Loading…
This event has ended. Visit the official site or create your own event on Sched.

Sign up or log in to bookmark your favorites and sync them to your phone or calendar.

Monday, February 5
 

12:00pm

Registration
Monday February 5, 2018 12:00pm - 6:00pm
Foyer

3:00pm

Board of Directors Meeting
Closed Board of Directors meeting

Monday February 5, 2018 3:00pm - 7:00pm
Westin Boardroom
 
Tuesday, February 6
 

7:30am

Registration
Tuesday February 6, 2018 7:30am - 6:00pm
Foyer

8:00am

8:00am

unCommons
Tuesday February 6, 2018 8:00am - 8:00pm
Windsor

9:00am

Pre-Conference Workshop
A Future by Design: What Do We Teach? Facilitators: Eileen G. Abels (Simmons), Lynne C. Howarth (Toronto), Laura Saunders (Simmons), and Linda C. Smith (Illinois) Tuesday, February 6, 9:00am - 12:00pm ALISE '18 will explore The Expanding LIS Education Universe, recognizing the growing number of career opportunities in the information professions. Responding to the conference organizers' call to explore the future of LIS education and pedagogical research, this interactive workshop will draw from initiatives that emerged from discussions at a January 2015 Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)-funded National Planning Forum to set a framework for re-visioning LIS education. The grant explored the future of LIS education by looking at four key questions: What will we teach? Who will we teach? Who will teach? How will we teach? ALISE conference workshops in 2016 and 2017 focused on "how we teach." This workshop will delve into "what we teach" with an emphasis on knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). Survey data on KSAs considered essential for LIS program graduates will be shared with participants who will then engage in small groups to articulate what a core curriculum designed around KSAs might include. A final plenary discussion will summarize group proposals and consider "Who will teach" a re-visioned core curriculum. This exploration of "what we teach" and "who will teach" is intended to stimulate innovation in LIS education, a future by design, not by default.


Tuesday February 6, 2018 9:00am - 12:00pm
Standley I

12:15pm

ALISE Academy
This year the ALISE Academy will identify important questions facing the future of the profession.  Allen Renear will kick-off the academy by discussing employment trends and how LIS programs and schools should consider preparing for some shifts in the information landscape, e.g., decreasing trends in LIS students; increasing trends in other information professions. Academy participants will work in groups to identify the priority issues and questions that will then be addressed by the President’s panel.  Join us for this important review of where we’ve been and where we want to go!


Tuesday February 6, 2018 12:15pm - 4:15pm
Standley I

1:00pm

Board of Directors Meeting
Closed Board of Directors meeting

Tuesday February 6, 2018 1:00pm - 4:00pm
Westin Boardroom

4:00pm

4:30pm

ALISE Leadership Workshop
Tuesday February 6, 2018 4:30pm - 5:30pm
Standley II

5:30pm

unCommons Speed Meeting
Tuesday February 6, 2018 5:30pm - 6:30pm
Windsor

6:30pm

 
Wednesday, February 7
 

7:30am

All Conference Continental Breakfast
Wednesday February 7, 2018 7:30am - 8:30am
Foyer

7:30am

First Timers' Breakfast
Wednesday February 7, 2018 7:30am - 8:30am
Westminster I-II

7:30am

SIG Business Meeting I
Information Ethics SIG
Research SIG

Wednesday February 7, 2018 7:30am - 8:30am
Standley II

7:30am

Registration
Wednesday February 7, 2018 7:30am - 6:00pm
Foyer

8:00am

unCommons
Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:00am - 8:00pm
Windsor

8:30am

Special Program: Connecting Teaching and Research
The session “Connecting Teaching and Research” is designed primarily to
benefit new faculty and doctoral students. It is the hope that this new
ALISE conference session will attract attendees looking for advice and those
with expertise to share.  Using the World Café Discussion format, the goals
for the session are to develop a conceptual framework and identify critical
success factors for bridging teaching and research. Potential discussion
themes include:  (1) using research to inform teaching; (2) using teaching to
inform research; (3) bridging teaching and research; and (4) challenges in
faculty development both in teaching and in scholarship.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Cotton Creek II

8:30am

Session 1.3 - Juried Panel: Expanding the LIS universe: Implementing archival theory, practice, and pedagogy within the Catholic and social justice traditions.
Christine M. Angel
Web 2.0: Creating the 21st Century Information Professional Utilizing Pedagogically Driven ICTs
Constructing an active teaching pedagogy demonstrating evidence of student achievement concerning the organization and description of archival documents and visual information resources within an online environment can be challenging. However, students must be provided with practical experience that meets the needs of today’s information environment and also demonstrates how those needs were met to the American Library Association - Committee on Accreditation (ALA-CoA).
During the past five years, students within the DLIS program at St. John’s University have been processing archival documents housed within the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS-NY). The purpose of this project is to increase access to information resources needed by stakeholders currently engaged in the construction of public policies safeguarding the rights of immigrants, migrants and refugees. The current lack of access to information has resulted in a gap between the policies and the actual needs. Through metadata creation and digitization, DLIS students are increasing access to information needed for creating policy that can effectively respond to recurrent challenges in the field.
 
