Generating Knowledge: The Power of Academic Libraries

Starts May 10 at 5 p.m. and ends May 12 at 1 p.m.

Conference Theme:

IT SEEMS LIKE just yesterday that the media pronounced our libraries a thing of the past. Yet we are still here, working with our users to generate the desired knowledge. In fact, more than ever, we recognize the ongoing need for old-fashioned services, albeit with new twists. And more than ever, we understand the complexity of our task. New technology provides greater access to information, but also generates more confusion. How well are we empowering our users? Even as new technology requires us to cooperate, it also enables us to create new ways to communicate with one another. How can we empower one another? This year our conference will look at these and other questions.

Plenary Sessions

Session I, Friday, May 10, 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Location: Chapel

Delaine Eastin, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction and a Regent of the University of California, will address "The Power of Academic and Research Libraries." In 1999 Ms. Eastin was given the Crystal Apple Award from the American Library Association for her persistent work to improve California's public school libraries. The $158.5 million in state financing is California's single largest allocation ever for school libraries.

  • Moderator: John McGinnis, Cerritos Community College


    ALTHOUGH Delaine Eastin is primarily interested in K-12 education as the State Superintendent of Public Education, she made clear that what happens in K-12 affects higher education. Reading gives information, and shared information makes a democracy. Not all kids know how to get into college, and librarians have a role in the process of education. Students need access to information, technology, and librarians in schools, and teachers need librarians to help them teach research. In the information age, the library does not become obsolete but integral to the educational process and to building bridges to higher education. Librarians need to welcome children into the 21st century, by helping them understand the importance of writing and research.
    There needs to be a commitment in the state; California is dead last in money for school libraries, librarians, books, and periodicals. The budget is a statement of the value of the budget makers, and librarians need to help the districts understand the importance of school libraries. The most patriotic thing we can do in this nation is to educate our children. A tax increase is needed; if we love this country, then we should be willing to pay to educate the kids.
    All who attended were moved by Ms. Eastin's humor, charm, and dedication to education.

    Emily Bergman, Occidental College

    Session II, Saturday, May 11, 10:30 a.m. to Noon

    Location: Chapel

    Michael Buckland (UC Berkeley, School of Information Management and Systems), Michèle Cloonan (UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies), and Bill Fisher (San Jose State University, School of Library and Information Science). As more and more people retire from libraries, will there be a new generation of people to run them? Or are we headed for a professional "recession?" We look to professional schools to educate new librarians, but what changes are taking place at those schools? What are they teaching, who are their students, and what future do they envision? Join us for a stimulating dialog with our panel of distinguished educators as they address "The State of the Profession: Where are We Headed?"

  • Moderator: Judy Clarence, CSU Hayward


    THE THREE distinguished speakers of Plenary Session II strove to answer the question: "The State of the Profession: Where Are We headed?" Representatives from California's professional schools Michele Cloonan, Associate Professor and Chair, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies; Michael Buckland, Professor, UC Berkeley School of Information Management & Systems; and William Fisher, Professor, San Jose State University School of Library and Information Science shared their insights on who the next generation of librarians will be. Each spoke from the perspective of their institution and its current curriculum.
    Professor Cloonan pointed out some current trends in library schools: more and more graduates seeking jobs outside of traditional libraries, especially academic ones (e.g. asset managers of digital/non-print materials in the entertainment industry, archives or records management); a gradual shift away from high salary as prime motivator for career choice among students and the rebirth of idealism, both of which bode well for librarianship. For the academic librarians she had these insights: the greatest need in academic libraries is for administrators; our recruitment process is cumbersome and slow, causing us to lose good candidates to other jobs; students no longer identify with types of institutions and don't think an academic library is any more prestigious than another type of library; academic libraries are often hierarchical and bureaucratic rather than dynamic; academic libraries need to do better in recruiting people of color. One suggestion was that instead of filling jobs, we should consider hiring talented people and designing their jobs around them.
    Professor Buckland declared himself "not yet ready for a funeral." He felt the concerns about the next generation of librarians are premature. He surmises that the library literature is still obsessing with the library school closures of the 1980s. And in fact, he remembers that the average age of librarians in 1980 was high, too. In his experience, library schools are changing their focus, broadening their scope, and business is booming. The need for librarian skills is not going away, not only because there is a lot of information that needs organizing, but because it matters who knows what. Librarians are responsible for the social memory and for placing information in meaningful relationships with humans. At Berkeley, the graduates are taking a wide array of positions (usually with corporations), such as web designer, software engineer, knowledge author, manager of information processes, evaluation and instruction analyst, and portal developer, with an average starting salary of $73,400.
    Professor Fisher started by questioning the statistics that are being gathered on the average age of librarians. What about actual numbers in regard to retirement? Which ages are we actually using? Have librarians been asked about whether and when they plan to retire? Adding this line of questioning would give a more accurate picture of the future drop-off in librarian numbers. He reminded us that it is also important to look at the paraprofessional library staff, whose numbers are actually larger. The number of graduates from San Jose State University's library school, 869, should hearten us. It is the single largest graduate program at SJSU. As at Berkeley, the age of people starting the library studies program is relatively high. And as at UCLA, management is the single most important course offered. For the greatest question of the near future may be who will be running our libraries and departments.
    In the end analysis, all three speakers agreed that the crisis in U.S. librarianship resulting from mass retirements in the next 10-15 years is greatly exaggerated. All were able to present evidence that the future of the profession is in good, competent hands.

