The lurking librarian project.

Abstract

As course management software becomes a more popular medium of education, the librarian's place is uncertain in the technology. During the Spring 2002 semester, the Robert Morris Library and the Robert Morris School of Communication allowed a public services librarian to "lurk" on eCollege shell and participate in discussion threads as a means of providing information literacy instruction to students.

Introduction

Providing library services, especially information literacy instruction, in an online environment is a large concern for many academic institutions. As more and more classes are conducted using the medium of the Interact for class discussions, librarians worry that students will not learn the use and importance of library research during their academic careers and, therefore, not become members of an information literate society. Providing online reference is one library response to this change in course delivery. Online reference can take many forms and serve many different populations. During the Spring 2002 semester the Robert Moms University (RMU) Library provided online reference service within a course management shell to a parallel-delivered English literature course.

Parallel-delivered Course Description

An RMU parallel delivered course is taught in a mix of "online" and "on-ground" mediums. The courses generally meet either once a week during the semester or less. The majority of class discussion is conducted online via the eCollege course management software. This type of educational situation presents an interesting challenge for the reference librarian in providing convenient and relevant reference service. In the spring of 2002, the Robert Morris University Library and the course professor allowed a reference librarian to participate in a parallel-delivered course by offering asynchronous reference service on the discussion threads as well as a traditional bibliographic instruction session in the "brick and mortar library." This first foray into providing reference service in this environment was both successful and unsuccessful.

In the Beginning ...

After identifying the parallel-delivered courses as a target for experimentation, the RMU Library contacted Jim Vincent, Professor of Communications. Vincent, a leader in using the eCollege shell for parallel-delivered courses at RMU, is a professor that encourages and requires his students to use the library and its resources for his courses. During the spring of 2002, Vincent was scheduled to teach one of his most popular classes "Early English Language and Literature" as a parallel-delivered course using the eCollege shell. Students were to study a variety of authors and works including Beowulf, Arthurian Legends, and The Canterbury Tales. Students would meet "on ground" in a classroom once a week on Tuesday evenings and participate in instructor-driven online discussions within the shell. Frances Caplan, the RMU Library Director, met with Vincent for a short brainstorming session and the Lurking Librarian idea was hatched. Jackie Corinth, a public services librarian, was chosen to be the first RMU "Lurking Librarian."

Registration

As the "Lurking Librarian" Corinth registered with eCollege to participate in the class discussions. Registering on eCollege was relatively straightforward except for one small hiccup. The eCollege shell is linked directly to RMU enrollment information. Vincent had to contact the RMU registrar directly to "register" Corinth in his class so that she could complete the eCollege registration and begin lurking. Once registered, Corinth was able to access the software as any registered student could. Corinth was able view the entire online course shell including assignments, quizzes and, most importantly, the e-mail discussion threads. Students are able to post to the discussion threads list from any Internet-connected terminal at any time after entering the eCollege shell. Student posts remain intact for the entire semester and beyond so users can go back and examine past discussions. Upon logging in, the software would indicate how many new postings have occurred since the last time the students logged on. Vincent posted discussion questions every week on the accompanying threads and required students to respond online. From this vantage point Corinth was able to monitor online discussions for research questions and post responses.

Concerns

Corinth was very concerned about her role in the learning process at the onset of the experiment. Corinth did not want to become over-enthusiastic and try to answer every question put forth by the instructor or students and not allow students to answer the questions for themselves. Corinth unofficially set limits for herself as to what she would and would not respond to and made a conscious effort to only contribute when a factual ready-reference type question was posted. Corinth also did not want to offend the instructor by offering comments or criticisms about the students' online postings that the professor might want to comment on so she purposely kept online chitchat to a minimum.

Lurking Librarian

Once the semester started, Corinth checked in with the online course approximately three times during the workweek and responded to questions on the appropriate threads. The first few weeks brought a flurry of activity as students were first introduced to the texts and had a great deal of vocabulary and definition queries. All reference questions were asked during the course of the threaded discussions. The flurry came to an end during the second half of the semester as the online discussions began revolve around personal attitudes towards the text and possible interpretations of the literature. These discussions provided as fewer opportunities for reference questions. As mentioned previously, Corinth's association with the class was not limited to the virtual environment. The class attended a specifically designed one-shot library instruction session, which Corinth conducted, during the third week of the semester. The session took place in the library during the regular class meeting time. It was at this point that the instructor officially introduced Corinth to the class and spoke about her participation in the online class discussions.

Results/Impressions/Reconsiderations

All in all Corinth feels that this experiment was an appropriate "getting one's feet wet" situation but would approach this situation a bit differently in the future. This "experiment" came into being very quickly a very short time before the Spring 2002 semester and was, therefore, approached very casually.

One thing that Corinth would reconsider when pursuing this type of exercise is course selection. The Early English Language and Literature course is primarily based on selected texts and required little secondary research. Corinth was, therefore, not able to contribute as much as she could have when compared to a research-driven course where more secondary research is required. Another aspect of the situation Corinth would alter is the librarian introduction. Corinth would have liked to have attended the first class meeting to introduce herself to the class and explain her purpose rather than just starting to answer questions online before finally introducing herself at the one-shot session during week three. Perhaps the students would have felt more comfortable asking questions if they knew who she was and why she was there from the very beginning.

