Collaborative teaching and learning tools

ARL ( External Link )
MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Collaborative teaching and learning tools
Series Title:
SPEC Kit
Physical Description:
128 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Ochoa, Marilyn N
Caswell, Tom
Association of Research Libraries
Publisher:
Association of Research Libraries
Place of Publication:
Washington, DC
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic libraries -- Technological innovations   ( lcsh )
Educational technology   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 127-128).
General Note:
"July 2012."
General Note:
PDF of Table of Contents and Executive Summary released July 26, 2012. Full version archived pending public release on March 1, 2013.
Statement of Responsibility:
Marilyn N. Ochoa, Thomas Caswell.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 801693249
issn - 0160-3582 ;
ocn801693249
System ID:
AA00012151:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Collaborative Teaching and Learning Tools

PAGE 2

SPEC KIT S Supporting Effective Library Management for Nearly 40 Years Committed to assisting research and academic libraries in the continuous improvement of management sys tems, ARL has worked since 1970 to gather and disseminate the best practices for library needs. As part of its commitment, ARL maintains an active publications program best known for its SPEC Kits. Through the Collaborative Research/Writing Program, librarians work with ARL staff to design SPEC surveys and write publications. Originally established as an information source for ARL member libraries, the SPEC Kit series has grown to serve the needs of the library community worldwide.What are SPEC Kits?Published six times per year, SPEC Kits contain the most valuable, up-to-date information on the latest issues of concern to libraries and librarians today. They are the result of a systematic survey of ARL member libraries on survey results; survey questions with tallies and selected comments; the best representative documents from survey participants, such as policies, procedures, handbooks, guidelines, Web sites, records, brochures, and statements; and a selected reading listboth print and online sourcescontaining the most current literature available on the topic for further study.Subscribe to SPEC KitsSubscribers tell us that the information contained in SPEC Kits is valuable to a variety of users, both inside and outside the library. SPEC Kit purchasers use the documentation found in SPEC Kits as a point of departure for research and problem solving because they lend immediate authority to proposals and set standards for designing programs or writing procedure statements. SPEC Kits also function as an important reference tool for library administrators, staff, students, and professionals in allied disciplines who may not have access to this kind of information. SPEC Kits are available in print and online. For more information visit: http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/ The executive summary for each kit after December 1993 can be accessed free of charge at http://www.arl.org/ resources/pubs/spec/complete.shtml .

PAGE 3

SPEC Kit 328Collaborative Teaching and Learning Tools July 2012 ASSOCIA TION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES Thomas CaswellAssistant Head of the Architecture and Fine Arts Library University of Florida Marilyn N. OchoaAssistant Head of the Education Library University of Florida

PAGE 4

Series Editor: Lee Anne George SPEC Kits are published by the Association of Research Libraries 21 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036-1118 P (202) 296-2296 F (202) 872-0884 http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/spec/ pubs@arl.org ISSN 0160 3582 ISBN 1-59407-881-5 / 978-1-59407-881-1 print ISBN 1-59407-882-3 / 978-1-59407-882-8 online Copyright 2012This compilation is copyrighted by the Association of Research Libraries. ARL grants blanket permission to reproduce and distribute source, and copyright notice are included on each copy. This permission is in addition to rights of reproduction granted under Sections 107, 108, and other provisions of the US Copyright Act. The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) Permanence of Paper for Publications and Documents in Libraries and Archives.

PAGE 5

SPECKit 328Collaborative Teaching and Learning Tools July 2012 SURVEY R E S ULT SExecutive Summary ................................................................................................................. 11 Survey Questions and Responses ........................................................................................... 19 Responding Institutions .......................................................................................................... 50R EPRE S ENTATIVE DOCUMENT SEquipment and Services Descriptions Emory University Study Space Options in Woodruff Library ........................................................................54Georgetown University Equipment | Video ..........................................................................................................55Georgia Tech Presentation Rehearsal Rooms ........................................................................................58Louisiana State University Collaborative Spaces in Middleton Library for Students ....................................................60University of Michigan 3D Lab Hardware Devices ...............................................................................................64Michigan State University Collaborative Technology Labs ........................................................................................65University of Minnesota Media Resources Support ...............................................................................................67University of Nebraska-Lincoln Equipment Available for Checkout ..................................................................................69University of Tennessee Studio Fact Sheet ...........................................................................................................75Yale University Collaborative Learning Center ........................................................................................77York University Steacie Science and Engineering Library > Unusual Reserves ............................................78

