LES Blog

Don’t let the name fool you.  The 5th Canadian Learning Commons Conference is for everyone.  If your learning commons is well underway or you are new to the scene, consider attending this year in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.  Better yet, why not contribute your ideas and experience to the program?  Call for Proposals 

Kingston is beautiful during June, so take time this summer to rethink your learning commons and plan for the future.

The fall issue of BiblioNotes is now available! In this riveting issue:

• A message from the Chair
• Meet new member Tracy Nectoux, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
• Read about the LES field trip to the University of Chicago
• Enjoy some MERLOT
• And more!

The latest email blast from ACRL included the news that LES’s own Arianne Hartsell-Gundy, Humanities Librarian at Miami University, has been named to the 2010 class of “Emerging Leaders.” Read all about it in ALA’s press release. Congratulations, Arianne!

[This is the first post in a series of chapter-by-chapter discussions of the book ‘Teaching Literary Research: Challenges in a Changing Environment,’ edited by Kathleen Johnson and Steven Harris. ACRL Publications in Librarianship #60, 2009.]

So I’ve finished about half of the book and, despite taking some slack for posting it in my “Currently Reading” queue on Facebook, I am enjoying it so far. I particularly appreciate the perspectives of literature and rhet/comp faculty members on reshaping the way we teach literary research for a new generation of students.

Van Hillard, the director of the College Writing Program at Davidson College, begins the first chapter by discussing the ACRL Information Literacy Standards, which he finds to be useful guidelines but also problematic in several ways. First, they are “autonomous,” i.e., they are independent of any context for their use. Instead he argues for a “situated” view of information literacy, one in which “literate practices shape and are shaped by social, cultural, political and economic forces such that literacy events–a particular search for information, a specific occasion for composing an argument, a certain classification of a tradition of inquiry, the cataloguing of a monograph, the use and definition of a key term in writing–are understood as context-specific within the universe of social activities of knowledge production and reproduction.” Another problem comes with the very term “information literacy” itself:  while it is clear that librarians think in terms of “locating information,” those who teach and practice academic writing think in terms of evidence, analysis and argument, which “are typically not understood as predominantly informational in nature.” (13)

More to the point, Hillard sees in ACRL’s standards a set of skills the student is expected to acquire for the purpose of becoming a fully independent researcher. They stress efficiency in finding information, not critical skill at evaluating or incorporating it into the body of one’s argument, thus ignoring the fact that literacy is both social and “situated” in nature. By “situated information literacy,” Hillard means literacy that is made up of “events,” specific interactions between a user and the research tools designed to answer a specific question at a specific point in time. It is not a context-free skill, but one that is very much determined by the social/political/cultural context in which the researcher’s question is asked and answered. The context determines how and what information is created, acquired, organized and accessed; it is therefore impossible to ignore and offers opportunities for inquiry. Likewise, literacy is social because of those interactions, not just between the researcher and the text, but between the researcher and his fellow researchers (past, present and future), librarians, etc. who are also a part of the process. I found his description of the library as a social sphere especially inspiring:

“One starting place for such recovery comes with thinking of the library not as some vast storehouse of data, but rather as an elaborate argument, a site where users activate and reactivate conversations and disagreements across space and time… Every time a student enters the library (physically or virtually) she, in effect, involves herself in a vast community of participants whose exchanges represent traditions of inquiry, public controversies, disciplinary disputes, and schools of thought.” (16)

It’s a beautiful depiction of humanities research, in which the researcher joins a conversation that is already in progress. (Later in the book, Kate Koppelman’s chapter on “Literary Eavesdropping and the Socially Graceful Critic” elaborates on (and points out additional difficulties with) this same idea, but I’ll wait to discuss that.) Hillard’s point is that librarians and faculty should work together to “treat research not simply as contact with information, but as participation within the professional culture we call the library” (19). He concludes by giving some general suggestions for how this can be accomplished, but admits that “This is a project that undoubtedly will require time, energy, and resources.” The questions he asks about information literacy and the research culture have no easy answers, but I’m glad that someone is asking them.