    Heidi Hutchinson, UC Riverside

    Session III, Sunday, May 12, 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m.
    Location: Chapel

    Patricia Iannuzzi, will provide the Conference Overview and introduce our final speaker, Clifford Lynch. Ms. Iannuzzi is Associate University Librarian and Director of Doe/Moffitt Libraries at UC Berkeley. She is the 2001 recipient of the ACRL Instruction Section Miriam Dudley award for Instructions, and chaired the ACRL Task Force that developed ìInformation Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Ms. Iannuzzi speaks, writes, and consults and topics related to the educational role of the library, and we look forward to her help in pulling together themes from the conference and articulating what we have learned.

    Clifford Lynch, Executive Director of the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), will provide our closing address "Information Technology: Fueling the Future." Futures. Dr. Lynch is also an adjunct professor at the School of Information Management and Systems, and spent 18 years at the University of California Office of the President, the last 10 as Director of Library Automation. He is past president of the American Society for Information Science and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Always on the cutting edge, always insightful, always provocative, Clifford Lynch will close our conference and send us home with something new to think about.

  • Moderator: Cynthia Jahns, UC Santa Cruz


    UC BERKELEY Associate Librarian Patricia Iannuzzi gave a CARL Conference Overview and reminded us about our Friday night kickoff speaker Delaine Eastin's call to Librarians as educators and their need to defend against ignorance. She also called to Librarians as advocates and their need to reach out and help the K- 12 schools or "farm teams" for California colleges and universities. Further, she reminded us that there is a battle going on and that academic librarians need to get involved in the conversation.
    CARL's closing keynote speaker was Clifford Lynch, whose address was entitled "Information Technology: Fueling the Future." Asilomar's chapel was filled with his fans and followers. We know we can count on learning the newest library automation and network thoughts and trends from Clifford, and he delivered. He addressed three sets of trends: info abundance, interdependence of library automation and other systems, and personalization.
    Info Abundance. The rules around all information are changing. Libraries are not necessarily the first stop for information. Often, browsers like are the first stop. It is an understatement to say that not everyone understands the role of the library with all that is now online. For example, many do not understand the concept of "site licenses" and that it is their libraries that buy these databases and provide them via their library website. Users are using scholarly information as well as all sorts of other consumer-oriented information. Scholarly information used to focus on peer review, but now scholarship is more open (see e-print servers) and less reviewed. In other words, there is a vast quantity of raw scholarly material available in various degrees of scholarship and format. It is now common to capture audio and video events, film, and music.
    There are two Open Architecture Initiatives (search for more on this topic...) One initiative is changing the way scholarship happens through filing e-pre-prints and then filing finished final papers in e-prints. A second initiative is technical, but values-neutral. It increases the abundance of information and allows to deal with it through redundancy and incremental versions. Web indexing is for public web browsers like searches. How, though, to get at information on the private, "invisible or deep² web? There are lots of digital collections or "constellations of databases" and this second Open Architecture Initiative allows these invisible sites to export their meta data if they want to. Examples would be article citations and photos to alert researchers to private or fee-based information. So, this initiative looks at repackaging invisible web information for the public web.
    Interdependence of library automation and other systems. In the past few years, two new library automation features have been added: e-Reference and Digital Collections. Now, other institutional groups such as Human Resources and Accounting are interested in connecting their information systems. Clifford gave three examples of interdependence: course management systems, digital collections databases, and repositories.
    Course management systems like Blackboard and Web CT, two popular products used by California State University and California Community Colleges for online distance learning courses, are now gearing up to deploy in scale on campuses. Clifford asked us to think about what are key interdependence areas between course management systems and library automation beyond the more obvious e-Reserves? Online courses are also collective authoring systems with a combination of student and teacher content. How long are class notes and textbook functions valuable? Which semester's discussions are of interest? There are issues of student authorship and students' rights of privacy. Should an academic library take over these issues if courses become less transient, and if so, how would they feed into a library's digital collections?
    Digital collections databases are primarily reference databases. There is a substrata for scholarly writing, such as collections linked to other scholarly papers. What is the stability of these references?
    Repositories. There is a trend toward institutional repositories. An example is the D-Space work with HP and MIT Labs. An institutional repository is a place to put intellectual output of professors. It seems like a library function, but the who and where are up for discussion. It is a very dynamic environment.
    Personalization. Clifford's third technology trend for libraries is personalization. Libraries haven't personalized around what users actually do (as opposed to what they say they want.) "recommenders" is a simple example of personalization. Libraries highly value patron privacy, so do not keep patron history. History of interactions is now regarded as a corporate asset by and others. Identity management is an institutionwide need, so infrastructure is developing to authenticate patrons across institutions for access to e- Databases. Clifford suggests that libraries can get informed consent by library users so libraries can develop "recommender" systems for their patrons and for better library decision-making. After all, libraries are likely to be more trusted recommenders than commercial institutions.