With an active method of instruction, courses are designed that will “provide students with practical knowledge, activities, assignments, and experiences that they can apply to their futures” (Wingfield & Black, p. 121). One such student project is the construction of a blog post ( www.hiddenheritagecollections.org) on a student-constructed blog participating in several assignments that are scaffold demonstrating what they have learned.  This publicly-available blog allows prospective employers to observe student performance. Demonstrating such performance has led to students obtaining interviews with the CIA and employment at Hasbro and Lord and Taylor.
Wingfield, S. S., & Black, G. S. (2010). Active versus passive course designs: The impact on
student outcomes. Journal of Education for Business, 81(2), 119-123.
doi:10.3200/JOEB.81.2.119-128
 
Youngok Choi
A key endeavor of cultural heritage organizations is to increase access to their collections. As web technologies open up new exposure to materials, cultural heritage organizations have tremendous investments in digitizing rare and unique special collections for preservation and for wider access. Similarly, U.S Catholic archival institutions have focused on digital projects to promote scholarly and public understanding of the records of the documentary and artifactual heritage of American Catholic culture and history as well. However, such efforts of Catholic archives are hindered by many obstacles.  A 2011 Survey of Digitized Rare Catholica among North American Catholic college and university libraries revealed that 67% of such institutions have not digitized their Catholic resources. Most indicated lack of money, staff, and time as major barriers to digitization, and did not have an institutional repository, nor a dedicated digital specialist. Survey findings suggest a need to explore the state of Catholic archives and identify norms to define appropriate action and further research. In response, Dr. Choi conducted a survey providing a snapshot of the nature of Catholic archives. The survey goal was to provide a context and the current status of Catholic archives in adapting to this changing world. Results will guide the professional archival community and educational programs in discussions about collaborative actions and decisions necessary to care for endangered Catholic Church records and heritage.
Dr. Choi’s presentation will address topics of archives’ operation, digital archives, and outreach, describing Catholic archives’ operational elements compared with peer special collections and archives.   
*Martha Loesch, Marta M. Deyrup, Pat Lawton. "Survey of Digitized Rare Catholica: Summary Report of Results" Update: Newsletter of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities Vol. 37 Iss. 4 (2011): http://www.catholicresearch.net/cms/files/2113/7259/7621/Survey_report.pdf
 
Molly Hazelton
Telling their stories: Developing a pedagogical framework for the capturing of oral histories of Catholic sisters.
The contributions of Catholic sisters to the history of our country are profound, from founding hospitals to educating schoolchildren to working with the poor. However, in the narrative of women’s history, their contributions remain largely invisible. Although archives of Catholic sisters’ communities have done an excellent job preserving paper archives, efforts to capture oral histories vary widely.  The need to preserve their stories is pressing, as recent Vatican research indicates the average age of Catholic sisters is in the upper 70’s.    SisterStory, part of a broader initiative at St. Catherine University, funded by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, set out to develop an oral history project that could: teach college students how to conduct archivally sound oral histories and preserve the stories of this historically significant group of women.  From 2013- 2017, college students nationwide collected over 180 oral histories of Catholic sisters representing over 20 different communities.
Project Coordinator Molly Hazelton will discuss the development of the oral history project, including incorporation of oral history and archival pedagogy into a nation-wide student project led by a range of community partners, and the challenges with a project of this nature.
Visit www.sisterstory.org to see samples.
 
Cecilia L. Salvatore
Increasingly, religious communities are coming to the end of their historical journey. The need to deal with the valuable records and archives of these communities is pressing and dire. Students at Dominican University’s School of Information Studies participated in the archival processing of records of closed religious communities and congregations. For these students, issues related to record appraisal and to the legal and financial, and the social and cultural systems in which these records were created all come to the fore. To be sure, consideration of legal and financial systems and social and cultural systems in implementing the various archival domains can be unwieldy. The consideration and fate of the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials illustrates this. In this paper, I describe my research of the appraisal and acquisition of and access to the records of religious communities that have come or are coming to the end of their historical journey. The goal of the research is to develop a methodology for taking care of the records and archives of communities that have contributed much to development in society.
 
Mathiesen, Kay. “A Defense of Native Americans’ Rights Over Their Traditional Cultural Expressions.” American Archivist 75, 2 (Fall-Winter 2012): 456-481.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Standley I

8:30am

Session 1.1A - Juried Papers: Curriculum Development Life Cycle Approach to Data Science Specialization in LIS Education.
Librarians have aided patrons in research and obtaining information, however today they are also being asked to help with accessing data and helping with data discovery tools. The amount of data being created and shared today is the most civilization has ever witnessed, much of which can be credited to technological innovations and the internet. This data deluge has resulted in the phenomenon of “Big Data”. Librarians have been collecting, organizing, and disseminating big data for many years, however the current LIS curriculum is in need of bridging the gap to meet professional demands of big data skills in academic libraries. This research looks at every data science program being offered in the United States and reviews the core courses, what type of degree, and discipline they are being offered in. Using Curriculum Development Life Cycle approach, the researcher begins with a quantitative textual analysis of the core curriculum which is being taught in Data Science programs in the United States. The methodology will aid in building a future life cycle of curriculum development for Data Science within LIS education. This research will provide LIS schools with an overview of what type of degree and core courses that are currently being offered in the data science curriculum, and the results found from this research could be used as a starting point in curriculum development for a data librarianship program in LIS.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook II