ACRL has accepted LES’s proposal to create about 3-6 minutes of video for broadcasting on YouTube, blogs, and whatever other venues might be appropriate. The video would consist of interviews of English department faculty in various institutions all answering the same question(s) about how they partner with their liaison librarian. We envision the end result to be fun and upbeat and to appeal to the targeted audiences: teaching faculty, administrators, current and future literature librarians, etc. The proposal, including the executive summary, a projected schedule, and budget, is attached here: ACRL Proposal.

We now need to form a team of people to see this project – working title “Focus on Literature Librarians” — through. Experience with video production is welcome but not necessary; the budget allows for professional editing and videographers. Creativity and enthusiasm are the most important qualifications.

If this project appeals to you please look over the proposal and then contact Liorah Golomb. Let her know if you have prior experience in video or filmmaking and whether you would be interested in being the team leader.

Congratulations to Liorah on this approved proposal!

Back in July we happily announced the publication of a new book from ACRL, Teaching Literary Research: Challenges in a Changing Environment, edited and featuring contributions by a number of LES members. Well, my library finally received a copy and I’m very impressed so far. So I’m giving myself the assignment of reading my way through the whole book, and I plan to write posts about each of the chapters as I do so. I’ll tag them “Teaching Literary Research” and include the cover image so they will be easy to locate.

The blog team is always looking for volunteers, so if you’d like to contribute by reading and writing about a chapter just let me know via the comments box. If you volunteer early you can have your pick of chapters!

I’m looking forward to diving into the book. Congratulations again to the LES members on this achievement!

This month, our author series continues with R. Neil Scott, Professor and User Services Librarian at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, TN. In addition to his most recent book, Neil is the author of two additional books:  Postmarked Milledgeville: Flannery O’Connor’s Correspondence in Archives and Library Collections, and Flannery O’Connor: An Annotated Reference Guide to Criticism. He is also the founder of Timberlane Books, an independent publishing house that “strive[s] to publish award-winning books that advance knowledge and learning for present and future generations of scholars and readers.”

What is your most recent publication?

I compiled and co-edited, with Irwin Streight, Ph.D., Flannery O’Connor: The Contemporary Reviews. It was published this past June by Cambridge University Press.

How did you decide to write this title?

I stumbled upon some of the author-specific volumes of Cambridge University Press’ American Critical Archives Series and realized that, because I had already researched and identified all the reviews of O’Connor’s books for my previous book, Flannery O’Connor: An Annotated Reference Guide to Criticism (Timberlane, 2002),  it would probably be fairly easy to type, edit and proofread the reviews for an O’Connor volume.

I then sent a detailed proposal/query letter to the series editor, Dr. M. Thomas Inge at Randolph-Macon College, and was pleased when he responded that he was enthusiastic about including a volume on O’Connor in the series. Then, after some back-and-forth correspondence regarding style, length of the proposed manuscript and royalty rates, he recommended the title to Cambridge University Press. I was then issued a contract and was soon writing another book.

Please talk about the research and writing process.

Unfortunately, once I began work on Flannery O’Connor: The Contemporary Reviews, I found that, while I enjoyed editing and typing the reviews, I had seriously underestimated the time it would take to identify and acquire the necessary permissions to include them. Time passed–one year, then two–and I began to sense that the project was “pulling me under.” It was difficult to do the scholarly work necessary to type and edit the reviews while trying to correspond with hundreds of copyright holders.

I turned to my friend and fellow O’Connor scholar, Dr. Irwin Streight at the Royal Military College (Canada), and asked him to join me as a co-author. Thankfully, he agreed, and immediately started editing and writing the Introduction. Meanwhile, I gritted my teeth and turned my attention to acquiring the remaining more difficult copyright permissions, one-by-one. Indeed, I was negotiating back-and-forth with the New York Times and other corporate rights holders right up to the day we returned the marked-up final version for printing.

