2013-14 Minutes

February 19, 2014
January 15, 2014
December 4, 2013
November 6, 2013
October 2, 2013
September 4, 2013
August 15, 2013
July 9, 2013

Minutes for February 19, 2014 Meeting

Present: Nina Scholtz, Gaby Castro Gessner, Thomas Mills, Lance Heidig, Tony Cosgrave, Carissa Vogel, Kelee Pacion, Mary Ochs, Mickey Casad, Martha Walker, Amy Emerson (minutes)
Special Guests: Erin Eldermire & Meghan Sitar

Programming:
Current and former PSEC-I Chairs spoke with ACRL regarding a possible re-Immersion in spring, but ultimately have decided it would be best to tap into our own resources here at Cornell: Assessment Expo - A full day event that will start with a keynote speaker from CTE or someone outside of Cornell, then feature librarian presentation sessions regarding assessment, then provide lunch, then more librarian presentations, and conclude with a workshop on assessment. Librarians from Ithaca College, TC3 & Columbia will be invited. It will take place in late May - hopefully Thursday, May 29. Goal: Avoid the R&O Unconference and Commencement. The workshop to be facilitated by the Assessment Subteam. All are welcome to help prepare for the event. This will be the major topic at the next PSEC-I meeting.

Special Guest:
Meghan Sitar (Director of Research & Learning Services) - An informal conversation was held with Meghan to bring her up to speed about what we're doing at Cornell with instruction. Nina described the team and subteam structure, including libraries, clusters, and liaisons. Nina also described the various programing PSEC-I hosts throughout the semester and explained that the goal is to further information literacy. Mary also explained that the Information Literacy Task Force recommended the new PSEC-I structure.
Meghan in turn explained her former position at the University of Texas. Her unit was Library Instruction Services. UT underwent a curriculum change in 2010 - every UT student had to take one course in library instruction. Signature courses - some were small, some very large. There was no prescribed curriculum, just learning outcomes. Three learning outcomes for information literacy were: design search strategy, create citations, assess materials. There was a lot of faculty consultation. In many cases, she never saw the students, but created multiple assignments for them or created a research guide for them. She used the assistance of a graduate research assistant to meet classroom needs. Eventually moved to an assessment plan that involved pre- and post-test models to evaluate the courses - post-test was at the end of the year (for the signature course only). Also conducted rubric analysis of student work. New/second model: Eventually had to move to a "train the trainer" model - became embedded in pedagogy courses for graduate students. The assessment associated with this was rubric based because they were not in the classroom.
She provided support to subject specialists and their liaisons. This is becoming a more formal program.
Regarding information literacy outcomes: There was a commission of alumni who came together and proposed the course. After the president approved it, a dean was appointed and a new school was created to house the program. The Dean was a former philosophy professor who had had bad experiences with students citing to Wikipedia, etc. He built a signature course faculty toolkit to facilitate integration and to accomplish outcomes for each faculty member. How were outcomes measured at the end - what was the motivation for faculty to do it well? - A lot of attention was paid to course evaluations, assessment data, writing skills, etc. Because this was a centerpiece of the university, there was a lot of faculty buy-in. It spanned all colleges on campus.
A few campus units supported the course (ex. the Writing Center) - Provided assistance with how much to assign for reading, how to structure an assignment, etc. Some connections with the other units were already in place, but they had to create more.
UT hired an instruction and assessment librarian about two years ago and that allowed them to really look closely at their assessment data. Questions were focused on learning outcomes and faculty expectations.
Also began reaching out to high school librarians in the geographic area to address gaps.

Summary of Presentation by Gaby and Erin:
PSEC Instruction colleagues & guests-
Thank you for letting us share what we're doing to map our teaching efforts and for thinking further about the information we aim to provide.
What we aimed to convey to you this morning was the kind of information the report will contain:

• Overview of the university in numbers - colleges, courses, majors, etc., for context
• Your library unit's teaching efforts in the past three years (FY 2010 through 2013) that has corresponded to a course in a college (derived from Count it)
  Number of library instruction sessions broken down by year (2010-11; 2011-12; 2012-13)
  • Corresponding college courses your unit has taught for by course code, prefix/number (e.g., AEM 2100) and by level (1000, 2000, etc.)
• List of majors by college (e.g., Arts & Sciences, JGSM, ILR, etc.)
• List of core courses for each major by college/school broken down by level (to illustrate course sequences)
• Enrollment numbers for core courses by college/school (from low to high enrollment)
• Online file to the current courses by major that includes core, required electives and concentration courses