8:30am

Session 1.1B - Juried Papers: Training Knowledge Creation Facilitators: The Alignment of Organizational Needs with LIS Expertise and Curriculum.
The organizations that survive in an environment of continuous and unpredictable change are those that recognize the importance of knowledge creation. They recognize that it is not sufficient to rely on existing information in the form of past solutions and best practices to solve problems, make decisions, and maintain forward momentum. Rather than choose an existing solution from the canon of best practices, organizations need to create noncanonical solutions that go beyond what is already codified in manuals and white papers: “A communal understanding . . .  that is wholly unavailable from the canonical documents” (Brown & Duguid, 1991, p. 44). This is just as true for large corporations as it is for community organizations.
Yet, there is arguably a lack of graduates ready to take on this facilitation of knowledge creation in complex environment. The focus on developing skills of rational analytic decision-making and planning in business schools has them “sending graduates into an increasingly complex and turbulent business environment without adequately developing their skills to adapt” (Glen, Suciu, & Baughn, 2014, p. 653). The LIS field is uniquely situated to provide research and insight into the best ways for organizations to create knowledge, and its curriculum should reflect that if it is to take advantage of this gap and place students into organizations for the benefit of both students and the economy. This represents an exciting opportunity within the expanding universe of LIS education.
This paper outlines three core elements of a curriculum aimed at preparing students to enter organizations as knowledge facilitators. It outlines things LIS students should understand, as well as examples of things they can do to show mastery of this understanding.
CURRICULAR ELEMENTS
Complexity . The first element is the very awareness of the inevitability of complexity and unpredictability. Students must understand that innovation happens only in the midst of complexity, near the edge of chaos. As living systems, human organizations are in a constant state of flux (von Bertalanffy, 1968). The interaction of agents within the system is too fluid to pin down (Snowden, 2002). And as the environment around them changes, organizations must be able to adapt using self-emergent rules. Ignoring this reality, organizations often get caught in a vicious cycle (Stacey, 1996) of continually searching for best practices that will ensure success, despite the inevitable lack of foresight.
Mastery of this understanding comes as students learn how to guide these systems into a confrontation with this complex reality. Using Stacey’s (1996) Control Parameters , students turn up the rate of information flowing into and throughout the organization, the rate of diversity of agents within the system, and the richness of connections among these agents. These are clearly information and knowledge tasks. And as each is turned up, the organization is nearly flooded with complexity, putting them in a position to innovate.
Conversation . Essential to engagement with these system parameters is conversation. Conversation is where information is introduced and distributed, where the value of diversity is realized, and where the richness of connectivity is required. It was only through conversation that Xerox technicians developed noncanonical solutions for printer problems that went beyond the established and formal solutions manual (Brown & Duguid, 1991). Poor policies continue to be implemented, often, as a result of poor communication that lacks honest and open questioning (Argyris, 1977). Conversation opens up channels to challenge the status quo and coordinate action (Habermas, 1987). Students must understand that, “being in the knowledge business, we are in the conversation business” (Lankes, 2011, p. 63).
One example of showing mastery of this understanding comes as students are taught how to initiate and facilitate Communities of Practice (COPs) (Wenger, 1998). They develop a guidebook for effective CoPs that a) helps these groups decide what they want to be about, b) lays out the ground rules for relationship and effective communication, and c) ties conversation to a practice they want to improve. In these groups, individuals share specialized language from their diverse domains of expertise—what Pask (1975) termed L1 language. Done in the context of a shared conversation, this language is more easily synthesized. As a result, the organization becomes—not simply a place to acquire an existing discourse or identity kit (Gee, 1989)—but a place to create new discourses.
Barriers . Finally, students must be equipped with an understanding of the barriers to information, knowledge, and knowing. Information and knowledge are not nearly as powerful—or valuable—as typically advertised.
First, although the provision of access to information is essential, the barriers to meaningful integration takes much of the power away from information. It is no match for strongly held beliefs (Batson, 1975), pervasive organizational narcissism (Stein, 2003), social norms (Chatman, 1999) or intentional irrationality (Caplan, 2001). These barriers “reduce the value of perceived new information” (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2007, p. 795).
Second, once integrated as knowledge, it is of little value to innovation unless it inspires action: “We must see knowledge as a tool at the service of knowing not as something that, once possessed, is all that is needed to enable action or practice” (Cook & Brown, 1999, p. 388). And additional barriers to action—or knowing—prove this knowledge to be similarly limited in its power.  It is no match for a lack of self-efficacy (Bandura,1982), a belief that there is nothing to be gained from an action (Ajzen, 1985), or a culture unsupportive of a certain behavior (Lewin, 1947).
Mastery of this understanding of barriers comes as students develop strategies to overcome them. They will learn how to present information in such a way as to inspire meaningful integration. For instance, increasing the cost of being wrong about something should increase one’s rational search for and integration of information (Caplan, 2001). They will also learn how to manipulate the environment in such a way as to inspire actionable knowing. Several models in public health, for instance, show how to account for variables like self-efficacy to ensure that information about a health condition leads to actual changed behavior to prevent that condition (Witte, 1994; Rosenstock, 1974)
CONCLUSION
Each of these elements is focused on information and knowledge, putting them squarely in the realm of LIS. A new curricular core including these elements will ensure that graduates of LIS schools are well positioned to lead organizations toward innovation. This paper provides a cornerstone upon which curriculum restructuring can take place—one that recognizes this new role for the information professional.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook II

8:30am

Session 1.1C - Juried Papers: Team Science: Development of an Immersive Curriculum for Information Professionals to Play an Expanding Role in Scientific Collaboration.
Team science addresses scientific challenges through collaboration among scientists from varied domains and expertise. This kind of collaboration presents challenges related to team communication and data sharing. This paper presents the Team Science initiative that focused on preparing information professionals to function efficiently in the team science environment. It provides the framework for the curriculum, the lessons learned from the experiential learning approach to student engagement, and discusses the outcomes from the first cohort of students. The paper also offers lessons learned which can be used as a road map by other schools to develop a team science curriculum.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook II

8:30am

Session 1.2A - Juried Papers: You’re So Sensitive! How LIS Professionals Define and Discuss Microaggressions Online.
This study uses content analysis to explore how LIS professionals define and discuss microaggressions in an extended online discussion thread.  Findings reveal that there are multiple mis/understandings of microaggressions by the LIS community. Participants demonstrated gaps in knowledge about microaggressions, and power and privilege. Additionally, while some of the discussions were productive, often the dynamics and content of the conversation reinforced dominant viewpoints and experiences. This research has implications for LIS educators, underscoring the need to expand our students’ educational universe by teaching about microaggressions in the context of power and privilege in structured environments like the LIS classroom.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook I

