technology is a separate component of information literacy.

Wake Forest’s course demonstrated that Library 2.0 technologies should reflect the information environment that is being taught. The goal is to create communications between students and professors.

[edit] Yale University

.

Yale brought five Library 2.0 projects into the library. They wanted to “take the library to the users.” Yale followed the two Long Tail projects in which they used a browser search plug in, like Google into their OPAC and also participated in Open WorldCat. Their browser search plug in was the Firefox search plug in LibX, which allowed a toolbar to be placed within the browser to search their OPAC (Sprague & Lechich, 2007).

They utilized a program called “Library Books Out,” which is a XML portal channel that demonstrated to the user a summary view of a user’s library account. The portal had links back to the catalog, so that users could renew their materials.

Additionally, they used a course reserves feed, another XML portal, which, while not an end-user interface, still allowed the users to access their course reserves feed into Sakai, an open source course management system. The important Library 2.0 component is the RSS feed which came from this system.

[edit] Emory University

Emory University’s use of Library 2.0 is extensive for staff. They utilize blogs for internal communications regarding various projects and a wiki [12] for internal documentation and meeting notes. All conference notes are posted to the wiki. Emory has various InfoForum sessions, where various departments present the current projects they are working on. All the InfoForum sessions [13] are podcast as well as all of the director chats [14]. Unfortunately, the viewing of the InfoForum and Director Chat podcasts are internal only.

Emory has developed a The Library Survival Guide Podcast[15] in order to assist students with their research

Emory has instituted Firefox’s plugin, called LibX, which allows the user to search Emory’s OPAC from the browser. According to Wikipedia, LibX "lets people use services offered by their library. Users can search their library catalog(s) and databases through a search bar or through a context menu." [16] In addition to LibX, Emory has just instituted a new type of catalog called Primo [[17]], which lays on top of the OPAC and allows for social tagging, clustered and faceted searches, which allows the user to avail themselves of some of the XML aspects of Library 2.0.

At Emory, the change to Library 2.0 was thrust upon us. We were told this is the only form of communication we will have, so you will use it. Overall, it has turned out to be better than the myriads of emails we were receiving. Its use has been better for staff communications and communication to the students. On our eJournals blog, we can post messages of outages and maintenance from publishers and internal server downtime so that students and faculty are alerted rather than being unaware of these problems and causing less confusion to the user.

Our internal blog, Wordpress, for projects has been helpful because of the way the information is dispersed. We receive information regarding the projects that are pertinent to us rather than posts for all projects occurring in the library. This has cut down on the number of emails sent via listservs.

[edit] Georgia Tech

Students
Sadly, nothing has been done to facilitate student usage of Library 2.0 at Georgia Tech. In an attempt to bring gaming into the library, FASET, the group responsible for initiating new freshmen into the GT culture, launches a week at the beginning of the Fall semester geared for new freshmen to get to know other students; it's called RATS week. In 2005, the library became involved by setting up gaming stations in the computer cluster. For the first semester of RATS week at the GT library, the library and the Office of Information Technology (OIT) set up a networked game called Unreal Tournament. There were 64 computers set up at any given time for the students to play against themselves. The winner of the tournament was to receive an Ipod. Unfortunately, OIT spent more than 200 hours setting up server time and space that they declined the invitation to ever participate in such an endeavor again. Today, RATS week at GT has become a physical social networking place (L.O. Critz, personal communication 4/9/2008). Critz hoped that with this initial foray into gaming, it would begin an adventure into the world of gaming as a learning tool.

GT's library has evolved to become a “Library as place” venue during the school year. A large group study area, complete with a presentation studio was built in 2006. Critz states that the studio is not equipped to handle podcasting, an essential aspect of Library 2.0, and the students are left with working solely with PowerPoint presentations, when the facility is used as in a presentation studio capacity rather than a physical social networking place or group study area.

Additionally, Critz co-teaches many library instruction freshmen classes in the sciences and humanities during each semester. When students have a research assignment due, she teaches information literacy regarding the resources available for each assignment. In one of the classes she teaches, the professor decided to hie himself off to England for the last 8 weeks of the semester. Critz states that the professor established an island in Second Life for the remaining the 8 weeks and classes were to be taught within Second Life environment.