What we need from you:

• Please let us know is if there is something in your college/unit that is of particular importance or interest to you. For example, Lance mentioned that RLS is interested in courses offered by the Knight Institute (first year seminars), so we'll look at that more closely and spend less time in the more 'boutiquey' kinds of courses that are offered across A&S.
• If there is information that we intend to provide that you think is superfluous for your unit's purposes, please let us know!
• Any comments on how to make this clearer, would be welcome
• Lastly, what is the best way to distribute this information? Do we send out one huge report with the CU overview and every unit/college breakdown to CU-LIB? Do we create individual reports for individual library units?

We would appreciate your input no later than March 5th. And of course, if you have any questions, please let us know.
Many thanks for listening!
Gaby & Erin

Announcements:
Nina will reach out to the group by email regarding a matter involving Career Development Week.
Mickey is interested in talking with anyone who would like to about teaching preparation. Please contact her directly.

Minutes for January 15, 2014 Meeting

1. Announcements
   1. CTE week of programming continues this week
   2. Business Research 101 - second session is today
      1. Q: Can we figure out how to get better mic'd audio for WebEx webinars?
      2. Discussion about how to improve experience for distance attendees. Could this be a good opportunity for training? 
2. Follow-up on unit reports
   1. Thanks for doing the presentations, don't forget that there is a written component.
   2. Will be getting on LEG agenda once all reports are in.Need to decide what we want to accomplish with this meeting.Should also submit reports to PSEC.
   3. Action Item: Deadline for submitting written reports is 1/31.
3. Technology subteam update
   1. Working on lit review, moving toward survey and focus groups
   2. Mickey is meeting with ATC about their classroom technology survey
4. Assessment subteam update
   1. Working on 'classroom assessment tools' toolbox - these are things to use when teaching one-shot/multishots (not credit classes) that can be customized to different subjects/topics; aim is to eventually get people to agree to use /test drive some of these tools 
   2. Mickey is setting up meetings with instruction coordinators to observe/talk about current practices
   3. Carissa will be sending out an email asking if there is something you do regarding assessment that you can share
   4. Curriculum mapping still in process, will be contacting people for feedback
   5. Want to sit down with new Olin RLS Director and pick her brain about the info lit program she put together at UT
5. Web subteam update
   1. Been meeting, making progress on new public face on CUL web site, trying to update look and feel.
   2. Will talk to Library Communications soon about adding new instruction photos and adding text to inspire faculty to make use of librarians as instructors.
   3. Site had been full of librarian-centric terminology, rather than faculty-centric terminology 
6. Programming
   1. Good budget for end of semester instruction event; talking to immersion faculty about returning for a one-day refresher
   2. Will be holding article discussions focused on immersion principles.
   3. Immersion follow-up still being planned, but possible topics include assessment of student learning, constructing learning activities/effective assignments, authentic teacher - teaching presences, possibly also a half day about the info lit strategy across CUL
   4. To be scheduled for the end of May or early June
   5. Between article discussions, immersion refresher, biz 101, is that enough programming? Maybe add feedback on distance ed practice sessions, classroom assessment techniques follow up

Minutes for December 4, 2013 Meeting

Present: Nina Scholtz, Martha Walker, Gaby Castro-Gessner, Carissa Vogel, Thomas Mills, Kaila Bussert, Lance Heidig, Jeremy Cusker, Tony Cosgrave, Kelee Pacion, Mickey Casad, Chris Miller, Mary Ochs, Amy Emerson (minutes)

Meeting Schedule for next semester:
Tentatively Proposed: Third Wednesdays at 9am. Nina will add it to everyone's calendars.

Announcements:
Budget requests have been approved by PSEC for fall and spring programming.

Programming:
The Instruction Showcase is scheduled for Thursday, December 5, 9:30-11am, in Mann 160. Refreshments will be served.
BLAST is providing Business Research sessions for CUL on Jan. 8, 15 & 22, 1-2pm. First day: General overview of business sources. Second day: Topic-specific. Third day: Resource specific.
Next semester: Reading Discussions will continue.
Thomas and Kaila are working with R&O to create a joint program for the spring semester.
Thomas and Kaila are also working on plans for a spring semester re-Immersion.