PAGE 6

Loan Policies and Agreements University at Albany, SUNY University Libraries Laptop Lending Agreement ...............................................................80University of Chicago TECHB@R Equipment Lending Terms and Conditions .......................................................81Emory University iPad and Nook Color Loans .............................................................................................83Georgetown University Gelardin New Media Center Equipment Use Policy ...........................................................85Louisiana State University Gear to Geaux ...............................................................................................................87University of Louisville Ekstrom Library Kindle Loan Agreement ..........................................................................88University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill MRC Equipment Loan Policies .........................................................................................89Northwestern University Guidelines for Equipment Lending from Digital Collections ..............................................90Oklahoma State University Statement of Responsibility ............................................................................................91Southern Illinois University Carbondale Laptop Checkout Registration & Liability Form ................................................................93Temple University Borrow Electronic Devices | Amazon Kindle .....................................................................95Instructions and How-Tos University of California, Irvine Langson Library Multimedia Resource Center Video Tutorial ............................................98Emory University Room 310: Connect Mac laptops to media:scape tables ..................................................101Georgetown University Using a Kindle Fire ........................................................................................................104Louisiana State University Students: Questions You May Have About Clickers ..........................................................106University of Nebraska-Lincoln Digital Media Services Help! .........................................................................................107Northwestern University Info Commons Project Room Usage Instructions .............................................................109Pennsylvania State University Interwrite Board Instructions .........................................................................................110University of Tennessee Studio Equipment Hookup .............................................................................................111Smithsonian Institution NMNH Video Conference Quick Start Guide ....................................................................112

PAGE 7

Promotional Materials Arizona State University The Library Minute: Study Spaces (Video) ......................................................................114University of Chicago Get technology training at Regenstein TECHB@R ...........................................................115Georgetown University Gelardin New Media Center ...........................................................................................116Northwestern University The Project Room @ the Information Commons ..............................................................118Oklahoma State University 3 reasons to visit the Library .........................................................................................119Edmon Low Library on Facebook ....................................................................................120Petes checking out an iPad between classes ..................................................................121University of Tennessee The Studio ....................................................................................................................122SELECTE D R ES OURCESJournal Articles and Other Works .........................................................................................127Websites .................................................................................................................................128

PAGE 9

SURVEY R E SULT S

PAGE 11

SPEC Kit 328: Collaborative Teaching and Learning Tools 11 E XECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroductionCollaborative teaching and learning tools include a variety of hardware used to view, create, and pres equipment, devices, or systems being offered to re search library users in a self-service environment for individualized, user-initiated, collaborative teaching and learning. Many of these tools have steep learning curves, while others are much more intuitive and are used extensively across research institutions. They may be located at the libraries or elsewhere at the insti tution. While some tools lend themselves to collabora tive teaching and learning, others may be associated with individualized teaching and learning scenarios. Although many institutions provide loanable technol ogy for educational use, there is little documentation of such programs. The survey provides a snapshot of what is or will be offered in 63 libraries at 61 of the 126 ARL member institutions.Equipment OfferedThe 13 types of tools addressed in the survey range from traditional classroom-based resources (e.g., whiteboards) to more sophisticated technologies repurposed for educational uses (e.g., videoconferencing systems). Respondents were asked to identify which of the tools are currently offered at their libraries, which technologies they are planning to provide, which they do not plan to provide, and, if the library does not offer the tool, whether it is available elsewhere at the institution. The survey also asked how many of each type of tool is or will be available. Sixty-one of the 63 respondents (97%) currently offer at least one form of collaborative teaching and learning tools to their users. Not surprisingly, non-interactive whiteboards are eight institutions (97%) have or plan to have them; only two libraries have no plans to offer whiteboards. The number offered ranges from two to 100 per own ing institution, with an average of approximately 23 units. Laptops are the next most commonly available tool. Forty-one of 62 responding libraries (66%) offer or plan to offer laptops. These libraries offer about 59 laptops, on average. At least one respondent reported that while the institution strives to offer emerging technologies, the laptop loan service continues to be one of [the] most popular and appreciated services offered by the libraries. In contrast, another respon dent noted that they are discontinuing laptop check out and are instead encouraging students to bring in their own. One institution described the transition from a laptop to netbook loan service as a way to in crease the number of units available to users, given the lower price of [them]. Touchscreen tablet comput ers such as iPads and Android tablets (e.g., Motorola Xoom) are or will be available at 38 institutions (61%), with owning libraries offering an average of 12 units. E-book readers are also offered or will be offered at 24 ARL libraries (39%), with an average of 10 readers at each library. Collaborative devices for multimedia production are widely available. Forty libraries (63%) offer video recording devices such as the FlipVideo tapeless cam corder. These institutions reported supporting an average of 13 units each. Fifteen libraries (24%) do not plan to offer these devices, and eight (13%) indi cated the equipment is available elsewhere within the

