By Leslie A. Tirapelle, CCL President

All participating CA Community Colleges are now live and using the new library services platform! What an incredible accomplishment for 110 libraries to simultaneously, and successfully, complete such a complex implementation -- which included the migration of over 26,642,933 bib records and 5,150,339 patron records from a dozen legacy systems. The dedication and collaboration necessary to meet all the required milestones in such a compressed timetable was inspiring. A big thank you to each of you for getting us to the finish line. It was truly a remarkable effort. While there are still a lot of kinks to work out, which we knew would be part of the process, we will get past this phase soon enough and before we know it we’ll be focusing on all the new possibilities a shared library system can offer our colleges, libraries and students.

LSP Opportunities

From resource sharing to system-wide analytics, there are a myriad of opportunities we’ll be able to leverage in the future. In order to do so, though, each library will need to adopt some base-line implementation requirements.  These are essentially the building blocks that will make future collaboration and innovation as a state-wide library system feasible. Baseline requirements are the policies and recommended best practices developed by our representatives on the LSP Governance Committee and subcommittees. These policies and recommendations can be found on the LSP Wiki, categorized under the name of each workgroup, and they have also been shared via the LSP listserv. While it may not always be apparent what the direct or immediate benefit is to the individual library (i.e. to implement a new workflow, or require the use of a specific LSP feature), the policies and recommendations are carefully developed with specific use-cases and with a long-range vision. Please don’t hesitate to communicate with the LSP governance leadership if you need additional implementation support. Also, reach out if you’re encountering roadblocks, anomalies, or if you just want a “system check” to see if your LSP instance is functioning as smoothly as it could be.

CCL does want to thank the members of the LSP Governance Committee and subcommittees who have made, and continue to make, significant contributions to the decision-making and oversight of our new system. They’re constantly working to develop agreed upon standards of practice, and constructs to ensure the long-term integrity and usefulness of our system.

LSP Funding

Like you, we were very surprised and disappointed that ongoing funding for the LSP was not in the Governor’s January 2020 budget -- especially with such strong support from the Board Of Governors, Chancellor’s Office, CCC League and Foundation, Statewide Academic Senate, etc.  While there are many key stakeholders advocating on our behalf,  it is time  to step up efforts to reach as many people in leadership positions as possible.  Look out for an e-mail from the LSP Governance Committee that will include talking points you can share with leadership at your college (President, Vice Presidents, Board members, etc).  Please know that the LSP Governance Committee is working through all possible scenarios to ensure we’re prepared regardless of the funding outcome. These will be shared with the field once solidified. At this juncture, funding is guaranteed through Dec. 31, 2020.

ELUNA Membership

The Council of Chief Librarians (CCL)  is paying for the first year membership for all participating colleges who have paid their CCL dues.  ELUNA is the Ex Libris Users group.  They have a voting process for a specified number of guaranteed enhancements.  This is different from the regular enhancement requests that anyone can submit directly to ExLibris.  We have two representatives from the LSP Governance Committee - Eve Miller and Lauren Saslow - who will be communicating with your library’s LSP lead about the ELUNA voting process. Additionally, your ELUNA membership provides a discounted rate to the annual ELUNA conference.

ELUNA Conference

ELUNA is hosting its annual conference in Los Angeles this year. In order to support attendance by as many librarians as possible, CCL is using its professional development scholarship fund to cover the registration cost for up to seven librarians.  Awardees must work at a library that is a current member of CCL to qualify for the ELUNA Conference reimbursement. Apply for the scholarship by February 21st, 2020. Awardees will be notified via email by March 6, 2020.

Happy New Year!

I recently read that the Year of the Rat 2020 is predicted to be a prosperous and lucky year for everyone, especially regarding goals related to finances -- and particularly for those who plan. While I actually do not typically follow astrology, I am going to take this as a good sign for LSP funding (or at least for an outcome that is beneficial to us all).  So here’s to an auspicious new year, and to a new era of innovative library services made possible by our new shared LSP.