8:30am

Session 1.2B - Juried Papers: Cyberbullying, Digital Citizenship, and Youth with Autism: Global LIS Education as a Piece in the Puzzle.
In the United States, autism is the fastest growing disability with most current estimates of 1 in 68 children identified as having Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (CDC, 2016), and close to 1 in 160 children worldwide have autism (WHO, 2017). Youth with ASD often have social, developmental, and communication difficulties that pose challenges for engaging in common everyday activities such as going online (Orsmond & Kuo, 2011). Currently, research on the provision of library services to youth with ASD is limited, made up of a few practitioner books and similar guides for special needs youth programming (Farmer, 2013; Klipper 2014). As the diagnosis of ASD is becoming more prevalent, there is an increased urgency for the development of library services that aid in the intellectual, emotional, and psychological needs of youth with ASD.
This study offers one of the first empirical observations to contribute to the field regarding how librarians can better serve digital youth with ASD. We conducted virtual, semi-structured interviews with 15 librarians from across North America currently working with ASD youth over a period of three months. During analysis, we discovered areas that have the potential to be included in MLIS curriculum. These areas are supported by insights gathered during the interviews from participating librarians. Some of these insights include needed guidance on collaboration with schools and school ASD curriculum development, growing demands for more tailored special needs youth programming, information literacy skills for the digital environment, and approaches to conducting outreach to social service agencies and youth organizations.
Previous exploratory research has shown that young adults with ASD do use libraries, even discussing them in online environments with other ASD youth (Anderson, 2016). In this research, we investigate how librarians might address a crucial information literacy need for members of this population, and examines the ways in which librarians, through library services and empathy, can help prevent cyberbullying among young adults with ASD and support those who experience cyberbullying. Empathetic services, “structured activities carried out one-on-one or in groups and everyday unstructured interactions in which the role of the librarian is to provide social, emotional, and psychological support”, are essential when considering services to youth with special needs (Phillips, 2016, pp.17).
Librarians as community resources. Librarians are one community resource that has received scant research attention in this area, though more work is beginning conducted. As information literacy advocates and digital citizenship instructors, librarians provide youth with resources and programming on ethical and responsible online behavior (Phillips, 2014). For some youth, the library acts as a safe and relaxing environment, separate from oftentimes overwhelming school and home lives (Morris, 2013).
Librarians are questioning how to meet the burgeoning needs of a digital public. And, while doing so, discovering gaps in MLIS curriculum. One of these gaps is a lack of training and education on supporting special needs youth. In our research, we’ve focused specifically on youth with ASD as a population of interest. As one participant stated, “I think it’s so important, and I think this is an area that’s really untapped by libraries.” There has been a slow increase in inclusive library programming and outreach children and youth with ASD. During an interview, another participant, Rachel, discussed developing sensory programing including storytimes and in-house accessibility training for library staff. Sensory storytimes and similar programming not only show that the library is responsive to needs of autistic children, but also provides literacy and communication tools that support lifelong learning and social engagement (Cottrell, 2016). However, library services for older youth with ASD (ages 12-18) are often neglected. Many of the librarians we interviewed are in the early stages of creating programming for teenaged youth. While it is critical to provide educative materials and programming as early intervention for children with autism, these children become teenagers who still deserve programming and services that support their needs.
Youth with ASD and social media. Teens with ASD are no different from peers in that they seek out social media platforms for support, understanding, and information seeking (Davidson, 2008). Kuo and colleagues report “that adolescents with ASD who used computers for social purposes reported more positive friendships than those who used computers for other purposes. Notably, peers were the companions with whom adolescents with ASD most frequently engaged in these computer activities” (Kuo, Orsmond, Coster, & Cohn, 2013, p. 922). Yet this growth in social media use opens up a potential for cyberharassment, specifically cyberbullying (Network of Autism Training and Technical Assistance Programs, 2017).
Implications for LIS educators. LIS researchers and educators can contribute to the preparation of future librarians in helping youth with ASD, particularly considering information literacy and digital citizenship. From a global perspective, though the interviews conducted are with librarians in North America, autism has an international reach and findings are relevant to educators in MLIS programs worldwide. LIS educators have long provided guidance for outreach to underserved populations, youth advocacy, and special needs program development. Our findings suggest that a combination of education and empathy work is needed for young librarians to feel prepared to support youth on the autism spectrum in the library. Finally, this paper will encourage further discussion regarding MLIS course development focusing on services for ASD youth, online participation, and digital citizenship.
REFERENCES
Anderson, A.M. (2016). Wrong planet, right library: College students with autism spectrum disorder and the academic library (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1806821474).
Center for Disease Control. (2016, June 11). Facts about ASD. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html
Cottrell, M. (2016, March 1). Storytime for the Spectrum. Retrieved from https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2016/03/01/sensory-storytime-spectrum-libraries-add-services-for-children-with-autism/
Davidson, J. (2008). Autistic culture online: Virtual communication and cultural expression on the spectrum. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(7), 791–806.
Farmer, L. S. (2013). Library services for youth with autism spectrum disorders. American Library Association.
Klipper, B. (2014). Programming for children and teens with autism spectrum disorder. ALA Editions.
Morris, R. (2013). “Library support for students facing tough times: Resources and stories.” School Library Monthly 30(1): 17–19.
Network of Autism Training and Technical Assistance Programs (2017). Bullying and students on the autism spectrum. Retrieved from https://www.iidc.indiana.edu/pages/bullying-and-students-on-the-autism-spectrum
Orsmond, G. I., & Kuo, H.-Y. (2011). The daily lives of adolescents with an autism spectrum disorder: Discretionary time use and activity partners. Autism, 15(5), 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361310386503
Phillips, A. (2014). More than just books: Librarians as a source of support for cyberbullied young adults. Journal of Research on Libraries and Young Adults, 4(1).
Phillips, A. (2016). The empathetic librarian: Rural librarians as a source of support for rural cyberbullied young adults  (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University).
World Health Organization. (2017). Autism spectrum disorders. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/autism-spectrum-disorders/en/