    Jackie Siminitus, SBC Pacific Bell Education First

    Top of page

    Breakout Sessions I, Saturday, May 11, 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m.

    Access or Excess: Are Users Sailing the Sea of Information or Drowning in Too Many Choices?
    Location: Chapel

    The explosion of electronic information has given academic libraries access to unprecedented wealth in information resources. But as institutions add links to more and more sources and types of information, many users become increasingly confused and lost. Yet other users see this information explosion as beneficial to their research and need and want to take advantage of every possible resource. Are more choices always better? The panelists will dialog with the audience on this important topic.


  • David Hellman, San Francisco State University
  • Locke Morrisey, University of San Francisco
  • Deborah Sommer, Environmental Design Library, UC Berkeley
  • Susan Koskinen, Environmental Design Library, UC Berkeley

  • Moderator: Jeff Rosen, San Francisco State University


    THIS TOPIC was presented by panelists David Hellman (SFSU), Locke Morrisey (USF), Deborah Sommer (UC Berkeley) and Susan Koskinen (UC Berkeley). Moderator Jeff Rosen (SFSU) emphasized the user point of view, i.e., how do they encounter and use the information? Some users may be overwhelmed and frustrated with the myriad of delivery options, number of databases, complexity of databases and explosion of the web. Are these users sailing or floundering/sinking in a sea of information? Are we offering too much information?
    Deborah Sommer believes absolutely not! The nature of information is the same. Technologies help us discover information that was there in the first place. More is better. Using Public Policy as an example, she noted that new tools and access are fantastic. Although you can teach all of the tools, you need to teach critical thinking and analytical skills. This abundance of riches enhances student research skills.
    David Hellman also believes that critical thinking is important. He also believes that people are indeed drowning. Students don't know where to start. They look at our subject lists and don't know what to do. We should be looking at the quality paradigm instead of the quantity. How do the students use information? We spend our library money on databases that they won't find on the web. Students should not be starting by surfing the web for their information. They should be trained to use the proper tools. We need to start making hard choices ‹ look at the resources and pare them down.
    Locke Morrisey played with the words "Obsess and Abscess" instead of "Access and Excess." We "obsess" with getting information out there. The "Abscess" is the lots of junk that you would like users to stay away from. From his perspective, students have much experience with the web and see the OPAC as an extension of the web. The catalog is a foreign concept. Although reference statistics are generally down, question complexity is up. There are too many protocols, too many tools. Products such as SFX are trying to simplify the process. Continuing the nautical flavor of the title, librarians guide them through with tutorials (or "life preservers"). He wonders if we are throwing them an "anchor." When are we a help or a hindrance? With subject guides, less may be more. It is difficult for librarians to deal with all of the databases. Students may be "sailing² but need a "lighthouse" (librarians) ‹ they need direction.
    Susan Koskinen continued the nautical analogies noting the "Ocean liner" with direction. Better searching tools are needed. UC Berkeley tries to acquire as many indexes as possible. Metasearch engines should bring it together. Students should be experiencing the critical thinking tools early on. It is not a matter of having too much but is should involve understanding critical thinking, i.e., when to use the tools that you need. She cannot imagine coming to a decision of desiring less information! Discussion touched on issues of involving K-12, community colleges, the UC and CSU in the dialog. It was also noted that careful selection of materials is often "out the window" in our database world. Also, faculty often confuse students by telling them not to use the web. (Library purchased databases are typically offered via the web.)
    This interesting discussion probed questions that are important to anyone in the reference and information business. The wealth of information resources can be a boon to some but confusing to others. Rosen summarized the session: reinforcing the discussion that should be taking place among faculty, users, librarians, etc.; noting that this is a much bigger picture than just what is happening at the reference desk; mentioning we "don't know what we don't know," ‹ it is important to give students direction in the pursuit of research; and looking ahead to metasearch engines that may help determine "what is where and what is it worth."