Have a wonderful Spring term!
Leslie

• Workshops and the annual meeting
• The Outlook
• The work of CCL-EAR, the Library Consortium purchasing arrangement, and the free CountryWatch database</li>
• The two listservs
• The participation by CCL in the implementation of Ex Libris, and the development of the ongoing governance & organizational structure
• The seats which CCL has at the Chancellor’s Office – Library Advisory Committee, Telecommunications and Technology Committee – and liaison role with the CIO Executive Board
• The liaison position with the ASCCC Executive Committee
• General work and effort to make the world safe for the CCC libraries!

Now, something new!  CCL is paying the 2020 ELUNA membership of $235 (more about ELUNA elsewhere in this issue) for every library which has paid its 2019-20 membership.  ELUNA helps direct the ongoing improvements and upgrades to Alma and Primo.  And the 110 CCC libraries – with about 20% of the total vote – will have a big impact on ELUNA!

Regards --Gregg Atkins, Executive Director, CCL

Introducing the Matrix Behind the Products We Provide for Our Students’ Research

Having served on the EAR Committee the last decade as a regional representative and this decade in a leadership position, I have probably proven to be a “nerd” when it comes to paying attention to content and interface.  And look where it has taken me.  I have now put together a matrix to point out some aspects of the character, history, and content of the Big Three vendors: EBSCO, ProQuest and Gale.  This matrix will hopefully improve our understanding of these vendors and the importance of their relationship with California Community College libraries and our CCLC consortium.  By having a matrix we can all consult and refer to as it evolves, I am hoping we can make better decisions on products to acquire. As it is 2020 and we have passed the two decade milestone of library web databases, this matrix will also mark that milestone as well.  Most of us across the state usually have products from multiple vendors and for good reason.  We tend to have a mixture of products as each has its own strengths and weaknesses. For example, an institution may choose to have EBSCO’s Communication and Mass Media Complete, Gale’s Opposing Viewpoints In Context and Proquest’s Ethnic NewsWatch, each for its unique or rich features.

These three big vendors also each have a large aggregator multi-subject periodical database for community college libraries such as Academic Search Complete (or Ultimate), Academic OneFILE and ProQuest Central.  A major university with a large budget might have all three of these while for a community college this would be too costly, especially with major overlaps, if not of titles, most certainly of subject areas that are necessary for a course.  Then there are specific subject databases, reference databases, career resources, archives, and other tools that all three vendors provide. Once again, each has its strengths in certain products and if a community college library had the “fantasy budget” it would get them all.

A Brief History and Understanding of our Three “Giants”

It is important to understand the history and foundation of “the big three” database vendors.  Knowing who these vendors were before there were web databases can give insight into how they emerged and developed into the web market and provide understanding for why they are mainly “known” for certain areas (such as Gale for reference) and may even give insight for why vendors had  exclusive arrangements with publishers based on previous relationships.  If we note that historically EBSCO was a periodicals/serials service, Gale was a leader in print reference, and ProQuest (then UMI) was dominant in newspaper and dissertation microfilms, then we can better understand why EBSCO has exclusive arrangements with publishers (including magazine publishers), ProQuest with newspaper publishers, and Gale provides their own materials in reference subject databases (e.g. Resource Centers/In Contexts) with some periodicals attached.

There also needs to be an understanding of each vendor’s acquisitions through the years. By acquiring HW Wilson and CINAHL, EBSCO achieved exclusive ownership of key subject indexes, ProQuest acquired Softline that had the full-text databases of small press newspapers and magazines (thus the “Watches”) and later when the US Census Bureau cut funding and indicated that they’d no longer continue the Statistical Abstracts of the United States, ProQuest took over that title.  Gale acquired Infotrac and RDS to get into the periodicals databases business to add to their renowned reference materials,  and then later on got themselves acquired by major textbook publisher, Cengage.  Regarding ebooks, EBSCO and ProQuest both acquired ebook databases to add to their docket of periodicals databases (where Gale already had on its own Gale Virtual Reference Library as a platform).  Knowing vendor histories can help us understand the content they have today, why they are better known in certain fields and why, at least historically, they have products that librarians think of first for students’ research needs.

It’s The Quality, Not The Quantity that Matters

One effort I made with the matrix, was to focus not on numbers (i.e. how many per subject, how many peer-reviewed and current, etc.) but on the most prominent journals for particular disciplines.  And I have to tell you something: If you are hoping these titles are in your selected aggregated database, you may want to do a publication search. Even if the title is listed, the coverage may not be current, like even from this decade.

