Former Committees & Taskforces
CUWL Reference Coordinators’ Committee
CUWL Reference Coordinators Committee Approved (as revised). CUWL RCC April 15, 2005
Teleconference Meeting via WisLine
Thursday March 3, 2005, 2005
1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Minutes
Members Present
UW-Colleges Mark Rozmarynowski
UW-Eau Claire Mimi King
UW-Green Bay Anne
Kasuboski
UW-La Crosse Randy
Hoelzen
UW-Madison Steve Frye
UW-Milwaukee Linda
Kopecky
UW-Oshkosh
Sarah Neises
UW-Parkside Cynthia Bryan
UW-Platteville John Leonard Berg
UW-Stevens Point Patti Becker
UW-Stout
Jana
Reeg-Steidinger
UW-Superior Ella Cross
UW-Whitewater Barbara Bren
UW System Admin Paul
Moriarty
UW System Admin Lorie Docken
Chair Jana Reeg-Steidinger called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. as
all members were connected. RCC
Secretary Linda Kopecky took the minutes.
Meeting materials were previously distributed as email attachments.
1. Minutes and agenda updates
The minutes of the previous RCC meeting on January 13, 2005 were approved with minor wording and spelling changes. (Motion: Randy; Second: Mimi).
2. LexisNexis Statistical Universe. Anne and Ella reported on their review of Statistical Universe (distributed previously). Statistical Universe is a unique resource and has additional value as an access point to federal document collections. It is perceived as difficult to use; use may primarily be by reference librarians mediating access for users. Continued incompatibility with SFX/MetaLib was discussed as a weakness of the resource.
Use statistics to January 2004 were distributed previously. Lorie and Paul will send more recent use statistics if available.
The recommendation report for LexisNexis Academic Universe from Cindy and Barb is pending. CUWL subscriptions for both LexisNexis’ Academic Universe and Statistical Universe will expire/renew 30 June.
Both subcommittees will send their reports to RCC before the Joint Meeting.
3. Virtual Reference Subcommittee Reports
A. Successful Models. Subcommittee 1 had reviewed existing models for shared service (report distributed).
Docutek was withdrawn as a successful model as further review revealed several consortia had recently reported problems with that service. The subcommittee will further review success models identified in literature searches provided by Sarah and Brad.
Success is not
merely marked with quantity, and “sufficient” quantity varies with the
different perceptions and expectations of different institutions.
Moving from pilot
phase to accepted/regular service could be one measure of success. MIT uses AOL Instant messaging and is
content.
Software needs to work before services can move beyond a “pilot” phase. Students use instant messaging in daily life without glitches or complicated instructions; they expect our library chat services to work that smoothly, seamlessly and intuitively without glitches. Madison’s Convey Systems OnDemand service isn’t compatible with the Mozilla browser and browser compatibility is a key component of a successful model/service.
The DocuTek service requires download of a Java script - that causes some problems – students don’t expect to have to download something or reconfigure their systems.
After this meeting adjourned Subcommittee 1 stayed on to schedule follow up WisLine meetings, to continue work on the successful models research
B. CUWL-only chat consortia. At the RCC January meeting a subset of UW libraries expressed some level of interest in pursuing a shared chat (or joint subscription purchase) model. [Note: “Strong” interest from Milwaukee, Whitewater and Oshkosh; “Potential” interest from Green Bay, Madison, River Falls, Colleges and Superior.]
Ella and Linda reported preliminary findings. As all of the RCC wouldn't support a mandated CUWL system at this time we wouldn’t include an all-CUWL mandatory service in a list of option given to the CUWL directors. If the successful models committee is able to identify 1-3 potential services each could be contacted for cost and licensing issues, and of that could come a recommendation to CUWL. Further action is deferred until successful models are identified.
C. Solo Models. Cindy, Steve and Patti contributed. (Steve’s Madison Convey Systems summary and Cindy’s comments distributed).
Madison highlights: Marketing was key – how and where to use the service. System requires a download that goes through the proxy system so they don’t get many nonMadison questions. Madison had begun use prior to the AskWisconsin group forming so they opted to offer pilot service within a campus consortia rather than join the multi-type group. A persistent button allows the service to be marketed at point of need.