The outpouring of resentment from the students is remarkable states Critz. She claims that the students not only feel abandoned by the professor, but the mechanics of the environment are ridiculous. The avatars are unreal and they don’t get a sense of being in the classroom, but holed up inside a ridiculous game. The majority of the students claim the will never return to Second Life because they do not wish to be taught in a gaming environment and the environment is clunky. They feel that a game is for fun and socializing. Second Life, to them is not conducive to a learning environment

Brian Mathews, a GT public services librarian as well as the author of the blog The Ubiquitous Librarian [[18]], and a professor from the College of Computing, Blair MacIntyre, attempted a foray into Second Life for GT, but it was unsuccessful. Enthusiastic at first, Mathews states on his blog :

"We're inviting (recruiting) students to hangout, explore, and learn the basics of the software. Our rational [sic] is that if there is an interest, let's say 20 students or more, then we'll work toward purchasing an island for them. The idea is still in the very early stages, but ideally we're following this basic principal [sic]: just as a student can checkout a book, they can also checkout a plot of virtual land. In this framework it becomes a discovery experience."

Mathews further discusses some benefits to participating in Second Life. The most important of these fits with GT's mission as an Institute: "Students will apply design principles, engineering mechanics, problem solving, physics, geometry, and aesthetics within a 3D modeling universe."

To the best of Critz’s knowledge, wikis and blogs are not encouraged by GT faculty. When an open blog was attempted at the library, instead of using the more traditional "Ask a Librarian" chat session (which is powered by Meebo), it was flooded with inappropriate comments and they had to shut it down. The blog was closed down as an information source and hasn’t been posted to since early 2007. Furthermore, the students show no interest in Del.ico.us as a venue for subject guides. They prefer the current set up of Web pages to locate pertinent information. Critz finds it interesting that they all use Facebook and MySpace for personal interaction, but not for teaching interaction.

Staff learning

Axford and Renfro (M. Axford, personal communication, 4/3/2008), attended the Internet Librarian conference in October 2007. After a presentation they gave to the GT library employees, a committee decided it was time for the staff to learn about Library 2.0 as a way to promote the technology for assissting the students at GT. The committee looked into Learning 2.0 by Helene Blowers and decided to pursue it because it was self-directed, not requiring specific time for either face-to-face classes or formal instruction and the program needed less software support. The idea was presented to the Director, Rich Meyer, and he encouraged staff to participate.

Helene Blowers created the 23 things[19] program based on Stephen Abram’s 43 things I want to do this year. Abrams discusses finding out about different Web sites and playing with the Web 2.0 applications on his blog. Blower’s, on the other hand has taken the important ideas from Abrams’ list and whittled it down to something libraries can use.

Her site Learning 2.0: Expanding the Minds, Empowering Individuals, Enriching the Community is touted at the original Learning 2.0 program. The program was conceived as a discovery learning program which rewards staff with prizes for accomplishing the 23 things. During 14 week program, she has incorporated the 23 things that should be learned. Tasks to be learned are:

1. Introduction to Learning 2.0
2. Blogging
3. RSS and Newsreaders
4. Wikis
5. Social Bookmarking
6. Search Engines
7. Online Productivity Applications
8. Online Social Networks
9. Photos and Images
10. Library Thing
11. Podcasts, audio, video, and screencasting
12. Custom Home Pages
13. Best Practices
14. Wrap Up and Summarize

The reasoning behind the classes is to have employees, with all levels of technological knowledge, gain insight from experts who are presenting Library 2.0. They want to include staff so that that the knowledge would be shared among all staff at the library, rather than just librarians who work public services. The main focus for providing the course is to support the library’s mission of giving the best service to users, opening a dialog on how GT can utilize Library 2.0 tools to improve service to the user, and to better communicate their internal workflow.

Axford’s goal is to introduce the tools over a 14 week period hoping people will avail themselves of the information presented as a way to keep up with their annual goals. GT Library has just introduced Clearspace as their internal library communication system. Clearspace, much like Wordpress, is a system built around wikis, blogs, discussions, and RSS feeds.

Within each lesson is a Common Craft video, as we have seen in class. Axford (personal communication, 4/5/2008) feels that these videos fall in line with zeitgeist of Library 2.0 GT is trying to promote.

A few staff members were asked about how they felt about the Library 2.0 course. They, unfortunately, only agreed to share their comments under the constraints of anonymity. Basically, they hate it. The staff cannot see any usability of Library 2.0 in their daily work life. They go through the motions of taking the course, but feel it is a waste of time. Some admit that they have taken what they have learned about RSS feeds and placed a few of them on their home computers, but cannot fathom using Library 2.0 in the workplace. One particular staff person thinks the course it silly and refuses to participate.

It is clear that GT is extremely behind in their Library 2.0 endeavors. It is disappointing to see, since so many other libraries have embraced the technology. From what we have seen from other research by the Spring 2008 classmates, public schools and public libraries are much farther advanced than GT. It is scary to think that an ARL institution with the reputation of GT cannot successfully take advantage of Library 2.0. With both the students and the staff rejecting the Library's efforts, the GT Library faces a long uphill battle to become successful in the modern Internet age. Perhaps forming student focus groups or a committee comprised of library staff and IT developers may help GT staff overcome their trepidation toward embracing Library 2.0 and its helpful technologies. As a caveat to this discussion, the author does not know if any other Web 2.0 endeavors have been successful on campus. It is entirely probable that it is only the library which has fallen behind.