Back around 1999, aggregated databases became very important especially for community college libraries when the inflation rate for journals skyrocketed.  It became difficult to have that key discipline title that faculty expected their students to read, but when these or comparable titles became available in the aggregated database, community college libraries could focus on these resources.  By 2020, though, a great majority of these titles have disappeared from the multi-subject aggregated databases, with some being archived in a JSTOR collection.  I found these titles are often available only through associations (such as the American Psychological Association), some universities, or through four main publishers who only provide that title from their own platform: Elsevier, Sage, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley/Blackwell.

Community college libraries may want to explore what can be licensed directly from a publisher, especially since aggregators, in spite of their supposed “growing numbers” are losing important titles that are mainstays for certain disciplines.  This may be easier said than done, but sometimes numbers of “padding,” “fluff,” public domain, titles that have had not had issues for over ten years, or even resources from questionable publishers (i.e. Nova Science) may not be as important as having resources from a renowned publisher.  In the meantime, to get an idea what  key titles are still there for now, take a look at the Exclusive Journals list for each vendor to get an idea.  It is perhaps better to see EBSCO and ProQuest having a sample (sometimes a decent sample) of titles exclusively with a publisher, but as each year goes by, these same publishers often stop coverage for new issues in the product, preferring libraries to subscribe directly with them.

We Do Not Shut Our Eyes After, We Open Them All the More and Will Return

So it is my hope that others will join me in the future to write regular columns related to “Keeping an Eye on the Big Three.” I have written three

Please feel free to provide suggestions or corrections to me, Norman Buchwald or via your EAR Committee representative. If you have any ideas for suggested articles or updates you think we should write pertaining to EBSCO, Gale and Proquest for the future, please contact your representative or the current EAR Chair Steve Hunt, or to CCLC Consortium Director, James Wiser.

Saddleback College Library has been wanting to increase our outreach to students, because we know research has shown a correlation between student success and library use.¹ But how do we grow a library program with just four librarians, two vacant positions, and ever-increasing responsibilities? We turned to technology, and paired LibGuide’s Automagic LTI tool with Canvas to increase our contact with students at Saddleback College.

LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability) tools like Automagic are external apps that mashup seamlessly with Canvas to increase functionality. (Note that Automagic LTI is only available to subscribers of the LibGuides CMS and E-Reserves products.) Once enabled, a navigation link appears “automagically” in the global navigation in Canvas. The guides are not external links, but appear completely within Canvas. Keeping students in Canvas adheres to the Online Education Initiative’s (OEI) best practices for online learning.²

We worked with our Faculty Center (a center for instructional technology support) and Online Education Committee to get the Automagic LTI feature installed within Canvas, so that specific course LibGuides would appear in the global navigation menu within all Canvas courses at the college. We consulted “Creating a Library Presence in Canvas,” the Springshare Support Center, and contacted other libraries about their best practices. From those discussions, we learned that we needed to create a default guide for those courses where we did not yet have any specific content made for them. This guide came to be named “Library Basics” and included fundamentals that we would cover in a tour: a video of the library, a map of the layout, videos on databases and the catalog, as well as basics on citations.

In order to get specific LibGuides to show up in the correct courses within Canvas, we added custom metadata to the guides. Then, the customized guide automatically appeared for all sections of a course. Students benefit by having access to tailored resources that help them in their time of need. Faculty benefit by having the information available to their students, without having to take away class time. As librarians, we like that we have a presence in all courses, and can update or change a LibGuide at any time, without having to access to every course in Canvas.

Saddleback College has one of the largest online programs in the state of California. For this academic year, 40% of all credit enrollments were online, using Canvas. We wanted to target our students in Canvas because it is a great way to reach so many of our students. We believe that having LibGuides in Canvas will have a positive impact on student equity and success.

As we created LibGuides, we ended up creating a “reusable content” guide, which acted as a blueprint, and was intended for internal use. This made it very easy for us to have a consistent look and feel, and also makes it easy if we need to update any information in the future. We then “mapped” to the reusable guide when we create a new LibGuide for commonly used boxes. This way, if we need to make any changes or updates, we do it one time on the reusable guide, and it will update on all of the mapped instances of the boxes.

