In the second of my series of blog posts on the European Conference on Information Literacy (ECIL), I am going to focus on the practical ideas I took from various presentations at ECIL.
The library helpdesk as a pedagogical tool
Liv Inger Lamoy and Astrid Kilvik, from the Norwegian University of Science & Technology, discussed a research project conducted at their university to analyse use of in-person and virtual reference services provided by the library. This was partly to evaluate the use of their virtual reference service, launched during covid lockdown and now a permanent part of the library’s services.
To evaluate the service, they interviewed users of the virtual service and visitors to the help desk; used “guerrilla” interviews around campus as a method to reach non-users of the service; and analysed statistics regarding the number and types of queries received at both the virtual and physical reference desks.
One thing that surprised me was how little used the virtual helpdesk was compared to the physical desk. From Jan-Apr 2023 there were just 183 queries via the digital service, compared to 84,406 questions received at the physical desk! However, the types of questions received at each location was different. On the virtual service, most questions were about referencing and study advice, whereas the face-to-face helpdesk got mostly questions about loans, collections and access. Another difference was about the surroundings. In interviews, users of the digital service noted that they valued it for being able to ask questions in an unhurried, undisturbed way, contrasting this with the physical help desk where they were often aware of other people queueing so felt they couldn’t spend much time there.
I was interested in this session because like many libraries, my own service has been considering how to balance in-person help with online help services, introduced during covid and now part of our standard practice. I was a little unsure from the presentation if the virtual service was offered on an appointment basis or “on demand” – I got the impression that it was on-demand, as the presenters discussed staffed hours for the service which implied to me that the staff are waiting for calls/chats to come in “live” rather than pre-booked. That’s a route we haven’t gone down in my library: we offer online appointments, but not a drop-in online service (though we still get drop-in face-to-face queries at the helpdesk).
I like the idea of complementing the data collection with interviews to find out more about what users of the service thought of it, and I really like the sound of the “guerrilla interviews” as a way to reach non-users.
Collaboration between librarians and academics following a library reorganisation
Tayo Nagasawa, from Åbo Akademi University in Finland, discussed the implications of a library restructure on developing working relationships with academics in the university. The restructure in 2018 had used an embedded, functional model, meaning that library teaching roles were separated from academic liaison.
The research used semi-structured interviews with librarians to examine the the existence of social networks between librarians and academics, and the nature of information sharing in these networks. They found that following the restructure, librarians who design and deliver library inductions and teaching no longer had direct contact with academics. It had been felt that the library induction and teaching sessions were generic enough to be developed centrally, without input from Schools/departments. However the consequence of this was that information sharing no longer took place between academics and librarians, although an internal tutor training programme organised by the SU provided an opportunity for some indirect sharing between librarians and student tutors.
I found this presentation really telling about the perhaps unanticipated consequences of restructuring a department! I would have liked more discussion about the implications of these findings, and what their next steps might be – I wasn’t clear what the outcome of this research was, e.g. if the institution is revisiting the library structure as a result. But I really liked the idea of a relationship-mapping exercise, to see what networks exist and how information is shared.
Incorporating SIFT into one-shot workshops
As part of a Pecha Kucha session, Rebecca Hastie from the American University of Sharjah, UAE, talked about how she uses the SIFT method for evaluating sources in her one-shot workshops. To use the framework in such a short time, Rebecca introduces all four “moves” but focuses on “Stop” and “Investigate” with an activity. These workshops take place in a computer room, with around 20ish students. After presenting the whole SIFT framework, students are given a shared Google doc with links to articles on various topics. In pairs, students pick one article from the list and work in pairs to SIFT it for 10 minutes, focusing on the first two stages. After the ten minutes, the session closes with a whole-class discussion on one of the links chosen.
I was really interested to see how Rebecca was using SIFT, as it’s a tool I also use in my one-shot classes. I find it a lot more effective than CRAAP, which I think is quite outdated as an evaluation method. I was jealous that she gets to run workshops with such small groups – I would love to do an activity like this, but as my groups are usually 100+, and in a lecture theatre rather than a computer room, it’s not really doable! I am going to try to adapt this activity for some of my smaller classes though – I do have a couple of smallish groups this could potentially work with.
Organising Chaos 