[edit] Library 2.0 Challenges

Maness (2006) describes many of the challenges in moving from the stagnant world of what he calls Library 1.0 to the exciting world of Library 2.0. "Library 2.0 is not about searching, but finding; not about access, but sharing. Library 2.0 recognizes that human beings do not seek and utilize information as individuals, but as communities." The challenges facing libraries is to move in the direction of:

1. Instead of email reference/Q&A pages move to Chat reference, such as Meebo and subject guides with RSS feeds
2. Rather than text-based tutorials move to streaming media tutorials with interactive databases such as podcasts
3. Not to use email mailing listservs but rely on Blogs, wikis, RSS feeds
4. Instead of controlled classification schemes, such as LCSH rely on tagging coupled with controlled schemes and folksonomies
5. Have OPAC the become more dynamic by adding a personalized social network interface, such as Primo, VuFind, or Endeca
6. Finally, instead of an OPAC of largely reliable print and electronic holdings maintain access to reliable and suspect holdings, Web pages, such as Google Scholar, blogs, and wikis.

[edit] Conclusion

It is clear that libraries must move in the direction that technology dictates, even though it might be in "continuous beta." The key to involving students and faculty in Library 2.0 endeavors is to launch a successful public relations campaign by using subject specialist/liaisons to talk with their faculty to see what they want. Faculty can also advise the subject specialist/liaison about what users expect from their library experience. Library surveys, geared toward the students, can also help determine which services they would like to see as part of the library. With students already using Facebook and MySpace to connect to their friends, such tools may be used to help the library maintain a presence in their scholarly life. Many libraries already have Facebook pages, but many students do not connect to them as friends; looking GT Library's Facebook page there are only 27 friends versus Emory Library's 170 friends. Libraries desiring a change in their Library 2.0 usage need to find a way to make users want to utilize the services provided. For example, GT adding a podcasting feature to their presentation studio could help users ask for additional Library 2.0 enhancements to be added to the library.

The benefits of a public relations campaign for users would provide libraries a means to reach out to other users and let them know about the cool technologies the library has to offer. Many academic libraries have public relations campaigns for fund raising, but not to reach out to the user. By letting the user know that such things can exist in the library, perhaps more users would benefit if the library instituted Library 2.0 technologies.

[edit] References

Abrams, S. (2006). 43 Things I might want to do this year. Retrieved 4/20/2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWE/is_2_10/ai_n16133338.

Association of College & Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved 3/27/2008 from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.htm.

Casey, M.E. & Savastinuk, L.C. (2007). Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library services. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.

Cohen, L. (2007). Academic Libaries and 2.0. Retrieved 4/19/2008, from http://liblogs.albany.edu/library20/2007/08/academic_libraries_and_20.html.

Högg, R. Meckel, M., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Martignoni, R. (2006). Overview of business models for Web 2.0 communities. Proceedings of GeNeMe, p.23-37.

Maness, J.M. (2006). Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries. Retrieved 4/18/2008, from http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html.

Pogue, D. (2008, March 27). Are you taking advantage of Web 2.0? Retrieved 3/27/2008 from http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/are-you-taking-advantage-of-web-20/?scp=1-b&sq=&st=nyt

Rabinovitch, E. (2008, March). Web 2.0 is here and ready to use. IEEE Communications Magazine, p. 24.

Rosenfeld, E. (2007, October). Less is more: setting achievable goals. Teacher Librarian, 35(1), 6. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

Sharpless Smith, S, Mitchell, E, & Numbers, C. (2007). Building Library 2.0 into information literacy. In L.B Cohen (Ed.), Library 2.0 initiatives in academic libraries, pp. (114-129). Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.

Sprague, K. & Lechich, R. (2007). Yale: Taking the library to users in the online university environment. In L.B Cohen (Ed.), Library 2.0 initiatives in academic libraries, pp. (30-44). Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries

Vie, S. (2008). Digital Divide 2.0: "Generation M" and Online Social Networking Sites in the Composition Classroom. Computers and Composition (25)1, 9-23. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W49-4RWBCY6-2/2/d5e1879a6c47049688321197035a245c

[edit] Resources

Library Change

The Ubiquitous Librarian

Library 2.0 An Academic's Perspective

Library Juice

Stephen's Lighthouse

Library Thing

Yet Another Library 2.0 Blog