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook I

8:30am

Session 1.2C - Juried Papers: Teaching through Activism: Service Learning, Community Archives, and Digital Repository Building in MLIS Classrooms.
MLIS programs place a heightened emphasis on the attainment of best practices often rooted within idealized versions of the future job environment. While laudable for setting noteworthy standards for what the work of an information professional should look like in myriad capacities, students rarely experience direct engagement with these aforementioned best practices unless they take on internships, many of which are unpaid. Only rarely is this complete lack of financial disincentive mitigated with potential credit for a course. Beyond this, when placed within internships (often at larger, university libraries and archives), students face systems of information building, sharing, and organizing set within previous administrative standards, left to accede the practices of the institution in which they are an intern. Such spaces rarely foster ideal best practices and, further, they hesitate to give student interns the space to try new and innovative practices. Simply, traditional cultural institutions retain proprietary practices, which are unique to the respective institution and students find themselves learning to do things in a singular way that proves to have little to no replicable value outside of the specific internship. The expected skills of digital repository building, digital asset management, and robust documentation creation remain out of the tangible skill set of the recently graduate MLIS student under the current approach. Rarely in a current system are notions of best practices complicated. Rarer still are frank discussions concerning how situational, contradictory, and objective such best practices remain within various sites.Community archives face the same challenges. Dealing with understaffing, both outdated proprietary technology, and self-taught archival skills such spaces approach digital presence challenges through scalable alternatives. This ‘by-any-means-necessary’ approach remains contentious within historically acceptable archival traditions, become lesser archives by way of their inability to achieve archival standards. Thus, community archives remain spaces deemed non-valid within archival standardization and thus remain undesirable sites of learning for students who desperately seek out space to build practical job skills alongside their degrees. More directly, students want a chance to apply their in-class theories of information science in new and radical ways and community archives desire methods with which to grow their collections digitally. A space to explore new ways of understanding and building digital archives stands at this intersection and the manner in which the MLIS classroom can serve such encounters remains critically underexplored.
As such, this paper focuses on an ongoing exploration of using a Service Learning course at the University of South Carolina’s School of Library and Information Sciences to build a digital repository for a burgeoning community archive. Currently know as Archiving South Carolina Women, the project aims to account for and make available digitally a history of the work of women’s activism in South Carolina and, more broadly, The United States. Through reimagining a class that traditionally focused on design and management of digital images that worked exclusively through establishing theories for digital asset management this undertaking imagined how such a course might look from a service learning angle. Service learning, in its structure, focuses on allowing students to learn through praxis, with the classroom becoming a space where students are paired with community partners to help deal with  respective critical need, while, learning skills in the process. Programs commonly built with service learning components tend to b those with clear ties to community engagement such as: public health, social work, and international studies. Since many students desire to work in public information work, the service learning emphasis also invites LIS programs a chance to illuminate the often underappreciated role of community service within the field at large. Accordingly, the aforementioned Archiving South Carolina Women initiative was a community archive in desperate need of digital expansion and we possessed students within a course hungry for hands on skills, thus the connection was incredibly easy to facilitate.  In no small way, this service learning approach offered an opening for a new way to think about how LIS programs can aid community archives in a reciprocal manner.
This paper highlights the experiences from this course, from the initial planning through the implementation, highlighting both the successes and failures of the project. Grounded within an understanding of best practices based training, the paper looks at how we, along with the students, redefined best practices, and moved towards building a repository from scratch, which was scalable, easily operable, and transferrable not only to the community partner (Archiving South Carolina Women) but to future students and volunteers as well. The paper also considers the qualitative experiences of the students, noting their responses to this course in contrast to their other graduate course work. We also look at the technological side of the project, noting how the long term operability of the project, meant focusing on more open source approaches to repository building, which resulted in critical, and necessary, discussions about all levels of practice within cultural institutions. Topics of debate within the course and paper include: ethics of cataloging standards, digital preservation standards, copyright, workflow management, and project documentation. Both the students and ourselves found the initial topics to be deceptively easy, only to discover that each was riddled with nuance and complexity, especially when issues of funding and labor emerged. These challenges were amplified further by the express feminist nature of the project. The community partner’s leader made her ideas of what the collection should represent clear from the onset and the resulting product had to adhere to such philosophies, meaning that the students were also learning about a historically underrepresented group of people within South Carolina (and digital repositories) by working with activist women in Columbia, South Carolina.  In the end, as our paper shows, students moved towards an approach to repository building that was transparent, while advocated for the highest degree of beneficence possible, which expanded to include not only their community partner, but their classmates, the collection, and the collection’s users as well.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook I

8:30am

Information Ethics SIG: Exploring the Boundaries of Information Ethics
As the LIS education universe expands, so too must the domain of information and professional ethics. This session will consist of four paper presentations each representing a way the discipline of information ethics is continuing to expand. John Budd will discuss the ubiquity of ethical events in LIS practices and the realist and non-naturalist nature of professional ethics. Keren Dali will discuss her paper on the shared mission and values of information science and social work providing specific reciprocal contributions that can be made by information science and social work. Toni Samek, Ali Shiri, and Cheryl Trepanier offer a critique of the Data Science Association’s Data Science Code of Professional Conduct with a goal of generating interest in teaching and learning about the moral dimensions of data workers labor rights and responsibilities. Iulian Vamanu explores the topic of ethical decision making and seeks to bridge the gap between top-down and bottom-up approaches to decision making through the use of moral imagination. Collectively, these papers cover a variety of institutional and disciplinary foci in LIS education and represent some of the expanding boundaries of information ethics.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Cotton Creek I

