Browse
Recent Submissions
- ItemOpen AccessSupporting early undergraduate students: Using video to introduce critical reading skills in scaffolded information literacy instruction(ACRL, 2023) Clark, Sarah; Penner, KatherineStudents’ ability to develop transferable skills, such as those that correspond to information literacy (IL) and writing, is an expectation and trend that continues to gain momentum within higher education. To support this initiative, librarians at the University of Manitoba embraced a scaffolded instructional approach; a technique where outcomes are deconstructed and content is presented in “building complexity towards the final deliverable” (Lowe, Stone, Booth & Tagge, 2016, p. 127). IL scaffolding begins with a session on critical reading and addresses more traditional topics such as searching and citing later in the term. Although library instruction tends to emphasize “one-shot” teaching, the authors’ anecdotal evidence suggests that a multi-session approach is a better fit. Furthermore, they identified critical reading as a gap in instruction for first-year students. By using a YouTube video, librarians introduce critical reading in a familiar context, described in this chapter. The exercise can be used across various disciplines and class sizes, and has been delivered most often in Humanities and Social Science courses by the authors. Material under a CC BY-NC-ND license.
- ItemOpen AccessEmpower: Association of Architecture School Librarians Conference Report(2022-06-29) Huot, AshleyThis conference report summarizes the content and conversations of the Association of Architecture School Librarians’ 2022 virtual conference titled Empower. This topic was engaged through thematic groupings of presentations including Exploring Intersecting Modalities for Research and Instruction, Amplifying Historically Marginalized Voices, and Highlighting Collections Through Collaboration which reflected empowerment in a myriad of ways, such as support of information organization, teaching, learning, and research.
- ItemOpen AccessUnbundling ClinicalKey(Canadian Health Libraries Association Annual Conference, 2021-06) Lê, Mê-Linh; Rothney, Janet; Winkler, JaniceIntroduction: In recent years, the cancellation of so-called journal ‘big deals’ has gained attention and traction within librarianship. In March 2019, University of California’s termination of its $11 million USD/year contract with Elsevier made headlines around the world and was seen by many as a turning point in scholarly publishing and the open access movement. Less attention has been paid, however, to how the potential cancellation of other high-value bundled resources is being handled by libraries. This lightning talk will detail the process undertaken at one health sciences library to assess cancelling its subscription to ClinicalKey, including usage analysis, acquisitions and negotiation strategies, and communications rollout. Description: Owned by Elsevier, ClinicalKey is a key online resource within the health sciences, with a primary focus on medical clinicians; it contains ~550 journals, ~690 electronic books, procedural multimedia, and point of care resources. The University of Manitoba subscribed to ClinicalKey when it launched in 2012, but rising subscription costs, budget constraints, and increasing restrictions placed on how patrons could access content contributed to the need for a thorough assessment as a continued subscription became increasingly unsustainable. Further complicating the process, key texts available only through ClinicalKey are still used as required texts throughout the medical school curriculum so access to a large number of books would need to be renegotiated on a stand-alone basis. Outcomes: Usage stats show that the primary use of ClinicalKey is its books, especially textbooks used by UGME and PGME medicine. Some titles were used more than 1000 times in 2019 alone and cost per use figures show high value for dollar. Replacement costs for only the most used books would cost roughly 78% of an annual subscription to the full package, and would offer significantly reduced access to content. Over 30% of the most used titles are not available electronically. While much of the journal content is covered through overlap subscriptions, the cost to replace the 11 unique titles is still significant. Discussion: It is estimated that cancelling ClinicalKey and only buying back the most used content would cost ~75-80% of our annual renewal cost, and would lead to a decrease in access (i.e., number of seats). In part we were hampered by high costs for a la carte purchases, and many titles that are simply not available electronically. COVID-19 was also a factor in the decision-making process, as restricting access and requiring program coordinators to choose new textbooks during a pandemic would have been inadvisable. While the decision was made to renew ClinicalKey, broader discussions need to be had whether libraries should support what is essentially an online textbook resource. ‘Big deal’ discussions also need to more broadly include monograph packages, which are inherently different, and we would argue more complicated, from cancellation of journal packages.
- ItemOpen AccessReview of Library Next: Seven Action Steps for Reinvention(Association of College & Research Libraries, 2022-03) Fuhr, JustinBook review of Catherine Murray-Rust's Library Next: Seven Action Steps for Reinvention.
- ItemOpen AccessGathering Research: Why all librarians should care about systematic reviews(Ontario Library Association (OLA), 2022-02-04) Lê, Mê-Linh; Neilson, Christine; Winkler, JaniceRequests for librarian support of systematic reviews, and other knowledge synthesis research, are growing, and increasingly these requests are coming from outside the traditional realm of the health sciences. In this panel, we will hear from 3 research teams who have examined librarian support of systematic reviews in the social sciences, sciences, and humanities. Attendees will have the chance to hear about this research methodology where librarian input and expertise can be highly valued and rewarding, but is not without its challenges. Panellists will share insights from their teams' research findings, and provide a brief overview of what systematic reviews are, before diving into conversation. The panel will include discussions around which subject areas, such as business, psychology, education, engineering, or environmental sciences, are increasingly doing this kind of work and what they are getting right (and wrong!). Learn about common misconceptions about systematic reviews and what is needed for successful collaborations between librarians and researchers or students. We will talk about what lessons can be adapted from health, and discuss the inherent differences in disciplines that require the creation of new standards and processes. Learning Objectives: Outline the potential ways they could support systematic reviews at their own institution Identify common misconceptions around conducting systematic reviews List resources, frameworks, and protocols suitable for librarian support of systematic reviews in the sciences, humanities, and social sciences