Information Literacy reports:
Regarding the ongoing Information Literacy Library Reports: A draft template of questions has been created. Please submit answers to the questions (from each library/cluster) by the January Instruction meeting. Copies of PowerPoint presentations and presentation notes should be appended to the reports.

December Reports:

• Martha (Music/Fine Arts/Africana)
• Tony (Humanities and Social Sciences - Olin & Uris Libraries)
• Jeremy (Physical Sciences, with an emphasis on Engineering)
• Carissa (Law)

Evanced Discussion:
Postponed until January meeting due to time restraints.

Minutes for November 6, 2013 Meeting

Present: Nina Scholtz, Mickey Casad, Kaila Bussert, Mary Ochs, Chris Miller, Jeremy Cusker, Kelee Pacion, Lance Heidig, Amy Emerson (minutes)

Announcements
Chris: Preliminary dates have been set for the Business Research sessions, as follows: January 8, 15, & 22 (all Wednesdays), 1:00pm-2:00pm, Mann 102 (waiting for confirmation on the rooms)
Nina: The date for the Regulatory Research session has been shared via email.
Kaila: An Instruction Showcase will be held on December 5. It will provide an opportunity for anyone who has spoken at a conference in the past year to share a ten minute summary with CUL (must be instruction related). Kaila and Lance have committed so far.

Evanced Demo
Camille Andrews and Suzette Newberry joined the meeting and provided a demo of the upgrade to Evanced. Evanced is a CUL Calendar for scheduling events. It is primarily focused on workshops and instruction-related events. People can use it to sign up and the host can keep track of responses. It is hosted in the cloud, not by CUL. (Note: The Cornell events calendar is a separate item.) Camille has been the default calendar administrator thus far. She now requests that PSEC-I take over administration and decision making for Evanced. She is also wondering if PSEC-I is interested in running some trials of related materials (perhaps also involve the Usability Group). It was agreed that Camille will set up a test site for the group. Nina inquired about finances - Camille will check into this, including who is paying for what, etc. Nina will circulate notification of the test when she receives it. Next meeting: PSEC-I will discuss how to take Evanced over from Camille.

Cluster Reports
Chris (HLM):
HLM has a consolidated website with links to their individual websites. The site also includes a staff directory. The site serves as a model for how they implement services, including instruction. They are three distinct locations and user groups, but share administration.
Management: Because Management doesn't have a classroom, most instruction is done in alternate spaces.
ILR: ILR conducts significantly more instruction. They do have a classroom, but 90% of their instruction is course-related.
Hotel: There are no classrooms in the library. Their instruction is conducted in the school or elsewhere on campus.
ILR: The credit class that Chris co-teaches with Stewart takes a lot of time. Ken also has a credit class he teaches for undergrads that takes a lot of time. Alique and Chris are the main instructors. Abby is becoming more involved. She will teach a ref-works workshop in a couple of weeks, and will eventually take on more.
Hotel: Everything before August was done by Ken. A new librarian by the name of Kelly started in August. She and Ken are now co-teaching everything.
Immersion Practices:
ILR: Currently working with engagement of students. Trying to plan classes that appeal to different learning styles, theories, etc. Also engaging the students in active learning, instead of just listening. Work closely with faculty members to design assignments when possible. They have an instruction planning checklist that they complete while meeting with the faculty member. It includes objectives, etc. This is used to create a teaching outline, lesson plan, workflow, etc. It is very helpful when teaching a class multiple times. Can look back at reflections and make changes accordingly.
Hotel: Is interested in implementing a similar process.
ILR: Is working on assessment and authentic teaching. They get basic feedback (on a tab on their libguide) that includes: 1) What did you learn that you didn't know before, and 2) What questions do you still have? This can also lead to reference questions. They also get feedback from the faculty member.
Regarding the Task Force Report:
Peer review of teaching: Currently informal, but everyone has observed someone else. Are planning to make it a more formal process – number of times per year, training in giving constructive criticism, etc.
Curriculum Mapping: They have an unofficial process wherein they look at core classes each semester and consider their capacity. Most faculty take them up on their offers to teach a class.
Release time for Information Literacy Activities: Have not been able to give this close attention because have been understaffed for some time; didn't have capacity.
Technology: There are space issues - lack of computer training labs, layout of classroom is not ideal. Interested in iPads and mobile technologies, projectors, etc. Interested in distance learning through WebEx. Interested in seeing new advancec in LibGuides2.