    Fred Batt, CSU Sacramento

    The Political Power of Librarians, Or, Knowledge is Not Enough; You Gotta Have Leverage, Too
    Location: Evergreen

    Librarians really can make a difference in California. Hear from two activists about how state and institutional advocacy organizations affect library funding. Learn strategies for effective lobbying and ways that librarians can work together to bring about positive change.


  • Gregg Atkins, Sacramento City College
  • Michael Reagan, CSU Northridge

  • Moderator: Kathlene Hanson, CSU Monterey Bay


    MICHAEL REAGAN, CSU Northridge, talked about how he became a lobbyist, representing faculty issues on the CSU bargaining team. As a librarian, he has a "license to dabble and get involved in anything." Faculty are the longest staying group in an academic setting, and legislators have narrow interests. Yet, legislators also need information, and librarians are well positioned to supply them with it, particularly since librarians have a broad education, cultivate neutrality, and can be very good advocates for issues.
    Some steps Michael recommends considering the following: get on a committee and do the work; don't be solely invested in the outcome - you will get credit for your work; your job is to ensure that everyone gets listened to; legislature is about listening to the powers that bring the legislator in; legislative staff rules - cultivate staff members since they rule the calendar; staff members might later get into the political arena themselves; what do you as a lobbyist represent; how many votes do you represent; get on record; show up at fundraisers; realize that quid pro quo is an important part of the process; follow up on politicians careers - even with term limits, people show up in other political arenas; rules of thumb for delivering a lobbyist's message: a message should be simple, something to refer back to; in delivering the message be prepared for distracting conversations - learn how to bring the conversation back to the point; request action; know the territory and the context; complex issues should be held until after the election; send thank you notes; bring business cards to the meetings; lobby with friends.
    Initial lobbying trips are stressful, but the follow-up visits can be fun. When making visits, expect to wait, even if you made an appointment.
    Gregg Atkins spoke on acquiring leverage and become political. Leverage-related points he raised included: ability to bring positive change; ability to neutralize or minimize negative change; ability to establish and maintain visibility, authority, and group identity (politics is a group endeavor); ability to collaborate or partner with others; piggy-back on the activities of other groups with similar interests and needs, and support them; know what's happening; discard rumors, concentrate on the facts; know how and when things are done in the political arena; what are the overall priorities of the arena; what do others think about your issues; the past affects the present and the future; regular participation allows you to put all the pieces of the puzzle together; know what resources are needed; develop an ongoing work plan; recruit people who are willing to put in work; train and mentor people for leadership roles. Librarians are good at educating and informing. Gregg also echoed some of the points that Michael made: be willing to connect with policy makers and with their staff; identify other choices, acceptable modifications or partial successes; communicate internally and externally.

    Ruth Wallach, USC

    Training and Retaining Staff
    Location: Oak Shelter

    Libraries that want to attract and retain quality staff need to have an active and ongoing staff training program. Areas of library training needs may range from reference/general public services, to employee development/supervision, to technology. Find out about model library training programs as well as training resources outside the library that could be tapped to support a staff training program.


  • Cheryl Gould, InFoPeople, California State Library
  • Joe Barker, UC Berkeley
  • Kathy Ray, University of the Pacific