We marketed the new feature through the emailed newsletter sent out by our Online Education Committee, which included a Google form for those interested in having a guide created for their course. Faculty have had an overwhelmingly positive response to the Automagic feature in Canvas. We have had many requests for more LibGuides within just the first two months of this semester. The statistical data has been incredible so far: the views from our Library Basics guide alone have gone up 146% in just the first three weeks of this semester, compared to the entire previous semester. This number is exponentially more than what we could do as individual librarians in the physical classroom setting.

While the LibGuides take some time to create, they are scalable and allow us to reach so many more students that we would otherwise be able to reach. Previously, we felt that a lot of information on our website was buried, or too overwhelming for students to navigate. The ease of LibGuides allows librarians to be there for our students, at their point of need, within their specific courses, highlighting resources, sharing video content, and encouraging them to contact us if they need additional help.

We continue to do classroom instruction, and we look forward to growing our program further, and increasing our presence in Canvas. All of our library workshops are currently on Canvas, and our next goal is to create a course shell where faculty can grab individual pages and modules to insert directly into their courses.

References

1. Karen Brown, “Academic Library Impact on Student Learning and Success: Findings from Assessments in Action Team Projects,” American Library Association, April 2017, accessed February 7, 2020, http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/findings_y3.pdf.↩
2. “Online Education Initiative: Course Design Rubric,” @ONE Online Network of Educators, October 2018, accessed February 7, 2020, https://onlinenetworkofeducators.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CVC-OEI-Course-Design-Rubric-rev.2.14.2019.pdf↩

College of the Redwoods was one of two colleges awarded the 2020 Exemplary Program Award by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, for the Pelican Bay Scholars Program (PBSP). The program, established in 2016, serves incarcerated students at Pelican Bay State Prison and provides a full degree program with face-to-face instruction inside the prison walls. Along with many other student support services, college library staff and faculty play a critical role in supporting the research needs of the students and faculty.

Incarcerated students face significant challenges in completing academic work, and so do the faculty and librarians who support them. Library books may not be sent into the prison, and students in the program do not have access to the internet. Program faculty work closely with the library to design research assignments in a way that allows groups of students the opportunity to use “packets” of background material on the main themes being studied, and then to narrow their focus in different directions by seeking additional research materials. Library instruction is provided through in-person sessions conducted by a college librarian at the prison, to teach students without online access how to focus and narrow their research questions so that they will get the specific information they need. Students complete a form modeled on the web form used for email reference inquiries, and the students’ requests are transmitted to librarians at the Eureka campus, who identify resources from online databases or print resources. Articles and scanned pages are stored in a shared drive for printing by program staff, who deliver the materials to students at the prison.

While most of our library staff do not actually go into the prison to work directly with students, a number of PBSP students have become enthusiastic users of the library resources, and it has been rewarding to watch their research requests become more focused and sophisticated over time. As students work with their instructors and librarians, they learn the importance of defining their needs clearly by articulating what they are trying to accomplish in their assignment and what specific information they need. Their ability to communicate their needs clearly is even more critical than in most reference interactions, since the librarians are not able to ask for clarification from the student and we are trying to respond as quickly as possible so they can have time to work on their projects. Each time materials are returned to the students, they are also sent a “Research Results Form” completed by the librarian which explains the process used to find the materials, lists some of the search terms used, and then gives the results. The intent is to help the student in much the same way we would be explaining what we do while helping a student at the reference desk.

Our process is evolving each term. Meetings with program faculty have allowed us to identify problems and bottlenecks in the service. One problem that we faced was a matter of timing. Faculty teaching some of the most research-intensive courses, such as English 1A, tended to assign their papers based on the assumption that students would be able to get their first draft back, revise it, and return it two weeks later. However, if the revision required additional research, that schedule did not allow enough time for the student to get additional materials from the library. Once that was identified as a problem, the faculty involved decided to adjust their process slightly so that the final project would be a revision of an assignment from earlier in the semester, allowing more time for additional research. Regular communication between the program instructional faculty and the library is the key to identifying changes of this sort, and is an ongoing process.