PAGE 12

12 Survey Results: Executive Summary institution. Similarly, more than half the respondents reported having audio recording aids at the library (34 responses or 55%). Several (11 or 18%) reported that other locations on campus have these devices. Thirty institutions (49%) reported they currently offer or plan to offer interactive whiteboards. These collaborative tools are available elsewhere at 11 insti tutions (18%), but 20 others (33%) reported that they do not plan to offer this tool. Although interactive whiteboards are used in libraries and throughout sev eral reporting institutions, interactive learning centers (touch tables) that use comparable technologies are only available or will be available at 15 libraries (25%). The specialized nature of content to optimize use of a tool, such as GIS, may contribute to its low response rate. A tool commonly associated with the interac tive whiteboardthe audience response system with clickersis or will be in place at 29 institutions (48%), with an average of 120 clickers at each owning library. Twenty-three respondents reported that audience re sponse systems are being used at locations other than the library. One institution commented that ABTutor or polleverywhere served as an alternative to the au dience response system. Handheld videoconferencing devices such as web cams are offered or will be offered at 14 of the report ing institutions (23%), with an average of 32 units, and one respondent commented that some tablet comput ers and laptops are equipped with a built-in camera with audio and video capability; since this capability enables use for videoconferencing purposes, pur chase of standalone devices was deemed unnecessary. Thirty-six institutions (61%) currently offer or will offer videoconferencing systems. Few libraries offer their patrons gaming systems (eight institutions or 13% with an average of four units each) and personal digital assistants are no longer popular (three institu tions or 5%). Thirty respondents reported they support a variety of other devices, electronics, systems, and workspaces to allow creation, viewing, and editing of information. Viewing devices are mentioned most frequently; monitors and projectors allow a larger group of users to work together without having to crowd around a small monitor. Nine institutions (30%) have anywhere from two to dozens of display monitors (LCD and plasma). Eight have between two and 25 projectors (portable to larger data projectors). An alternative to a single, large display is collaborative workspace offered by Steelcase. Mentioned in eight of 30 responses (27%), this media:scape workstation sys tem is described as providing a collaborative seating arrangement [with] a large screen monitor and table for laptops that connect. media:scape allows users to shift quickly between displays of connected laptops and other devices such as an iPad. Responding insti tutions had as few as one station and as many as 20 at some libraries. Several institutions offer other computer electron ics such as scanners, drawing tablets, and various storage media. Headphones (three institutions own ing a range of 16 to 60 units) and microphones (six institutions ranging from three to 37 units each) vary from very basic to professional quality. Smaller acces sories necessary to optimize use of computing and productivity tools (such as adapters and cables) are noted to be available in kits or as standalone items to be used in the library. Reference to multimedia production was in con nection to technology-rich spaces within the librar ies, sometimes referred to as information commons, media centers, or knowledge commons. One library reported jointly administering the spaces with institu tional/campus technology departments and reported those holdings. Among the equipment frequently maintained for video and audio production are digital cameras (ranging from four to 18 units each at seven institutions) and accessories, including tripods. One respondent explained, [providing] editing facilities [is] used to integrate media from our collection into academic projects. In addition to using found footage and content in digital productions, our users can also create new content using the digital still and video cameras, audio recorders, and accessories like light ing and microphones. Audio players, video editing equipment, and video conversion tools, audio editing equipment, imaging technology, music keyboard and mixing boards, transcription kit, and 3-D modeling and animation equipment were reported as available by at least one institution. Appropriate software pack ages to use these tools are installed when necessary.