  • Moderator:Beth Sibley, UC Berkeley


    Moderator Beth Sibley (UC Berkeley) stressed the importance of a systematic staff training program, quoting from an October 2001 article by Bruce Massis: "If you're not helping them learn, you're helping them leave." Quite simply put, a staff training program leads to better hires and increased retention. The three speakers in this session presented different points of view and experiences. Joe Barker of UC Berkeley talked about his library's efforts toward devising a technology training program for all library staff. A committee identified the needs (what is needed and who needs it) and created a calendar for the training sessions with a complex grid organized by the different library populations. This plan has not been put into action yet. Joe emphasized that supervisors should be evaluated in part based on how much training they have either accomplished or promoted for their staff. They should be held accountable for what training their staff receives.
    The topic of the training described by Kathy Ray of University of the Pacific was "keeping people up-to-date with technical skills." Top level support is key! She described a "brief history of training" at UoP (30 employees), from a do-it-yourself program with in-house workshops in 1999 to a professional trainer offering focused, high-quality workshops in spring of 2001 for basic Windows, Word, and Excel programs, to a competency-based assessment with a common baseline skill set. The training group created a CD with test exercises and an accompanying questionnaire for each employee to work through. The results led to customized follow-up training sessions taking individual and departmental needs into account. The common goal of the program was to establish a basic skill set for using a word processor, spreadsheet, e-mail and information resources. But is this method scalable beyond 30 employees?
    Cheryl Gould, InfoPeople Training Director, introduced the InfoPeople training program sponsored by the California State Library. It is funded from the Library Services and Technology Act. It is open to both paid and volunteer staff at all levels, consultants, library school students and faculty, library trustees and friends. Nearly 100 different classes have been taught so far. Some are offered online utilizing Blackboard software. Most on-ground workshops cost $75 per participant. These take place in one of their training labs scattered around California; a library can contract a workshop for its staff at its own site for $1200. Training sessions can be brought into the individual library as needed (see the list at InfoPeopleís website,

    Heidi Hutchinson, UC Riverside

    The Changing Consortial Landscape: California and the National/International Scene
    Location: Scripps

    Library consortia have become an integral part of the library landscape over the past decade. California now has several statewide consortia serving state and private academic institutions. Add to this the Library of California, and you have a complex and often confusing overlay of consortial services to choose from. How do these various consortia differ from one another? On the national and international level is the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), with over 100 consortium directors represented at its meetings. Learn what goes on at an ICOLC ìvendor grille sessionî as ICOLC attempts to influence vendors to work more effectively with the library market. Also, we will provide an overview of a series of documents developed by ICOLC that offer guidelines for tracking usage statistics for electronic resources, for the performance of vendor hardware/software platforms, as well as for preferred practices for library consortia.


  • Rick Burke, Executive Director, Statewide Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC)
  • Evan Reader, Director, Systemwide Electronic Information Resources, The California State University