8:30am

Innovative Pedagogies SIG: Curricula and Programs for the Expanding LIS Education
The Innovative Pedagogies SIG will offer a program focused on “Curricula and Programs for the Expanding LIS Education Universe.” Each of the four presentations of innovative curricula and programs will last approximately 15 minutes, followed by an interactive discussion period. Attendees will be invited to continue the conversation after the program through a Twitter chat moderated by the SIG conveners.
From MLIS to MI: Changing a Program to Expand Community and Opportunity. Lilia Pavlovsky, Director, Master of Information Program at Rutgers University will present Rutgers’ Library and Information Science program’s innovative redesign that began in 2013 with the taskforce that she chaired. The resulting wider, more inclusive framework for the curriculum and program facilitated the development of six strategically defined subject concentrations. Lilia’s presentation will focus on the positive outcomes of the innovative reorganization, renewal, expansion, and integration of the MLIS curriculum into a program portfolio addressing the needs of a multifaceted community of learners whose key interest is the study of information as it applies to a variety of contexts.
Expanding the Creative Side of LIS education through Arts-Informed Visual Research. Elysia Guzik, Jenna Hartel, and Anh Thu Nguyen of the Faculty of Information at the University of Toronto, and Deborah Hicks of the University of British Columbia will present three five-minute presentations on arts-informed research and creative pedagogical approaches to LIS education. First, the audience will be introduced to the innovative Visual Research Project (VRP), a pedagogical application of arts-informed methodology and visual research led by Dr. Jenna Hartel (Hartel, 2014a; Hartel, 2014b; Hartel et al., In press; Hartel, n.d.), including VRP design and implementation, student comments about the creative assignment’s strengths, and areas for improvement. Copies of the VRP assignment handout will be available. The second presentation focuses on how the VRP empowers students to cultivate their capacities for creative thinking and original research. Finally, drawing on data related to the concept of “librarian” and literature on librarians’ identities (Hicks, 2014; Hicks, 2016a; Hicks, 2016b; Hicks, In Press; Hicks & Given, 2013), insights regarding widespread ideas about who librarians are and what they represent will be discussed.
Data Science and the Ever Expanding LIS Curricula. Suliman Hawamdeh of the University of North Texas will present the impact of data science programs on the LIS curriculum and LIS education. The Master of Science in Data Science at the University of North Texas is designed to meet the rising need for highly skilled data science and data analytics professionals. The program prepares students for careers in data science and analytics with a broad knowledge of data science tools, techniques, and methods while building the skills and competencies needed to design, implement and transform data sets and large volumes of information into actionable knowledge.
Innovative Pedagogical Strategies for Improving the Outcomes of Virtual Team Work. Cheryl Stenstrom of San Jose State University will present her ongoing research to extend, integrate, and measure the effect of a suite of pedagogical interventions to increase student satisfaction with small group work processes and learning outcomes in an online environment. The effects of interventions including uniform guidelines and strategies, discussion questions, and student progress reports will be accessed and compared across course sections. 
REFERENCES
Hartel, J., Noone, R., & Oh, C. (In press). The creative deliverable. Journal for Education in Library and Information Science.
Hartel, J. (2014a). An arts-informed study of information using the draw-and-write technique. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1349-1367.
Hartel, J. (2014b). Drawing information in the classroom. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 55(1), 83-85.
Hartel, J. (n.d.). iSquares: Welcome and Corpus . Retrieved from http://www.isquares.info
Hicks, D. (2014). Technology and professional identity of librarians: The making of the cybrarian . New York: IGI Global.
Hicks, D. (2016a). Advocating for librarianship: The discourses of advocacy and service in the professional identities of librarians. Library Trends , 64 (3), 615-640.
Hicks, D. (2016b). The construction of librarian’s professional identities: A discourse analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
Hicks, D. (In press). Person or place: The rhetorical construction of librarian and library by the information profession community. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science .
Hicks, D., & Given, L. M. (2013). Principled, transformational leadership: Analyzing the discourse of leadership in the development of librarians’ core competences. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy , 83 (1), 7-25.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Standley II

10:00am

Morning Break
Wednesday February 7, 2018 10:00am - 10:30am
Foyer

10:30am

Opening Plenary: The Benefits and Challenges of Allied Programs and Specializations in LIS Units
LIS schools and departments are home to a growing number of degree programs and specializations at the graduate and undergraduate levels. This panel brings together educators who teach in or oversee allied degree programs or specializations within LIS degree programs. Each panelist will discuss the rewards and challenges of these programs and specializations within their units. Areas to be addressed include archival studies, user experience design, data science, information architecture and digital humanities.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Westminster I-II

12:00pm

Lunch on Your Own
Wednesday February 7, 2018 12:00pm - 2:00pm
Local Restaurants

12:15pm

Council of Deans, Directors, and Program Chairs Luncheon Meeting
By invitation only

Wednesday February 7, 2018 12:15pm - 2:30pm
Westminster I

12:45pm

SIG Business Meeting II
Gender Issues SIG
Historical Perspectives SIG
Innovative Pedagogies SIG 
Part-time and Adjunct  Faculty PT/A SIG 
Information Policy SIG









Wednesday February 7, 2018 12:45pm - 1:45pm
Standley II

2:00pm

Research Award, Methodology Paper Competition, Bohdan S. Wynar Paper Competition
Winners of the Research Award, Methodology Paper Competition, Bohdan S. Wynar Paper Competition will present their work.

Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Cotton Creek II

2:00pm

Session 2.3 Juried Panel: '"F*** That": Why Fake News and the Weaponization of Information are Good for LIS
In the US, recent developments in the information environment have created a national mood of distrust and highlighted the need for increased information/media/digital literacy. While some politicians and journalists have come to see the value of educating the public; it is problematic for LIS that neither of these players identified that “education” for what it really is, information literacy/fluency. Nor did they connect that solution to LIS. Why? The panel will answer this question and discuss how and why challenges created by the current information environment should be viewed as opportunities for improving LIS education as well as challenging perceptions of the profession.
:
It is unlikely that Tim Berners-Lee foresaw the extent to which his Hypertext Markup Language would disrupt the lives of the American people, let alone the lives of people across the globe. Perhaps the most far-reaching have been the ongoing accusations and revelations of fake news and media bias among journalists and politicians in the United States. The most concerning is, perhaps, the global implications of information as weapon . 
These developments have resulted in an information environment of distrust, where the notion of a universal truth is virtually non-existent. In this information environment, individuals seemingly choose their own truth. Also problematic is the general idea that any information with which one disagrees can be labeled “fake.” This has created a national mood (Kingdon, 2010) of distrust, which speaks to the obvious need for increased information/media/digital literacy in the United States, as LIS stakeholders have long acknowledged. As Wineburg points out, “Online civic literacy is a core skill that should be insinuated into the warp and woof of education as much as possible” (Banks, 2016, para. 16). 
This idea also appears to be gaining some traction among politicians and journalists, as several have recently suggested “educating the public” as one way of staving off the types of attack the US recently experienced during the 2016 Presidential Election; however, it is problematic for LIS that neither of these players identified that “education” for what it really is, information literacy/fluency. Nor did they connect it to LIS and the fact that libraries represent a ready-made infrastructure through which this education could actually begin to take place. There was no connection made between Library and Information Science as a discipline and what the US has been experiencing with regard to fake news, the weaponization of information, or the need for information literacy/fluency. This gap is reflective of the longstanding disconnect between the public and Library and Information Science i.e., the public’s general lack of knowledge regarding the discipline and practical applications of the profession (Kenney, 2013), as well as challenges to its legitimacy as a profession (Lonergan, 2009).
Regarding issues of digital literacy, Jaeger et al. (2012) contend that public libraries should have a seat at the policymaking table. They note that more strategic involvement in the policymaking process would provide an efficient method for bringing the library’s message to stakeholders, because libraries as a group have often failed to articulate their message to policy makers, specifically regarding funding. Kingdon’s (2010) three streams approach to how public policy is formed offers some insight as to why this might be the perfect time for this type of strategic involvement. He explains:
The separate streams of problems, policies, and politics come together at certain critical times. Solutions become joined to problems, and both of them are joined to favorable political forces. This coupling is most likely when policy windows - opportunities for pushing pet proposals for conceptions of problems - are open. (Kingdon, 2010, p.20)
In other words, once an issue becomes hot and a window opens (i.e., a near perfect opportunity to push that issue), stakeholders want input on how the policy develops, even if it’s an agenda to which they are opposed. The American Library Association (ALA) did just that in 1993, when the National Information Infrastructure (NII) Agenda for Action was being developed. In its bid to protect the public good, the ALA was determined that the old rules should still apply to this new information infrastructure.  Nevertheless, the NII heralded an information age that did, in fact, create new issues and problems that old rules and policies failed to adequately address. In 2016, fake news became one such problem. Today, it’s a hot button issue – and for LIS stakeholders, a window is now open.
This panel will discuss how and why LIS stakeholders should exploit the current information environment as a means of improving or challenging perception of the profession, recruiting students, developing new and relevant programs/curricula, supporting students, conducting globally relevant research, and securing a seat at the policymaking table.  In addition, drawing on their respective areas of expertise, each panelist will provide specific ideas and strategies that can serve as models for audience participants.
STRUCTURE:
The session will use the Ignite format. The session will begin with the s of the panel members and followed by an overview of the topics that will be discussed by the moderator (10 min). Each panel member will then present; these will be 7-10 minute presentations that will showcase key issues in a way that ensures audience interest and engagement. The audience will then be invited to respond, ask questions, and/or offer comments.
More information about the Ignite approach is available at: http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/ignite-presentations/.  
REFERENCES:
Banks, M. (December 2016). Fighting fake news: How libraries can lead the way on media literacy. American Libraries , retrieved July 12, 2017 from https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2016/12/27/fighting-fake-news/
Jaeger, P.T., Bertot, J.C., Thompson K.M., Katz, S.M., & DeCoster, E.J. (2012). The Intersection of Public Policy and Public Access: Digital Divides, Digital Literacy, Digital Inclusion, and Public Libraries. Public Library Quarterly , 31 (1), 1-20, DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2012.654728
Kenney, B. (May 2013). So You Think You Want to Be a Librarian? Publisher’s Weekly , retrieved July 13, 2017 from https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/57090-so-you-think-you-want-to-be-a-librarian.html
Kingdon, J. (2010). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies , 2nd Revised Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education (US).
Lonergan, D. (2009). Is Librarianship a Profession? Community & Junior College Libraries , 15 (2), 119-122.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Standley I

2:00pm

Session 2.4 Juried Panel: Core & More: Examining Foundational and Specialized Content in LIS Programs.
The LIS field is encompasses a wide range of career paths and directions, all of which must be considered when preparing new LIS professionals. In addition to more traditional areas such as information organization and collection development, and dispositions like customer service orientation and interpersonal skills, employers are also looking for skills and qualifications in areas like emerging technologies, data management, design thinking, and cultural competency. It is incumbent on LIS schools to ensure that their curricula are meeting the needs of the field. But which skills are core—meaning that all students should have a foundation in those skills, regardless of their area of focus or ultimate career path—and which are specialized, meaning that only professionals in specific positions are likely to need those skills? How are core skills defined by professional associations and employers, and how can LIS programs create curricula that lay a foundation of core competencies while also addressing emerging areas?

LIS programs find guidance from professional associations like the American Library Association (ALA), the Society for American Archivists (SAA), and the Special Library Association (SLA), each of which publishes sets of competencies meant to guide program development and content. In the case of ALA, those competencies form part of the basis by which degree programs are accredited.