PAGE 13

SPEC Kit 328: Collaborative Teaching and Learning Tools 13 Unique responses designated as collaborative tools by respondents included large-scale poster plotters, GPS, and PA systems. Non-electronic tools offered lockers, media viewing rooms, presentation practice areas, module and mobile furniture, green screens, and carts for transporting equipment.Equipment LocationThe locations of learning and teaching tools include open user areas (such as reference or information commons areas), classroom or teaching/training labs, group study rooms, the circulation desk, and other fa cilities across the institution, including library confer ence rooms, campus computing centers, media centers or information technology labs for instructional sup port services, student unions, and dorm study rooms. Non-interactive whiteboards are found in many locations at the 63 responding institutions, including open areas (32 responses or 57%), classrooms/labs (30 or 54%), and group study rooms/spaces (43 or 77%). The prevalence of this non-digital collaborative tool is likely due to its inexpensive and easy-to-maintain nature. Interactive whiteboards are in open spaces at nine institutions (25%), though more often they are housed in classrooms/labs or group study rooms. Nine of the 14 libraries that have interactive learning centers put them in public spaces in the library; one library indi cated a touch table is available in an exhibition area within the special collections library. Although some tools are available in open spaces, expensive equipment is typically not found in open, unregulated areas in the library unless mounted (e.g., plasma displays), grounded (e.g., media:scape tables), or installed to another device (e.g., videoconferencing devices or scanners). Videoconferencing systems, interactive white boards, and audience response systems are common ly found in classroom/lab environments and group study rooms. In the classrooms they are usually only for faculty use. Respondents additional comments showed six instances of videoconferencing systems housed in conference rooms. Many of the tools available for loan and use on site include laptops, video recording devices, audio recording devices, touchscreen tablet computers, cal culators, and e-book readers. Associated peripher als such as keyboards, portable scanners, projectors, power cords, and cables for monitors and webcams are also loaned by at least one institution. Monitors, keyboards, and some other tools/devices for media or video production are sometimes held in the group study rooms (five institutions) and are, in effect, checked out at the time of reserving the user space. The media:scape tables are held in various locations throughout the libraries; institutions varied by mak serve basis or loaned via check out of a group study room.SchedulingForty-six of the responding institutions (74%) indicate they use some kind of scheduling process to reserve collaborative teaching and learning tools. The most common methods are scheduling equipment in person (20 responses or 44%) and using a form on the librarys website (19 or 41%). A few libraries accept reservations by sending an email, scheduling via the catalog, call ing in a request, and using an online calendar such as Oracle or Outlook. Four institutions use a commercial booking system (e.g., OnShore Development). The catalog or homegrown systems are most often used for advanced booking. One institution indicated that, Check out of more advanced/expensive equipment sometimes requires faculty sign-off. One institution uses touchscreen tablets outside of study rooms for While respondents are not consistent with the systems used to schedule and reserve tools, they reported some consistency with what is scheduled. booking user spaces that are equipped with tools not individually checked out. Fifteen institutions (68%) reported they book group study rooms or classrooms that house various tools. Examples of this practice are booking the media production room to reserve video equipment and green screens, presentation space to check out monitor and cables, or a group study room to reserve the interactive whiteboard or videoconfer encing system. Examples of devices that can be re served include laptops and e-book readers. These are