Kelee (Mann):
Everyone is very busy. Several librarians are involved in pilot projects.
Kelee will submit a copy of her notes for the minutes.

Lance (RMC):
RMC is seeking a new director and this may impact their teaching and instruction.
Referenced the Task Force Report and read aloud the Rare and Manuscript Collections portion.
Classroom instruction: The more ability to move, the better. Learning to integrate the new technologies. Is helpful to be able to show the online reservation system, the catalog, etc. The movable tables take them to a whole new realm – can break students into small groups and do exercises with the materials on the tables. For the first time, must turn away requests for instruction this semester because so busy (partly with the search).
Shared CountIt statistics. Expressed concerns with CountIt – what is counted as instruction. They have two classrooms (instruction must occur in their classrooms b/c rare materials). There were renovations to one classroom, but not both.
Assessment: They still have a lot to talk about in this area. Has not been an opportunity to have these discussions yet. But informally, they are hearing that the students are very impressed. There has been a huge increase in requests for Saturday afternoon presentations (despite cuts in staff). This requires them to change their perspectives regarding when, where, and how they teach. Staff are maxed out. Very successful program – but need more people, resources, classrooms, etc. They will think about information literacy more when there is a chance.

Next Meeting

• Presentation on Assessment
• Next three unit presentations
• Plan on 1.5 hours

Minutes for October 2, 2013 Meeting

Present: Nina Scholtz, Thomas Mills, Chris Miller, Tony Cosgrave, Mary Ochs, Kaila Bussert, Gaby Castro Gessner, Kelee Pacion, Mickey Casad, Martha Walker, Amy Emerson(minutes)

1. Announcements

• Nina: We have been offered time with the Student Library Advisory Council (SLAC) (15-20) minutes, and are tentatively scheduled for the November 18 meeting at 5pm. Nina would like to create a list of discussion items and would like to put together a small team to plan for it. Mary volunteered because she put together a small presentation on Info. Lit. for them a few years ago.
• Nina: AUL interviews will begin Oct. 15. PSEC-I has been granted half hour slots with the candidates. Only the Chairs team will attend (Nina, Thomas, Kaila, Mary). There will be separate open forums with the candidate for others to ask questions, as well as presentations by the candidates.
  • Discussion points for the candidates: What are their visions for instruction? What kind of resources would they give to it? Internal candidates – how much do they know about what PSEC has done in the past few years. For external candidates, we have a web presence where they should see this. Focus on their ability to work with administration and faculty to promote library instruction. It's important that they feel instruction is important so they can represent it to others. Also, we need to know what kind of library instruction experience they have. There should be questions about supporting professional development for instructors, and knowledge of/support for Immersion. Nina will create a page on the wiki that is devoted to the interviews that will include the job description and the above discussion points.
• Mickey: Mickey arranged a meeting for tomorrow morning at 10:45am in Mann 160 with Michael Wesch. He is an inspiring speaker and it would be good to talk to him about what we're doing and ways to reach out to undergrads. His talk is tomorrow at 4pm in Statler. Mickey will take notes about the discussion to share with the group.

2. Assessment Sub-team Report
Assessment Report meant to be a "Did you know?" about Instruction....not a report. It contains information about enrollment in courses. There is not one single course that is taught across the university. There will be a more formal report that will be more tailored to each unit. It was established that Gaby will assist with the Information Literacy sub-team.

3. Information Literacy Sub-team Report
Mary proposed that we hold Lightening Talks at our PSEC-I Team meetings in which each unit speaks about their plans and what they're doing to implement those plans. Mary will resend the Task Force Report see everyone can see what their units were going to do.
The idea is to keep building a cohesive program for information literacy (not every unit does the same thing, but we are trying to make things dovetail and reach as many students as possible). Therefore, the official reps from this group have an assignment to go back and talk to their units and then make a report at the next meeting.
After further discussion it was decided that Mary will get the question from Chris' group, then will send the questions out to the reps in our group here. There will be 3 reports in November and 4 reports in December. Each unit will provide a 15 minutes overview instead of lightening talks.
Reporters: Chris, Lance, Kelee – November
Carissa, Martha, Jeremy, Tony - December
Some draft questions for presenter to consider (from Mary's email of 10/02/2013):

• Is what the libraries in your cluster proposed in the TF Report still the plan?
• If so, what progress have you made? If not, what has changed?
• What are your next steps?
• Have your librarians used their Immersion training in your information literacy work?
  Gaby suggested adding: Do you need any support?
  Chris suggested making this a general overview - What is the current landscape in your cluster, what is the number of classes, cycle, logistics...
  Gaby suggested adding: What kinds of skills have librarians incorporated into their teachings from the Immersion training?
  Thomas suggested that Chris' portion be submitted as a mini-background report in writing in advance so speakers can focus on pilots.
  Chris suggested that maybe a template of a questions can be created to fill out in advance.
  Thomas noted that this will be helpful to the AUL.