The book was a good idea and is a valued contribution to O’Connor scholarship, but it was a tough, arduous journey to see it through to completion. What saved the project was the fact that Streight agreed to join me, did more than his fair share of writing and editing, and we both were able to tap into faculty research funds at our respective institutions to pay for the permission fees.

What did you like most about the process/project?

I enjoy the sense of purpose that each writing project gives me. While I was writing my first book, Flannery O’Connor: An Annotated Reference Guide to Criticism, I was serving as Coordinator of Public Services, then Associate Director for Library Operations at Georgia College & State University. My days were filled with a lot of personnel-related decision-making, dealing with budgets and customer-service related issues, “putting out fires,” attending committee and other meetings, writing reports, and – if it were a good day – some public services librarianship.

In contrast, my O’Connor-related reading and writing was a purposeful, peaceful and meaningful activity. And, because I often dealt with scholars working with O’Connor’s manuscripts, I knew, intimately, what the scholarly trends were, what was being written for theses, dissertations, articles and books in progress, and was able to use this knowledge to develop an intuitive feel for the essence of the criticism that I was reading and summarizing for that book.

Unfortunately, with this more recent volume, even though I am in a more enjoyable position as a Professor and User Services Librarian at a mid-sized state university (25,000 students), the clerical effort required to acquire permission to reprint the reviews detracted from the writing and editing, and this book wasn’t nearly as enjoyable as my previous scholarly projects.

What did you like least about the process/project?

I’ve found that – to do a good job on a literary project – it’s hard to estimate when you can actually complete it. So, while going back and forth in my negotiations with scores of copyright holders I missed the first couple of agreed-upon deadlines. These situations were not well-received by the production editor at Cambridge, but I was adamant. I refused to give up and leave some of the reviews out. It became a bit stressful for all concerned, but in the end I managed to include every single review we had identified and Cambridge published a truly excellent volume.

What suggestions do you have for other LES members who are interested in publishing a book?

Get in the habit of writing – book reviews, articles, blog entries, pathfinders, whatever – just write. Then, browse your library’s “new books” cart to get a good feel for what’s being published. Try to identify a series that may have a niche that matches your own interests and/or a literary collection in your library or community. (For example, the Cambridge Introductions to Literature Series, the Scarecrow Press’ Literary Research Series, and other such series offer excellent opportunities for publication.)

Once you identify a need that attracts your interest, send the series editor a well-written, enthusiastic query letter. Introduce yourself and impress him/her with your desire, knowledge and qualifications. If you haven’t made a record for yourself yet, just seek out someone who has and “pitch them” on the project. You’re likely to find them happy to join you as a principal or coauthor.

Why are research and publication important to you?

Besides the obvious requirement to conduct research and publish to meet promotion and tenure criteria, I’ve found that I enjoy the idea of contributing something meaningful to the scholarly community and to those who will come after us.

I feel a satisfying sense of accomplishment to know that my books are now part of the written record of my generation; that individuals, as yet unborn, will be using them to better understand the life and writings of Flannery O’Connor and her world.

It’s time for another edition of BiblioNotes! The editor would like your articles/news for the Fall 2009 issue by Friday, September 25th, 2009. Some ideas for items of interest:

• Have you been to an interesting conference?
• Want to write a brief “My Life as a Humanities Librarian” item?
• Have an unusual or intriguing collection in your library that you’d like to highlight?
• Have a favorite reference tool to recommend?
• Have you recently collaborated with a professor on an interesting research project or used digital resources like EEBO or ECCO in an instruction workshop?
• Have you received an award? Share the good news!

If you are a new LES member, you can send a brief bio with your interests for our “New Member Spotlight.” If you are retiring, let your colleagues know about your future plans or share a fond memory of LES.

We are also looking for columns that incorporate “Tech Tips” or “Active Learning Tips,” as well as MLA news and issues.