PAGE 14

14 Survey Results: Executive Summary barcoded and checked out to the users institutional Decision DriversLibraries decide to make learning and teaching tools available to users based on a number of drivers. Respondents to the survey indicated that user request is the most compelling reason to purchase collabora tive tools (54 institutions or 87%), while recommenda tions from a library committee or staff member is the second highest driver (52 or 84%). The third highest driving factor comes from university department col laborations, where libraries focus equipment purchase on tools integrated into the classroom and curriculum (36 or 58%). Adding the tool to designated technologyrich spaces in the libraries (e.g., the information com mons) was the fourth highest reported driver (34 or 55%). Other decision drivers for the purchase and sup port of collaborative teaching and learning tools range from a consideration of trends and best practices to input from faculty or students. Opportunities such as new construction projects, donations from private donors, improved wireless coverage, and allocation other institutions. One respondent noted that a plan for continuous assessment of user needs should be in place before including technology. As this plan devel ops, user demands and expectations may also evolve.Use PolicyWhen asked about restrictions on the use of teaching and learning tools, many of the respondents (26 or 43%) indicated that some tools are available to some users while others are restricted. Eighteen (30%) in dicated that use is restricted based on user category, while a comparable number (17 or 28%) revealed that all tools are available to all users. mation about restrictions on tool use. In the majority ulty, and staff can use any of the offered collaborative tools. In some cases (11 or 24%), only students can use the equipment, as purchase and use agreements are governed by the student technology fee paid or institutions, students can only reserve an interactive whiteboard if faculty have signed-off (via email) on their use. In other cases (nine or 20%), teaching staff (both faculty and graduate students) are eligible to use tools such as cameras, audio recording devices, and laptops. In one case, the library restricts use to a recorders are available to faculty/students teaching/ enrolled in a class using oral history or other guided interview methods in coursework. Twenty-six of the responding libraries (43%) re quire a registration process for use of many of the collaborative tools, while the same number of respon dents indicated that neither training nor registration is required. The registration process typically requires users to sign an agreement, when they checkout such items as laptops, iPads, MacBooks, cameras, and au certain responsibilities including how the equipment of theft, loss, and/or late return (15 responses or 54%). Registration is usually a paper agreement form, but one respondent indicated that users must complete an online agreement form to book a Kindle in the catalog. In four instances (14%), users contact staff directly to register to use videoconferencing tools, iPads, and Blackberries. At six institutions (21%) students are automatically registered when they check out laptops and iPads in the library system or during advanced booking by web form.Training and Technical SupportA quarter of the responding libraries require users to complete training before using these tools. In some cases, library staff simply provide brief presentations that cover use policies, basic equipment operation, and general how-tos. One institution requires train ing for iPads that are used in instructional seminars they offer on the use of medical apps. More complex or very specialized equipment, such as recording studios, multimedia workrooms, videoconferencing equipment, and video cameras, require more extensive training. One institution uses online videosstudent technology workers in the media center developed on line training modules that users must complete before receiving any equipment. Another institution offers

PAGE 15

SPEC Kit 328: Collaborative Teaching and Learning Tools 15 a workshop for interactive whiteboard use. In one equipment. Where training is not required, instruc tions on how to use the equipment is offered upon request. More than half of the 58 responding libraries (33 responses or 57%) reported that both library IT/sys tems and non-systems staff play a role in training their coworkers to use and troubleshoot collabora tive tools. About a third of these 33 also turn to their parent institution IT staff and/or commercial ven dors for training. At 12 libraries only non-IT library staff provide training or troubleshooting. Five rely solely on library IT staff. Only two respondents re port training or troubleshooting only by the parent IT staff. The high number of respondents who depend on non-systems staff for training/troubleshooting (47 or 81%) indicates the need for immediate support for staff in public service functions. One respondent describes staff being trained by super users in their area. Another commented, It depends. Most trouble shooting is done and documentation developed by front-line staff. When necessary, IT staff will help resolve technical problems. We intentionally wanted equipment and systems that were readily usable and wouldnt require staff help. When asked who provides technical support for library users, the responses were almost identical to who provides training. The majority of respondents once again depend on either non-systems library staff (47 of 61 responses) or library IT/systems staff (40 re sponses). With a few variations, the same libraries rely on the parent institutions IT/systems staff for user support. Only four respondents receive user technical support from vendors. This suggests a dependence on train-the-trainer sessions for library staff who re ceive the training directly from vendors and then pass that knowledge on to the users. Comments on this question also hint at support for students by students. Not surprisingly, maintenance and repair of col laborative teaching and learning tools shifts more to library IT/systems staff (49 or 81% of responses over all). The number of libraries that rely on non-systems library staff goes down to roughly half. Most of these 30 respondents also depend on library and parent institution IT staff and vendors for maintenance and repairs. Most of the remaining 31 respondents rely on a combination of library and parent institution IT staff and commercial vendors. Additionally, responses in the other category imply that institutions are willing to go out-of-house (e.g., outsource) to keep highly technical tools in good working order. Reliance on commercial vendors for repairs and maintenance of the suppliers to honor warranties for malfunction ing parts or hardware. Considering the complex nature of new technol ogy and hardware involved with the wide variety of collaborative teaching and learning tools, responses to this question and the previous support questions clearly indicate that institutions depend greatly on their IT/systems staff for maintenance and trouble shooting of highly technical hardware and software. However, right along with them are non-IT/systems library staff members that provide assistance in about half of each of the troubleshooting, technical support, and maintenance scenarios. Financial SupportInitial purchase of collaborative teaching and learning tools in libraries is done through a variety of funding eral library budget (53 responses or 86%). The librarys IT/systems budget came in second as a source of fund ing for half of the responding libraries. About a third relied on the parent institutions IT/systems budget or student technology fees. Grant funding from outside Only six respondents reported using a public/private partnership for funding. The other responses fall into several discernable categories: donations/donor funds (seven responses); other institutional depart ments (four responses); endowment funds (three re sponses); and renovation/construction funds (three responses). One respondent reported using library development funds in the near future to buy e-readers and iPads. A third received funding for laptops and netbooks from a local credit union, while one library system used shared funding of student technol ogy fees by collaborating with other units on campus. Such creative and varied responses suggest libraries

