Susan Avery (ex officio)
Merinda Hensley (ex officio)
Mara Thacker (14)
Elizabeth Sheehan (13)
Melody Allison (13)
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe (ex officio) – Chair
Carissa Phillips (13)
Ryan Ross (14)
Mark Wardecker (14)
Sandy Wolf (14)
Emma Clausen (Information Literacy GA)
Sue Searing (Interim Associate University Librarian for User Services/Associate Dean of Libraries)
The committee reviewed the Executive Committee approved policy on the use of library instructional space (http://www.library.illinois.edu/administration/services/policies/instructional_space_use.html). The committee considered if the policy could be an umbrella policy for all instructional space. The committee discussed that instructional space can be a volatile thing to discuss, especially given early times in the semester when there is a rush to reserve classroom space. The current policy gives equal weight to instruction space for users and training for staff. In practice, it seems to be understood that instructional space is considered for staff training purposes if space is available and not in use for user instruction. The committee discussed scheduling and administrative use of instructional space and other spaces devoted to administrative use in the library. The committee discussed scheduling pre and post time for instruction sessions and the benefit to users and those leading instruction. The committee also discussed specific instructional spaces, UGL 291 and Main Library 314, in relation to high volume instruction periods.
An assessment of classroom space will be conducted and available statistics will be reviewed. The committee discussed under-utilized instructional spaces in ACES 509 and Grainger Commons. During times of heavy use, time slots in remote spaces are underutilized. The committee discussed the need for communication and increased awareness of available instructional spaces, including sending out communication at the beginning of the semester to promote all instructional spaces and available technology. UGL 295 may no longer be considered an instructional space. Current use leans more towards talks and candidate interviews, meetings, and other administrative purposes.
The committee explored Primo together and discussed its impact on instruction. Committee members searched based on a list of student topics provided by Susan. The committee focused on evaluating equivalent searches in Primo and how the results compared in terms quality, quantity, and relevance. The committee discussed the benefit of the tool to different user populations, including that graduate students may not be well-served from the disparateness of sources when most of their research is in subject databases. The committee discussed that those students in interdisciplinary studies may benefit from the wide range of sources. The committee also discussed the difference in terms of academic language and level of articles compared to results from EBSCO databases, like Academic Search Premier, for undergraduate students.
The committee discussed the importance of showing students that a manageable set of results exists. Some demonstration topics originally performed in Academic Search Premier with 40-100 results have over 3,000 results in Primo. The committee noted the size of the collection and how that impacts the usefulness/functionality of a tool like Primo.
The committee also discussed a few specific things in regard to the Primo interface:
Submitted by Emma Clausen