Cindy reviewed Human Click – successful as a basic chat system (started with free then upgraded to paid); Parkside switched to DocuTek for it’s co-browsing option but ran into some glitches. Strength of solo library service: ability to answer “local” questions that inevitably are asked; hesitant to be in consortia with public libraries. Parkside loaded the service on all reference staff computers and at the reference desk, so whoever is free when a question pops up answers it (no formal scheduling).
Stevens Point will start offering chat service via Digi-Net’s eLibrarian software this week. Patti had earlier distributed comments supporting their selection of Digi-Net.
D. Alternative Models.
Report was distributed. Ideas for expanding/marketing other mechanisms for service to remote users (e.g., toll free telephone reference; email service). Comments on roving librarians, combining service desks
Library presence in online courses. Steve mentioned Madison is piloting using a database of pre-created modules to create course web pages. No html coding skill is required (check off precreated components). IT folks can grab link and insert it into D2L and Madison portal. Course reserve is under one tab, other tabs for finding books, articles, links to specific databases; course librarian contact info and photo. Steve will send URLs to the RCC listserv for further information on this “Library Course Page Builder”. Based somewhat on the Rochester Cold Fusion model.
4. Tutorials
Jana asked if there was further discussion on CUWL RCC coordinating use of the free LOBO tutorial software discussed in January. Members had reviewed it but most have invested training and time in other products (Captivate and Camtasia were mentioned) and preferred to stay with those. LOBO may be pursued independently but does not need further group review.
5. Digital Committee Update. Mimi is the RCC representative to this CUWL group (report distributed). She reminded all of monthly lists of resources that we should now be receiving via email and gave examples of projects accepted for support such as Whitewater’s Walworth County historic plat books. Individual campuses are soliciting faculty creations to digitize. Many interesting projects have been proposed. Mimi encouraged the RCC to share the new list with staff each month.
6. General Discussion Topics
How to keep reference [print] collections up-to-date as vital resources in academic communities.
Sarah introduced the topic of maintaining a relevant print reference collection in tight fiscal times; Oshkosh is reviewing specialized print indexes to see what might be canceled. Discussion of which libraries maintain which newspaper indexes in print (many are now relying on ProQuest Newspapers, Wisconsin Newsstand and LexisNexis Academic for primary indexing of newspapers). Brief discussion of special topic indexes that overlap and reviewing for local or general collections (e.g., print Music Index, online RILM Music Abstracts, International Index to Music Periodicals).
Older materials discussions: There is some value in keeping back runs of print indexes, even when duplicated with online resources, if space allows (ILL verification; back up should online become unavailable or cost prohibitive). Many have “Please do not reshelve” signs in the reference area to assist with in-house use statistics. Madison heavily weeded the undergraduate library reference collection (by approximately half) and is attempting to eliminate reference duplication throughout all campus libraries (already completed a project to cut serials duplication). River Falls and Stout have discarded back runs. Some other campuses indicated a similar practice as space is needed. Another group in CUWL is researching shared storage facilities and last copy center possibilities.
LibQUAL+ ™ survey results as an evaluation of reference service.
Discussion on how members are utilizing results of the 2004 LibQUAL survey to evaluate and improve reference services. Mimi reported that Eau Claire is working through their results, looking at comments in terms of place AND service, and using the findings to develop a new strategic plan. They wrote a summary for their campus newsletter. UWEC discovered a need to market existing services – people asked for resources and services that are already in place. (Other campuses found also found this to be true.) Whitewater posted the numerical survey response for both LibQUAL and an in house survey. Paul mentioned that Oshkosh also posted a summary.
Discussion topics held over for future meetings:
- Distance education impact on reference service.
- Reference’s potential role in new student academic orientation programs.
- Marketing the library in this world of Google and remote access.
- MetaSearch / Custom Search capabilities within ExLibris. Preliminary discussion may be discussed in detail via the April agenda as most haven’t yet implemented and staffs haven’t investigated thoroughly. The Colleges have been live for a while and Platteville is going public soon.
7. Next Meeting
The next meeting is planned to be held in April 2005 at Stevens Point, with the regular RCC meeting in the morning and a joint meeting with the Collection Development Committee during the afternoon. The RCC agenda may include continued discussion of virtual reference consortia configuration; MetaLib implementation and searching.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Kopecky