PAGE 16

16 Survey Results: Executive Summary themselves are being innovative when seeking outside funding streams to purchase cutting-edge tools. Funding for ongoing maintenance and replace ment of equipment follows a very similar pattern to that of initial purchase funding: most respondents depend on the general library and/or IT/systems bud get. Funding from student tech fees drops to 25% of respondents and from the parent institutions IT/ systems budget falls to 20%. As might be expected, grant funding and public/private partnerships drop off considerably after initial purchases of equipment and the parent institution or library takes over main tenance and repair. Two libraries use library fines and fees for maintenance and repair. One institution generates income from a Distance Learning Library Services program. One library hopes that as some collaborative tools gain popularity across campus that university administration will acquire a site-license. Only four libraries report charging fees for the use of collaborative teaching and learning tools. One equipment and rooms. At one library, late fees are $5 an hour for electronic equipment and $1 an hour for accessories. Another library charges a fee for late re turn of laptops ($20/hour, up to a maximum of $200). of these institutions, refusal to adhere to use policies and due dates for electronic equipment potentially can be seen as additional revenue stream for their purchase, maintenance, and repair. Publicity and EvaluationWhen offering a new service, libraries often try to publicize the new service through a variety of me sites, email, newsletters, and the campus newspaper. However, when asked how they promoted the avail ability of new collaborative teaching and learning tools in their libraries, respondents overwhelmingly relied on simple word of mouth (59 responses or 95%). Not far behind that response are announcements on the library website (56 or 90%), followed by mentions in library classes and tours (54 or 87%). Such seemingly passive promotion of a new service may be due to the technical support and large learning curves associ ated with tools that may be deemed technologically advanced for library staff and users. Even a traditional ranks slightly ahead of web 2.0 social networking methods like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. (40 or 65%). Fewer than half of the respondents reported us ing email (30 or 48%), library newsletters (29 or 47%), or campus newspapers (16 or 26%), signifying much less reliance on these methods as a means to reach a more technologically advanced user. Open-ended responses indicated use of various digital signs, e.g., electronic signs on campus or screen savers on workstations, to reach potential users. Three respondents relied on library outreach or liaisons to campus departments. Two libraries used institutional websites, while one had not started marketing initiatives, yet. Similar to the methods employed in publicity, as sessing the success of offering collaborative teaching and learning tools is largely informal in most of the responding libraries. Informal user feedback (57 or 93%) and tracking the number of uses of each tool (55 or 90%) are the two most common evaluation meth ods. Surprisingly, fewer than half indicated they use formal surveys of users (26 or 43%), though an analy sis of the other responses shows this number is misleading. Three libraries report using focus groups, two others use faculty surveys, one uses an Opinions Survey, and yet another relies on the librarys annual surveyall of which can be viewed as methods of formalized user surveys. As a measure of user de mand, the fourth most popular evaluation technique is tracking the number of requests for each tool (24 or 39%). Some libraries track the number of techni cal support requests for each tool as an evaluative measure (16 or 26%). One library has recently hired an Assessment Librarian, whom they hope will be able to track evaluation of support for collaborative teaching and learning services. Interestingly, one li brary somehow tracks turn aways (i.e., number of users turned away from a service desk because all of the needed tools are checked out).Benets and ChallengesSome of the most informative and thought-provok ing comments in the survey come from the sec tions in which respondents were asked to list up to