    Evan Reader (Director, CSU Systemwide Electronic Information Resources) began his presentation with a definition and history of library consortia, and went on to discuss the economics, structure, and benefits of membership. A library consortium is an organization that fosters resource sharing, collaboration, and cooperation among libraries. They can negotiate contracts, maintain licenses, provide ILL and resource sharing, and even run computer systems at the local, statewide, regional, national, or even international level. The Triangle Research Libraries Network in North Carolina, one of the oldest, began in 1938. In California, the Statewide Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC) began in 1986, founded at the University of Southern California, as the "Electronic Guild Hall of Knowledge." The CSU's Systemwide Electronic Information Resources (CSU-SEIR) began in 1989.
    Many funding models exist to support a consortium: membership dues, grants, shared resources among member libraries, and cost recovery (service fees or contributions from the network for products and services). For example, CSU-SEIR follows the cost recovery model because it lacks direct funding from the CSU.
    In terms of structure, a library consortium can be an organized body with a centralized management, a legal charter, and provide a wide range of services, such as is the case with OHIOLINK. Other consortia are decentralized, with one negotiating body, but leave actual purchase decisions to the individual library. For example, SEIR will negotiate a deal on behalf of the individual campuses, which are free to take it or leave it. Furthermore, the member libraries each have a representative in an advisory group that reports to the CSU library directors. Probably 80% of library consortia are structured this way. Another possible structure is a loosely organized body that bands together to obtain a discount only. Not all vendors will deal with this type of consortium, however.
    According to Reader, there are many benefits to being part of a library consortium: In terms of licensing, which is a complicated area, a consortium presents a coordinated approach to negotiating and maintaining licenses. It represents a group commitment to licensing databases that meet a common set of criteria. However, it does require member libraries to have commonalities. Consortia provide the opportunity to gain economies of scale and enhance an individual library's ability to achieve leverage on other contractual issues with vendors. Even if you subtract the costs of membership in a consortium from the discount, it might still be worth the time and effort it saves individual libraries having to do the negotiating and contracting themselves. In addition to potential cost and time savings, consortia can deal with fair use rights, and have influenced contracts related to ILL of electronic text, allowing libraries to print out and fax articles that they subscribe to electronically. In addition, they have negotiated with vendors to allow "incidental public use² or walk-in use of licensed databases rather than require librarians to police terminal use in the reference room.
    Reader then described some of the major library consortia in California: The SCELC (Statewide Electronic Library Consortium), CDL (California Digital Library), Community College system's CCLEAR (Council of Chief Librarians - Electronic Access and Resources Committee), the LoC (Library of California), and CSU-SEIR (CSU Systemwide Electronic Information Resources).
    The other speaker was Rick Burke, Executive Director of the Statewide Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC), who focused his presentation on the national and international scene. There are over 160 library consortia representing some 4,000 institutions in the world today. The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) (http:// has been meeting informally since 1997 as a "consortium of consortia." The Coalition services primarily higher education institutions by facilitating discussion among consortia on issues of common interest. They have semiannual meetings during which they "grill vendors." The ICOLC also issues policy statements that influence the electronic resources marketplace, and provides guidelines to vendors on such issues as pricing, archiving of electronic resources, statistical measures of usage, etc.
    There are different types of consortia of all types of libraries at all geographic levels. A cartel, such as ORBIS Courier System, for example, might provide buying power, staff development, risk sharing, and grant seeking for its members. Access to Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, for example, represents a mega deal in which several consortia contracted with a larger consortium. Services provided by a library cartel could include patron initiated borrowing via ILL, courier services, and shared cataloging. In addition, library consortia might provide advocacy on issues of interest to their members, such as, encouraging/negotiating with vendors to archive digital content, limit pop-up advertising, etc. Beyond licensing agreements, another type of consortium might provide shared reference service, including virtual reference, such as the MCLS 24/7 project. Consortial digitization projects, such as the Online Archive of California, provide digital access to archival text, images, maps, etc.
    Burke went on to discuss the complexities of international library consortia. Difficulties in maintaining funding; marketing, training, lack of computers, language differences, expensive licensing, and billing in different currencies are just a few of the challenges. There are many examples of international consortia: EIFL Electronic Information for Libraries, includes libraries in the former Soviet block, Eastern and Central Europe, southern African countries, Guatemala, Haiti, and others, and includes 2,100 academic, research, national, public, parliamentary, and non-governmental organization libraries. EIFL is working with Ebsco to deliver electronic journal content to its members. In non-European countries, there are many examples of library networks, many dealing with access to scientific journals. U.S. libraries should consider not limiting themselves: California, for example, could become part of a Pacific Rim consortium.
    An interesting question and answer period capped off a highly informative overview of the vast and complicated world of library consortia.

    Kathy Dabbour, CSU Northridge

    Top of page

    Breakout Sessions II, Saturday, May 11, 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.

    Popping the CORC: How OCLCís CORC is Changing the Way Libraries Use Shared Cataloging
    Location: Oak Shelter

    Do you include Internet sites in your online catalog? Does your library provide website pathfinders? Find out how OCLCís CORC is changing the way that cataloging and public service librarians work together, giving a new meaning to ìshared cataloging.î An OCLC representative will explain how CORC works, and librarians at schools that are using CORC will address issues faced and solutions developed in workflow, cataloging training, and coordination with other library departments.


  • Louise Ratliff, Young Research Library, UCLA
  • Sam Sayre, Library Analyst Portland Office, OCLC


    Sam Sayre, OCLC, made a presentation about the new, windows-based, soon to be released OCLC CORC. CORC is a tool for cataloging of web-based resources and is designed to assist libraries to participate in emerging digital networks. It also allows to catalog and share records on bibliographies (pathfinders) developed within institutions. Sayre showed screens of the new CORC interface. Western helpdesk for OCLC can be reached at 1-800-854-5753.
    Louise Ratliff, from UCLA, talked about UCLA's experience implementing CORC, dealing with new cataloging concepts, establishing workflow, training contributors, and coordinating with other library departments, particularly with the bibliographers and reference librarians. Some of the specifics she addressed:

    Initial goals for using CORC at UCLA: Explore new cataloging tools; learn application of Dublin Core; catalog Internet resources; explore the difference between MARC and Dublin; catalog records in a process initiated by selectors; explore the usefulness of CORC model; evaluate pathfinders.

    Initial challenges: Project organization; instability of CORC; catalog electronic resources; involving staff outside of the cataloging department; training; developing efficient workflow.

    Ruth Wallach, USC

    Assessment of Information Competency Programs
    Location: Chapel

    Our first presenter will describe the activities of some Bay Area community college librarians in creating two assessment instruments, using the "Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education" and in planning for a testing-out/challenge proficiency exam to fulfill a new graduation requirement. Early results from field-testing of the exam will be shared.