4. Programming Sub-team Report
Nina announced a future program on building faculty relationships that will occur on Oct. 28, Noon-1pm. Will be earlier than Lee Cartmill's reception. Will be held at the Law School. Panel discussion with 4 Panelists: Lance Heidig, Diane Dietrich Sarah Wright, Fred Muraturi. Nina will moderate. PSEC-I and the Liaisons group are co-sponsoring. Advance questions are encouraged. It is meant to be more of a discussion/conversation than a panel presentation.
Thomas and Kaila reported on the first instruction discussion. Had good attendance numbers and it was a good concept to discuss. Issue: When to have our second discussion of the semester – plan: build off the topic of building faculty relationships. So probably early November
Nina will provide an Admin. Law Research class for CUL this fall. She is looking at November.
Chris is putting together a business research presentation as well . Will include other people. Will hold this one off until January because the fall is already so full. Probably will be three or four sessions. He has four people who want to participate. Deciding how to split it up – ie ILR stuff, or take business research from the ground up...etc. Start with the first one in mid-January.
Other programming ideas: Showcasing people who have presented at a conference or done a great project. Allows people here at CUL to see what people have done outside of Cornell. Maybe also have a web presence so the wider world can see as well. Focus on talks related to instruction.
Chris and Kaila announced that the LOEX Conference is coming up. This is a good opportunity for people who want to present. Taking place in Grand Rapids, MI. Two options: presentation or interactive workshop.

5. Next Meeting
Nov. 6 – Meeting will begin at 11am and go to 12:30. Camille and Suzette will join the meeting to have a webinar demo on Evanced. The second half of the meeting will be unit reports.

Minutes for September 4, 2013 Meeting

Present: Nina Scholtz, Thomas Mills, Mary Ochs, Lance Heidig, Carissa Vogel, Kaila Bussert, Tony Cosgrave, Mickey Casad, Martha Walker, Kelee Pacion, Amy Emerson (minutes)
Assessment Subteam Report:
The Assessment Subteam held a meet- and-greet in August for their members. There they brainstormed ideas of how to do assessment, including quantitative methods such as CountIt and qualitative methods. A decision has not been made yet regarding who else to bring into the subteam (such as CTE). The next Assessment meeting will be in October. Then they will discuss short term and long term objectives. Mary suggested trying to get money for a few more people to attend ACRL Assessment Program (Gaby and Camille were the last to attend.) Mary will look into when the next ACRL Assessment Program is and will make a proposal to Anne. Acceptance to the program is competitive and requires application.
Technology Subteam Report:
Chris (Chair of the Technology Subteam) was unable to attend today's meeting and therefore sent his notes to the group in advance. Chris led the first Technology Subteam meeting and drafted a proposed charge including a one year term with review at the end of the year. Tony further reported that the team feels that the current membership of four people works well, but they will reach out to other people as needed. They have compiled a list of goals including conducting an inventory of library teaching technology, performing a literature review (of what's being done at other institutions), and conducting a survey of library instructors at CUL to identify gaps and other instructional needs. They will also look into whether there is a campus-wide standard, and see what's happening in new classrooms being constructed on campus. Lance suggested that they consider how pedagogy affects teaching needs. All were reminded to review Chris's minutes distributed by email.
Programming Subteam Report:
Kaila reported that the first article discussion is scheduled for September 24 at 9:30am. The discussion will focus on Threshold Concepts in Information Literacy. Nina confirmed that we will be co-sponsoring an event with the Liaisons group on the topic of building sustainable faculty relationships. Kaila advised that the next article discussion will be on this topic. Next, Mickey reported on the notes she sent to the group via email in advance of this meeting regarding two events that the PSEC Instruction Team is co-sponsoring with CTE and others on the topics of pedagogy and instruction. The first event will be on Sept. 19 – Kathleen Fitzpatrick will speak about digital publishing platforms, open peer review, and the future of scholarly societies. The second event will be on Oct. 22 in Statler Auditorium – Michael Wesch will speak about "The End of Wonder in the Age of Whatever," including examples of teaching with technology to reach digital natives. Nina suggested using the CUL Instructor's list to bring events like this to people's attention. Tony suggested that maybe we can use a chapter from the second speaker's book for the October Instruction Discussion.
Nina turned the discussion to the End of Semester Event: In the past, we've focused on reflecting on our teaching experiences. The group agreed that it's time to find a new activity to replace the Charettes. Suggestions were made to have an in house or outside speaker or find another way to have people reflect. Lance suggested working with CTE and inviting them to participate. Nina suggested letting CTE lead the program and then having a reflective element- find a way for CTE programming to apply to library instruction. Kaila will reach out to CTE to determine willingness to participate, and availability (definitely want it to be an end-of-semester event).
Lance proposed revisiting our Immersion notebooks to renew the energy. Tony suggested that maybe Immersion can somehow be reincorporated/threaded into the CTE event. Also, Lance suggested considering what the group can learn from candidate presentations being given throughout the fall on the topic of instruction.
Thomas suggested hosting a mini re-immersion in the spring semester.
Mary reminded the group to keep the Task Force Report in mind when moving forward with these ideas. Thomas suggested that there should be a subcommittee to focus on the Task Force Report. It was agreed that Nina will head a Task Force Subteam and Mary, Lance and Thomas will serve on it.
Mary also advised the group that the Instruction Team will have a half hour meeting with each AUL candidate. These will probably occur in late October/early November.