Most newsletter items are about a half page to two (at most) in length. Please email the editor and let her know if you will be sending something, so she can plan accordingly. Thanks and we look forward to your submissions!

[This is the first post in a series we’re tentatively calling “Tech Tips”–brief introductions or how-to’s on useful technologies for librarians. Thanks to Aline Soules for submitting this Tech Tip!]

When I wanted to experiment with module-making, I decided to use Adobe Captivate. When I started, I basically knew of three options:

• Camtasia (http://www.camtasia.com)
• Voice Thread (http://www.voicethread.com)
• Captivate (http://www.adobe.com/products)

I was fortunate to be a co-PI (Primary Investigator) on a small grant that we used to purchase Captivate and Camtasia to test our options.  Voice Thread we used for free, although our library has now purchased a Higher Education license.

So why did I end up using Captivate?  While it takes some learning, I ultimately found it easier to understand and use.   Not everyone would agree; a number of our librarians prefer VoiceThread.  I could also re-record the audio (not possible on Camtasia, at least at that time–I haven’t check it since).  This was important as I make mistakes.  Above all, Captivate is fully compliant with our accessibility needs.

The one caveat is that you need arrangements with your IT person to store your modules on an accessible server.  S/he can give you a URL that you can put on a web page or in a Course Management System so people can access it.

I am not the most tech savvy person you ever met, so it took me a good deal of time to make my first module (about 100 hours–now, my process is much faster).  Some of that was my learning curve, but my modules also tend to be long.  The longer the module, the more you have to manage and the longer it takes to prepare and implement, so I’d advise starting with a small module to begin.  In other words, try to do what I say, not what I did!

Step One:  Decide what you want to achieve.
Be specific.  For example, three of my modules cover citation, but each has a different goal.  Citation Puzzle focuses on where to find the information pieces you need to put a citation together.  MLA Citation Puzzle then takes those pieces and puts them together.  Both are demonstration modules.  Decoding citation is a module that looks at citations and tells viewers how to interpret them.  As part of this module, I have learned to include interactivity, so viewers must click on the answer of their choice.  So I started by learning the basics and now I add new features one at a time after I’m comfortable with what I can already do.

Step Two: Write a script and create your Images.
Captivate allows you to import images or use a template, but I have only imported PowerPoints, so I prepare my PowerPoints and then my script.  I know people who work in the other direction and I know others who move back and forth between the two pieces, but by the end, you need both.  The script should be structured “by slide” for PowerPoints and the PowerPoints should match the slides.

Step Three:  Find images.
You want images that enhance the idea of each slide and the more images you can use, the better.  I’ve had trouble with this for my citation modules because, of course, citation examples are text by default, but I’ve still managed to find images for as much of it as possible.  I did better with my Decoding Citation module and I find I improve with each new project.  There are free images on Flickr and elsewhere, and I always give attribution when I use anyone’s image, whether they ask for credit or not.

Step Four:  Import your PowerPoints.
Open Captivate and click “Record or create a new project.”  Click “Import from Microsoft PowerPoint.” You will be prompted to choose your file.  As I’m using Adobe Captivate 3, I must use version 97-2003 of my PowerPoints.  I assume (although I don’t know) that Captivate 4 will let you import version 2007.  Click OK and your PowerPoints will load.  Before you click to import them, be sure to choose “background image” (not animation) and “advance slide ‘automatically’” (not “on mouse click”).

Step Five:  Record Your Audio and Prepare Your Accessible components
I do these steps together.  This is the part that will take you a while.  It’s not intellectually that difficult, but it is “fiddly” and you’ll find that things don’t work, then you have to re-record or redo some piece of it.  I advise patience, if you have it (another of my personal challenges!)

When the PowerPoints are loaded, they will show up as thumbnails on the “Storyboard” tab.  This is similar to your PowerPoint Slide Sorter.  Click the “Edit” tab and they’ll move to the side with the first slide on the main part of the screen.