There are also numerous other issues Corinth would have to consider before participating in this type of experiment again. One piece of information she would like to receive in advance, if possible, would be the class demographic make-up. The Early English Language and Literature class was scheduled for one evening a week and the majority of class interaction was done online at the student's convenience. Based on this information, Corinth mistakenly deduced that this class would appeal to non-traditional students residing off-campus and that these would be the type of students she would be dealing with. Her approach then was to provide information in its more or less complete form as she believed these students would not be able to access the physical library easily. This was not the case. The class, instead, was a mix of the non-traditional and the traditional students who, although living on campus, were interested in the course material and enrolled. Knowing this prior to her first face-to-face contact with the class during week three would have changed her approach in the online discussion threads. Then rather then simply providing definitions and posting passages from reference works with complete citations, she would have been more inclined to post less data and instead post more "about the library" type of information and recommend in-house library resources if she knew that many of the students were only a short walk away.

Another issue to consider is the medium of the discussion board. They discussion board format does not lend itself to a reference interview or complex research questions. All comments and questions posted remain online for all to see during the entirety of the semester. Privacy may play large roles in what the student will ask using the eCollege shell. This format, however, is wonderful for quick ready reference answers or to point students to a certain library resource that may be helpful. Knowing this now, Corinth would be more inclined to post my specific contact information (e-mail, phone number, and fax number) and library hours and repeat this information at the library instruction session. Other methods of communication--like e-mail--should be introduced early on for students to take advantage of these methods. This would provide students alternative ways to speak with a librarian that they may not realize were available and encourage them to contact a librarian off the list if they did not want the entire class knowing what was asked.

Possible Future Dilemmas

Logistical issues will restrict the number of classes librarians can participate in. The lurking librarian experiment does require time and effort to keep up with the discussions. Librarians will not be able to lurk effectively on all classes offered by their institutions. Instead, someone will have to choose which courses they feel that they will have the most impact and focus on these courses.

The subject background of the librarian in relation to course content would be another factor to consider. I have an undergraduate degree in English Literature and have studied the majority of the works the students in Vincent's class examined. Corinth feels that this previous knowledge of the course content gave her an advantage in the eCollege environment where the back-and-forth between students and librarian is not as dynamic as during face-to-face encounters. This class was within my intellectual comfort-level. She would feel less confident lurking on a hard science course or business course as she have less experience in these topics. No formal assessment was done to evaluate the benefits or lack thereof of a librarian involved in reference in this way. If the RMU Library repeats this process in the future, assessment tools will have to be developed.

eCollege Librarians

Finally, there are many eCollege technology issues that impact a library's/librarian's effectiveness. The Library/Librarian does not have a defined role within the course management software. George S. Machavec (2001) makes this the focal point of his editorial, "Course Management Software: Where is the Library?" In the editorial Machavec writes, "With all of the hype surrounding new course ware, however, there appears to be a missing element--the library." (Machavec, 2001, p. 1)) Machavec writes that, "many of these packages will support the creation of bibliographies (sometimes called Webliographies) with hotlinks, or professors may link to individual electronic resources within course modules" (Machavec, 2001, p.1) but that, "most packages do not currently provide much else." (Machavec, 2001, p. 1) Machavec cites one of courseware's major shortcomings is its inability to integrate the library's electronic resources and the possibility of synchronous reference service within the shell. Interestingly enough, Machavec also points out that, "Although much of the early emphasis in these programs was to reach the 'distant' students" (Machavec, 2001, p.1) in reality, "many are now discovering that the audience for this courseware is actually local students of traditional programs who prefer this type of learning environment."(Machavec, 2001, p. 1) As mentioned previously, Corinth found this trend to be true as well.

One obstacle in the software that Corinth encountered during the RMU experiment with eCollege involves the "look" of posts. Comments by the instructor appear in bold to draw students' attention whereas, because Corinth was enrolled like a student, her comments appeared in the same font as a student's comment. Students cannot tell from the onset if a post is from the librarian or another students until they learn the librarian's username. By having a librarian's comments somehow stand out (italics, underlined, etc.) students would be alerted that the person writing is not a student and may be drawn and give more credence to the remarks.

Recommendations

If any librarians are interested in pursuing this type of reference service, Corinth would recommended that they have more face-to-face contact with the students either by attending class or conducting a series of instruction sessions. Maintaining good communication with the instructor and determining a set of outcomes you would like to achieve prior to the beginning of the semester will also keep the experiment on track.

Final Thoughts

Corinth feels that the RMU experiment of allowing a librarian to monitor and respond to online-posted questions in a parallel-delivered course is a relatively easy way for academic librarians to begin experimenting with online reference work. The students are not true distance learners as they are required to attend class weekly. Many of the distance education issues of getting library resources to the student who are not physically able to come to the library are not concerns. If the librarian mentions a certain reference book online, he/she knows that the students will be on campus at least once a week and could access the book in the library. Also, the librarian can monitor the discussions for reference questions when it is convenient. This is not the "real-time" reference work that requires either constant monitoring for reference questions or scheduled reference chat times. The librarian can access the eCollege shell anytime during the day for as many times a week as he/she chooses. All in all, the RMU Library's "Lurking Librarian" experiment has given the institution a new way of connecting with the student population. Plans for Lurking Librarian Part Deux are currently in the works.

References:

Machavec, G.S. (2001) Course management software: Where is the library? Information Intelligence Online Libraries and Microcomputers, 19(10), 1-2.

Jacqueline Corinth, Robert Morris University

Jacqueline Corinth is an Assistant Professor of Learning Resources and a Public Services Librarian.