    CSU has taken a lead role in Information Competence since it's initial IC workshops in 1995 and 1997. Our second speaker will outline the activities of the CSU Information Competence Assessment Task Force and focus on the Subcommittee on Testing that she chairs. She will also share her experience of implementing the IC program at CSUS. The program has evolved since its pilot project in 1999/2000 and now uses a pre-test, tutorials and post-test in WebCT. It is integrated into the Basic Skills part of the GE program and currently is required of over 1,400 students per semester.


  • Bonnie Gratch Lindauer, City College of San Francisco
  • Linda Goff, CSU Sacramento

  • Moderator: Sandy Warmington,Sacramento City College


    This session was presented by Bonnie Gratch Lindauer (City College of San Francisco) and Linda Goff (CSU-Sacramento). Moderator Sandy Warmington set the stage by discussing assessment from the perspective of "how much did the student learn" as well as "how well did the teacher teach." A testing out option is important. At California Community Colleges a graduation requirement will soon be on the books. The UC, CSU and private academic institutions are watching this with interest.
    Linda Goff (Head of Instructional Services at CSUS) discussed the CSU Information Competence (IC) programs that began with system-wide workshops in 1995 and 1997, followed by an array of projects funded by CLRIT grants. The CSU Academic Senate established IC as a University-wide responsibility and urged campuses to ensure that all CSU graduates are information competent. A project at Cal Poly, SLO was designed for adaptation by others and included a set of tutorials. Many of the grants pursued elements of IC including summer faculty development workshops, various outreach and collaboration, faculty/ librarian partnering, discipline-based IC, etc. The 2001 ACRL Model Statement impacted assessment projects for Information Literacy. An IC Assessment Task Force was created.
    One project pursued detailed phone interviews and observations of student information seeking behaviors at 4 campuses ( Icassess/ictaskforce.html) details the quantitative and qualitative studies). Linda continued by describing in detail the various projects at CSUS including the integration of a WebCT assignment into all COMS 4 and 5 classes. She included relevant handouts describing all the steps of this project, FAQ's, and student comments. Linda concluded with a description of the work of the IC Assessment Task Force Testing Subcommittee that is compiling questions from 4 campuses and mapping them to the ACRL standards. They are also sharing their methodology and instrument with the Great Bay Area Community College Librarians. For additional information, go to infocomp.shtml. For information about CSUS efforts, consult
    Bonnie Gratch Lindauer described the activities of selected Bay Area community college librarians in creating two assessment instruments, using the "Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,² and in planning for a testing-out option. This work is in the field-testing stage. The project's four goals included: identifying IC standards and performance outcomes for the test items, developing and field testing a challenge test for the new IC graduation requirement for community college students, sharing the information with CSU colleagues, and communicating the findings and the revised instruments widely for local adaptation and use. Regarding the testing out project, major activities included: 1.) clarification of the purpose of the test, 2.) agreement on standards, performance indicators and outcomes (relevant handouts were distributed), 3.) developing test items which involved two working groups (one working on the cognitive test of what students know and the other working on the performance test of what can students do), 4.) mapping test items to specific performance, 5.) drafting of the proficiency exam test specifications, 6.) revising the test items and sharing the draft with the CSU Assessment Committee, 7.) revising and reorganizing the cognitive test based on consultant review, 8.) field testing both parts, 9.) correcting/reviewing results and developing a scoring rubric, and 10.) consultants review and the report. Quite a project with much detail work! A CARL Grant helped with the support and a summary of the field-testing is reported in the CARL Newsletter. To follow this project in more detail, consult

    Fred Batt, CSU Sacramento

    Program Review, Learning Assessment, and Libraries: New standards and expectations
    Location: Scripps

    In the past decade, there has been increasing pressure on colleges and universities to prove their effectiveness by providing direct evidence of student learning. Institutions are now evaluating academic programs, such as libraries, according to learning outcomes rather than inputs and outputs. In this session, we will review current practices in program review for libraries, and discuss emerging models and strategies for meeting new expectations.