The next PSEC Instruction meeting is scheduled for October 2 at 11am in room 703.

Minutes for August 15, 2013 Meeting

Attendees: Mickey, Kelee, Nina, Lance, Chris, Gaby, Amy, Tony, Mary, Martha, Kaila, Carissa (recorder)

1. Announcements

- Welcome new member, Kelee Pacion, the new Instruction Coordinator and Life Sciences Librarian at Mann.

- CTE is offering classes on the 22^nd, including some for librarians.

2. Review of the Committee Charge

- We discussed adding a reference to information literacy and adding language from the strategic goals of the university. Nina will pull in the language and send it to the Committee for discussion.

3. Technology Subteam

- Volunteers for this team: Martha, Mickey, Chris. They will look for some from Dean's group to be a part of the team.

- This group will survey technology (software and hardware) available in library classrooms. They will identify people, like in CUL IT, to bring onto the team. The group will also look into promoting the use of technology and teaching technologies to use in instruction settings.

4. Assessment Subteam

                - Volunteers for this team: Gaby, Lance, Carissa, Kelee, Mickey

                - This group will look into assessing information literacy. They will write a charge, identify people from outside PSEC-I to take part in the group. Nina asked that the group reports on its meeting at the next PSEC-I meeting.

5. Programming

                a. Needs of liaisons

- Nina reported on a meeting with members of the Liaison Task Force about looking into topics that could be jointly sponsored and be of interest to instructors and liaisons. One idea was a jointly sponsored panel discussion on building relationships with faculty in a sustainable manner. Kalia, Thomas, and Nina are looking into setting up a program in October and identifying the right people and contacting them to see who is willing to take part.

                b. Fall article discussion

- We will be having 2 discussions. These will be on Tuesday mornings (not in conflict with R&O Forums). Nina will look into dates when Olin 106G is available.

- Possible topics include dealing with classrooms anxiety and threshold concepts in information literacy. (Mary will circulate the information she had from ACRL on this last topic.)

                c. End of semester programming

- We plan to do these at the end of each semester. We will discuss possible topics at our next meeting.

- Amy reminded us that, if we want to request funding from PSEC for the fall, we need to ask for it soon.

d. Proquest Legislative Insight

                                - WebEx will be available for this session.

e. BLAST/HLM – Business 101 instruction

                                - Chris suggested that it could start in late October and run for a few weeks in a row.

f. Last Legal Research 101

                                - Nina will be offering a session on Administrative Law this fall.

g. Listing of for-credit classes

- Could we arrange a panel discussion for how to develop a for-credit class? This could be a spring topic. The session could focus on what is required in creating this type of class – goals, concepts, assignments, technology, objectives, etc.

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.