In Fall 2019, CR librarians provided nearly 1200 items in response to 145 requests for information. Topics ranged from “environmental racism in California” to “mental health treatment in the Victorian era” to “helicopter parenting” to a request for the President’s proposed 2020 budget. As each student request requires between 2 – 2.5 hours of staff and faculty time, this represents a significant impact on library staff, and we are tracking the use of our services to better gauge staffing and funding needs to support the program moving forward. Later this term we will be surveying the students directly for the first time to gather their input directly, and we are eager to see their suggestions.

You can find out more about the program on Facebook @PelicanBayScholars.

The LSP Governance Committee met on Friday, February 7th in Sacramento. Here is a summary of the most important items discussed:

Funding
Ongoing funding of the LSP project was not in the Governor’s January budget. There is language in the trailer bill that describes funding for California Community College technology-related projects, but that language does not specifically call out the LSP project. CCL and the Governance Committee are communicating with the Chancellor’s Office, the Board of Governors, and constituent groups who support the LSP project (CCCCIO, ASCCC, CISOA, the student senate, etc.). Stay tuned for official communications that include printed information and talking points you can use on your campus and with your board to let them know how important it is for the LSP project to secure ongoing funding.

Network Zone Work
The cataloging work group is hard at work writing policies to support the ongoing work off maintaining and building the Network Zone. Policy proposals are posted to the LSP listserv (https://listserv.cccnext.net/scripts/wa-cccnext.exe?SUBED1=LSP-ALL&A=1) and the CCL-All listserv (https://groups.google.com/a/cclccc.org/forum/#!forum/cclibrarians-all/join) for feedback. Your input is important, as policies are agreements we ALL make to operate the Network Zone in a way that serves our entire library community best. Your feedback on those proposals helps strengthen the policies to meet that goal.

Federated Gateway Single Sign-on Issues
The CCC Technology Center is aware of and is testing a fix for problems with the Federated Gateway SSO. Stay tuned for information from them, and let your IT department know that a fix is on its way.

New LSP Consultant
Brandon Dudley, the project director for the Alma/Primo Unified Library Management System at the CSU’s, has joined the LSP project as a consultant. His focus is to facilitate the transition from migration/implementation to the ongoing use of our new system. His experience and input has already proved valuable.

The LSP Professional Development (PD) workgroup is charged with the coordination of Alma/Primo training for the CCC, the creation of best practices, and the facilitation of support systems among CCC libraries.

Towards this effort, we seek to liaise with other work groups regarding professional development needs and outreach to the CCC community. Members from our workgroup have been assigned to serve as liaisons to the other workgroups as a way of learning what PD needs are identified. As result of this work, the PD workgroup has coordinated a series of webinars by the following workgroups: Discovery/UX, Circulation, Cataloging, and Acquisitions. Recordings of these webinars can be found on the LSP wiki site for those who missed the live sessions. We are interested in coordinating additional webinars for the other workgroups in the near future.

Recently the PD workgroup sent out a survey to the college LSP Leads to identify priorities for additional training and development for the system. The survey results identified the following areas as priorities:

1. Cataloging/Acquisitions (network zone; normalizing rules, activating e-resources)
2. Streamlining/automation of workflows - tips and best practices
3. Primo Instruction
4. Fulfillment (TOU, letters, circulation in person training)
5. Primo Configuration

Other noted topics included must do checklist for configuration, electronic resources in a multi-college environment, reserves configuration, and consortia resource sharing.

The workgroup is interested in gathering additional input as to other areas of need for professional development. In an effort ensure everyone can contribute to this process we have established an online form (http://bit.ly/lsp-profdev) where anyone can submit topics to inform the plans of the workgroup. We expect that needs will change as we move through the various stages of post implementation so we will be monitoring this form to keep current with evolving needs.

In addition to this work we will seek to foster support and collaboration across the system by building a repository of documents (workflows, training manuals, policies/procedures) that have been developed by colleges/districts. We want to learn what materials have been developed for teaching staff, faculty, and students how to use Alma and Primo VE. It is our plan to bring together all these documents together into one wiki page to be available to all the colleges. Please upload your documents using this form (http://bit.ly/lsp-share) or submit a url if already posted online.

Librarian Francis Howard (Laney College and Merritt College) is the recipient of the Faculty Association of California Community College’s Part-Time Faculty of the Year Award. FACCC will present the award on Sunday, March 8 at the Advocacy & Policy Conference. Congratulations, Francis!