2013-14 Minutes

Minutes for July 9, 2013 Meeting

Present: Nina Scholtz, Carissa Vogel, Mary Ochs, Thomas Mills, Patrick Stevens, Lance Heidig, Gaby Castro Gessner, Kaila Bussert, Mickey Casad, Martha Walker
1. New structure
We briefly discussed the new PSEC Instruction Team structure, as recommended in the Information Literacy Task Force Report.
Mary announced that Mann has hired a new instruction coordinator/life sciences undergraduate librarian, Kelee Pacion, who will be the Life Sciences unit's representative on the team (Mary represented Life Sciences today). Kelee starts July 29.
2. Meeting schedule
We will plan to meet on the 1st Wednesday morning of each month at 11 a.m. The meeting in August, however, will be scheduled for the 2nd Wednesday (August 14). Nina will send Outlook invitations to the committee.
3. Positions
Any team member who is interested in being the chair elect should contact Nina before July 26 (as she is on vacation July 29-August 7). We will select a new chair elect at the next meeting. The member would be the chair elect for 2013-14, chair for 2014-15, and past chair for 2015-16, so it is a three-year commitment.
Kaila will be the article discussion coordinator for 2013-14.
Mickey will join Nina and Gaby on the web subcommittee to update and improve our CUL pages and possibly the wiki.
Nina will continue to manage the wiki for now.
4. Goals for coming year/Review of Information Literacy Task Force Report (part III, Recommendations)
A. Program Development
A major goal of the team going forward will be to look for ways to embed information literacy components into core and high enrollment courses and into librarian-taught for-credit courses. Currently, the ease of reaching all students in a department varies by department and college/school. Some majors, and some colleges/schools, have no common core courses.
B. Organizational Structure
We will review the existing charge at the next meeting to determine what changes should be made to support the new leadership responsibilities.
C. Time Allocation for Staff
While this and other recommendations in the report make recommendations for supervisors and library administration, as a team we need to make sure to work with these stakeholders (including the new AUL, see below) to further these recommendations.
D. Teaching Facilities
In order to carry out this recommendation the team agreed that a subteam should be formed. This subteam will include not just Instruction team members but also IT (CUL, CIT, school/college IT) representative(s). Between now and the next meeting team members should think about joining this subteam; we will form the subteam at the next meeting.
The setting of a minimum technology standard for information literacy classrooms is relevant not just for existing classrooms but for designs of renovated facilities (e.g. the anticipated Fine Arts Library renovation).
The topic of technology in the classroom generated extensive discussion. Gaby commented that in surveys faculty complain about the classrooms. For the Tech Campus, there is a task force whose report is due in September (we think).
The team also agreed that since technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace, this subteam will likely become a standing subteam with a focus on instruction technology, not just a special subteam for this year only.
E. CUL IT support for instructional technology and tools
This recommendation implicates both working with stakeholders (see C, above), and having a technology subteam (see D, above).
F. Professional development opportunities
The team will continue to offer article discussions and the end-of-semester forums. In addition, we will sponsor an additional legal research session and a ProQuest training on using Legislative Insight this fall. The team agreed that having a professional development lead/coordinator would be a good idea. Kaila and Thomas volunteered to serve as co-leads.

5. Other topics
a. Mary and Lance are on the search committee for the new AUL. The team agreed that we want an instruction-savvy AUL and we would like to have a slot in the candidates' interview schedules. When the new AUL is in place we would like to have him/her attend a team meeting.
b. The team would also like to have an assessment subteam to focus our assessment efforts. Again, we can also bring into this subteam appropriate nonmembers of the team.
c. Both Chris and Mary have been liaising with CTE. Mary will continue to do so and we will check with Chris when he returns from leave on any updates.