To record your audio, you will need a headset with audio and mike.  Click on “Audio” and choose “Record this slide” from the drop down menu.  The first time you record, you will have to check your levels, but you only have to do it once and it’s good until you close the program.  Use your script to read into the mike.  Don’t worry if you stumble.  You can re-record as many times as you like.  My other advice is to take your time as you read and leave appropriate pauses when you breathe so that you can find them when you do the closed captioning.

After you’ve recorded each PowerPoint, click on “Slide” and choose “Properties.”  The default sub-tab is “Slide.”  Click “Accessibility” and copy and paste the entire text for that slide into the box.  Click “OK.”  This is for the screen reader.  Next click the sub-tab “Audio,” and then “closed captioning.”  This can be the tricky part until you get used to it.  Click on the green plus sign and a row will be added.  Insert your text under “Caption.”  If you have too much text to show on a closed caption (more than 3-4 lines), you will have to open another row, then cut and paste the back half of your text into it.  Keep repeating this if you need more rows.

Now, on the wave forms, you will have to move the slider along and stop where your voice moves from the text in the first row to the text in the second row.  That’s when you’ll be glad you left some space, so the “flat line” or the “space” in the wave forms can give you a clue where that point might be.   There’s a magnifying glass if you need it.  There’s also a green line with an arrow to the right.  When you think you’re set, listen to your recording and watch to see if the sound and text are in sync.

More tips about this:
• if you have a long text that needs 3, 4, or more rows, work backwards.  It took me two modules to figure out that it was easier to do it that way.
• Once you have split your text into rows, listen to your audio before you start moving your sliders and watch the hour/minute/seconds.  Write down roughly the time that your voice moves from one text row to another.  This will give you another clue to help you find the right point on the wave form.
• Each time you place a slider, check that portion of the sound before moving to a new slider.  You can do that by sliding the bar underneat the save forms along to an appropriate point.  Listen until it crosses over the slider, watching to see if your voice and your row are in sync.
• Save your project after every slide you complete, just in case something goes wrong.  You don’t want to have to re-record  too many slides (again, spoken from experience!).

Step Six:  Save and Publish.
Save as you go along, but once you’re finished, save for the last time.  Go under the “File” tab and choose “Publish.”  You can choose where you want to save it on your hard drive or flash drive (if the flash drive is large enough—these modules take space).  Just click “Publish” (I never change the settings).  When you’re done you should have a file folder with four files in it.

Step Seven:  Upload it to a server.
Give the file to your IT person to load on the server you arranged before you started or follow whatever directions you are given to upload the file.  You MUST upload all four files and put them into a single file folder to make this module work.  Your resulting URL will be your “connection” point.

Step Eight:  Sit back and enjoy your module.
Modules go out of date (I need to revise my citation modules to reflect the new MLA citation format between now and the start of our quarter at the end of September).  I also have a shorter Topic Development module which I need to re-record because when I recorded it, my speaking voice was still recovering from surgery and a colleague told me that I sounded like Bette Davis.  But you are welcome to view what’s there.  Go to my English subject pages athttp://library.csueastbay.edu/guides/English and scroll down to the “How To” section on the right hand side.  Just click on your module of choice and make sure your sound is on.  They should load and play for you. You can always contact me if you want more information:

Aline Soules, aline(dot)soules(at)csueastbay(dot)edu. Have fun!

Brand-new from ACRL publications is Teaching Literary Research: Challenges in a Changing Environment, edited by LES’s own Steven Harris (University of New Mexico) and Kathleen Johnson (University of Nebraska-Lincoln). This book also features essays by LES members Laura Taddeo (University at Buffalo, see the previous post), Dan Coffey (Iowa State) and Meg Meiman (Delaware).

Teaching Literary Research is “a collection of essays that explores the relationship between information literacy and literary research. English professors and librarians provide perspectives on this relationship through presentations of best practices in teaching students from first year undergraduate through graduate levels.”

This promises to be a valuable resource for all of us who do library instruction. Congratulations to everyone involved in this great project!