  • Jean Purnell, Assistant Provost for Administration and Assessment & Dean of the Library, University of the Pacific


    Jean Purnell (U of the Pacific) has a dual role at the University of the Pacific as both the campus assessment officer and library director, giving her unique expertise in the vital process of measuring the impact that libraries have on student outcomes. In her introduction, Purnell pointed out WASC's new emphasis on assessing the library's role in supporting student learning, as evidenced by the latest (2001) Handbook of Accreditation. She continued by examining the history of program review, which has grown during the last 25 to 30 years. This is in response to pressure on accrediting agencies by the public and congress to see where their tax dollars and/or tuition payments are going. As a result, accrediting agencies began to mandate internal program review, which forced colleges to develop guidelines and criteria, create assessment tools, and collect data, which institutions are increasingly using to make decisions. Recently, there has been a paradigm shift, with less emphasis on measuring institutional inputs (number of faculty, majors, courses, etc.) and demonstrating compliance with standards, and more interest in measuring student learning outcomes and institutional improvement efforts (outputs).
    Next, Purnell outlined how libraries are reviewed. Under the old paradigm, library services and collections are quantified as a resource in support of student and faculty research (allocations, circulation, discipline- specific holdings, etc.). Accrediting bodies such as WASC still require this data. However, in the new paradigm, libraries are part of the curriculum, required to assess their impact on student learning and faculty effectiveness. The emphasis is on how students use library resources, not necessarily how often.
    So, how do we collect data that measures the impact of the library on student learning? Purnell suggested several models and strategies: 1) Collect data from academic program reviews. For example, collect learning objectives from departments and analyze how the library can have an impact. In addition, collaborate with faculty to identify and assess discipline-specific information competencies. Another idea would be to develop rubrics for good information sources for a particular research project, and assess the quality of citations listed in students' papers. It would also be useful to examine library-related data collected by departments that have undergone self-study to find more evidence of library effectiveness. 2) Hold focus groups with either faculty or students on such topics as, the availability of new electronic resources, new courses developed and changing research interests, student use of the Internet, etc. 3) Create an ongoing, targeted library assessment program. For example, study a cohort of students from freshman year to graduation to determine, longitudinally, the impact of library services on student outcomes. Another idea is to target new, evolving, or experimental library services and programs since it is impossible to assess everything. For example, determine if your redesigned reference room or web pages contribute to or hinder students' successful use of library resources. Finally, librarians can also contribute to their library's assessment efforts by measuring how their own professional goals relate to student outcomes and faculty effectiveness.

    For more information, Purnell recommended the following: Hernon, Peter and Robert E. Dugan. An Action Plan for Outcomes Assessment in Your Library. Chicago: American Library Association, 2002. Faces & Places Mortimer, Kenneth P. and Michael L. Tierney. The Three "R's" of the Eighties: Reduction, Reallocation and Retrenchment. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1979 [see also: ED172642]. Western Association of Schools and Colleges. 2001 Handbook of Accreditation. senior/inst_resource.htm (Accessed 7 June 2002).Wolff, Ralph A., "Using the Accreditation Process to Transform the Mission of the Library." New Directions for Higher Education 90 (Summer 1995):77-91.

    Katherine Dabbour, CSU Northridge

    Top of page

    Special Events

    Saturday, May 11, 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., join in the fun of celebrating the 20th anniversary of both the SEAL and CARLDIG interest groups!
    Location: Chapel

    Top of page

    Fireside Discussions

    Saturday, May 11, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., join your colleagues in informal discussion. Locations to be announced in the printed program.

    Discussion Topics and Facilitators:

      Bibliographic Instruction: "Instruction in a Distance Learning Setting"
      Christina Peterson, SJSU
      Location: Scripps

      Collection Development: "Serving Diverse Populations"
      LaVonne Jacobsen, SFSU
      Location: Evergreen

      General Reference: "The State of In-Person Reference Service"
      Alice Whistler, Santa Clara University
      Location: Hilltop Living Room

      Web-mastery: "Web Page Usability (accessibility and redesign)"
      Kathlene Hanson, CSU Monterey Bay
      Location: Scripps

      Technical Services: "Should CARL have a technical service interest group?"
      Evelyn Lord, Laney College
      Location: Chapel

      Hiring & Recruitment: "Dilemmas with Hiring and Retaining New Librarians"
      Charlotte Xanders, CSU Sacramento
      Location: Oak Shelter

      Library Administration: "Managing in Times of Change"
      Shuk Chun AuYeung, Gavilan College
      Location: Embers Living Room

      Systems: "The Wonderful World of Wireless"
      Patrick Newell, CSU Fresno
      Location: Afterglow Living Room

      Business Librarians: "Resource Sharing"
      Ann Fiegen, Cal State San Marcos
      Location: Hearth Living Room

      Open Discussion: "Variable Topics"
      David Hellman, SF State University
      Location: Chapel

    Top of page

  • 2002 CARL Conference Home