PAGE 17

SPEC Kit 328: Collaborative Teaching and Learning Tools 17 offering collaborative teaching and learning tools in nearly equal, but the number of unique statements for Although the responses are quite varied, several no ticeable themes emerge. and learning tools cover many needs of the research community. Their very nature seems to be the inspi ration for a large majority of the respondents who feel these tools support a collaborative teaching and learning environment, as evidenced by responses ing collaborative work and new teaching styles, and meeting the changing needs of teaching, learning, and research at their institutions. The second most common perception held by re spondents is that the popularity of collaborative tools serves as good publicity and outreach for the libraries: Brings users to the library. Broadens the identity of the library on campus. Allows us to reach people who might not normally visit. Good marketing for the library as a techno logically relevant place. PR. Several comments emphasize the importance of having access to new tools and technology for users in developing the much-needed knowledge, skills, and abilities within a 21st century knowledge discovery environment: Access to technology for workplace skill development. Improves their skills for future entrance into the work force. Provides students with valuable skillsets that will make their resumes and grad school applications more competitive. for users of increased access to new tools and cutting edge technology. The libraries absorb the sometimes prohibitive cost for researchers to experiment with cally disadvantaged users. A few institutions stress the mere convenience how that too extends learning beyond the classroom. Another common theme is that offering these tools enhances the users learning experiences in and out of the library and also provides improved patron ser vices. Other responses mention satisfying user needs and demands, as well as keeping the library up-todate and relevant. When respondents were asked to identify chal lenges, an overwhelming number of comments con cerned costs associated with the initial purchase of these tools. They also expressed the need for recurring funds devoted to technology maintenance, repair, and replacement. Even though not requiring institutional funds, one respondent interestingly pointed out that, Technologies that are lent out could easily be dam aged and expensive to repair or replace. Several re spondents were concerned that the budget for more traditional library materials (e.g., books) would be cut in favor of buying technology tools. Another prevalent issue is that collaborative teach ing and learning tools always need updating: Keeping up with rapidly changing technologies. Things change so quickly, deciding where to invest is a challenge. iPads are challenging to keep updated. Some technologies are on their way to wards obsolescence by the time a service for them is launched. A number of the responding libraries mentioned the effect on staff workload and the learning curve involved in keeping up with the latest hardware and software. The time involved in assisting patrons and troubleshooting seems to be taking a toll on some library staff, as one pointed out they, must maintain a bigger workload with the same number of hours in a day.

PAGE 18

18 Survey Results: Executive Summary in the need for technical support that includes the maintenance and upkeep of a variety of devices and platforms. Several libraries seem to be struggling with concerns include: of university-owned and student-owned equipment. How to provide technology support and content/reference support at point of need. Library IT support for tools that often fall supported. The public relations activities involved in getting to be challenging for one or more libraries: Instructors are not always supportive or interested in their students using these resources. Some faculty and staff (including library staff) do not understand why the library is involved in providing these tools to users. Communication between partners is es sential and any breakdown can negatively impact services and user experiences. Other challenges mentioned include meeting user demand, security, developing policy and procedures, and scheduling. Lack of space, or adequate space at least, in existing libraries for collaborative tools and learning is also a concern for some: Its hard to carve out space for group rooms in the current footprint of our buildings. Surprisingly, only one respondent mentioned the issue of copyright and licensing as a concern. One library aptly pointed out an often over looked challenge: personal privacy can sometimes be compromised when using shared teaching and learning tools. ConclusionResults and documentation from this survey demon strate the variety of collaborative equipment, devices, and systems available or soon to be available to re search library users. When considering the provision of collaborative teaching and learning tools, one must take into account the institutional mission, policies, user demand and expectations. What should be pur chased? How many to purchase? Who can use them? Where can they use them? When can they use them? How will they use them? When and how will they be updated? Who will do the updating? Who will train the users? Who will train the staff? Institutions thinking of offering such resources in the future can perhaps make more informed decisions by assessing the experiences reported by ARL libraries in this sur vey. The study seems to indicate these tools not only enhance current services at libraries but also improve the libraries image as a dynamic and responsive part ner of the research community.