Because the MSLIS is a professional degree, and its focus is to prepare students for employment and professional practice, LIS faculty can also look to employers to understand current and emerging needs in the field. LIS faculty and program directors might ask employers directly what skills and qualifications they are seeking. They might also track job postings to identify required and preferred skills and qualifications, as well as new job titles and areas of responsibility.

This panel will bring together LIS educators, leaders of professional associations, practitioners, and recent graduates to discuss which competencies and knowledge areas should be considered core to the LIS field and to explore specialized skills, emerging areas, and trends in the field that will should impact employer expectations and LIS curriculum development. The panelists will share results of a spring 2017 survey, in which 1100 respondents ranked 53 skills on a scale of “core” to “specialized.” This survey was distributed to LIS faculty, alumni of an LIS program, internship and practicum supervisors, and other employers. The results suggest a range of skills that various constituencies believe to be core to the field, as well as some that are appear to be required only in specialized positions or settings. In an open-ended question, survey respondents suggested other skills and competencies. When coded an additional 50 categories of skills emerged that LIS programs are expected to address.

The panelists will examine how the survey results overlap with and diverge from the competency statements offered by professional associations, and with trends observed in job postings. Recent alumni panelists will discuss how the competencies from these various data sources align with their program experiences, and practitioners will share observations about how well interns and new graduates are prepared to take on professional roles, and which skills they find to be strong or lacking in their interns and new graduates. LIS faculty panelists will reflect on implications for curricular development.

In an interactive portion, the panelists will poll participants in real time about their impressions of what skills and competencies should be core or specialized, and panelists will respond to the poll results and questions. Time will also be allocated for open discussion.

With its focus on both foundational and emerging areas of LIS education, this panel aligns well with the ALISE Conference theme of “The Expanding LIS Education Universe.” Further, the panel composition promises that the discussion includes the perspectives of leaders of professional associations, students, and practitioners, as well as LIS educators. Attendees will gain new insight into what aspects of LIS curricula can be considered core and specialized, and will have a chance to discuss how LIS programs can best address these perspectives.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Standley II

2:00pm

Session 2.1A - Juried Papers: Understanding Physical Activity in Public Libraries.
This paper discusses the findings from recent studies of movement-based programming in public libraries in terms of the implications of this emerging area for LIS education. Throughout North America, by themselves and in collaboration with other groups and individiduals, public libraries are offering ongoing programs that include, among others, 1) Fitness classes such as yoga, tai chi, and zumba; 2) StoryWalks®, Music and Movement, Yoga Storytimes, and related movement-based programs offered as part of early literacy initiatives; 3) Active play-based programs, such as Nerf wars, geocaching, and letterboxing; 4) Programs focused on fostering more outdoor activities, such as walking and running groups, community gardens, and checking out bicycles and equipment (e.g. hiking backpacks and sports equipment), and 5) Special programs focused on supporting individuals interested in starting and sustaining active lifestyles (e.g. New Year, New You) (Lenstra, 2017a). As this programming area continues to develop and expand, public librarians have experimented with a diverse array of program types. For instance, as part of its computer classes, every Thursday afternoon the Detroit Public Library’s (2017) main branch offers a free chair Yoga session for job seekers.
There is a large literature about how public librarians support health literacy through the provision of consumer health information (e.g. Gillaspy 2005, Rubenstein 2016), as well as how to educate public librarians to provide access to health information (e.g. Morgan et al., 2016). Less understood, however, is how public librarians directly contribute to increasing physical activity through programs and services. The few studies that do exist are case studies of experimental programs in particular places, such as in St. Louis (Engeszer et al. 2016), rural North Carolina (Flaherty and Miller 2016), and Shreveport (Woodson, Timm and Jones 2011).
To understand how and why public libraries foster movement and physical activity, in Winter 2016 a purposive sample of 39 public librarians from throughout North Carolina participated in open-ended interviews about their experiences developing and implementing these programs. To extend this analysis, in Spring 2017, a convenience sample of 1622 public librarians from throughout North America completed a survey about movement-based programming in their libraries. The results from these studies show that, at a minimum, 1574 public libraries in the United States of America and Canada have offered provided movement-based programs, or intend to do so in the future.
The dataset was integrated with data from the IMLS Public Libraries Survey Data (FY2014). More urban public libraries offer slightly more movement-based programs, but these types of programs are also becoming increasingly common in more rural libraries. Furthermore, more urban libraries tend to provide more indoor programs at set times, often led by individuals paid by the library (e.g. fitness classes/music and movement). More rural libraries tend to provide more outdoor programs without set times, more often led by volunteers (e.g. StoryWalk® and outdoor activities). Librarians themselves are equally likely to lead these programs in urban and rural libraries. Across the sample, librarians reported approximately as many movement-based programs for adults as for youth, suggesting that this programming area is being developed without a particular age group in mind.  
Results from the interview-based study in North Carolina further show that these programs tend to emerge when public librarians are themselves very interested in exercise and physical activity. Public library staff also reported learning new skills and  working closely with local institutions as they developed their programs. For instance, some library staff reported that their libraries are paying for staff to learn things like yoga or tai chi so that they can offer these types of programs on a regular basis at the library. 
One reason for this finding may be the related finding that when this programming is offered, it tends to resonate. One librarian noted that “offering fitness programming … allows your community to start seeing the library's role differently.” The survey showed that participation in 81% of the programs reported met or exceeded the expectations of the librarians that offered them. Furthermore, new users were brought in by 60% of the programs offered, and 54% of programs received some form of coverage in the local media. 
The paper concludes by articulating key topics that will need attention in LIS eduation to sustain and expand this emerging area. Although the rationale for physical activity in library programs targeted at very young children is clear and well developed (e.g. Kaplan 2014), the theoretical foundations of physical activity in public library programs and services for other age groups is under-developed. By drawing on recent scholarship on neuroscience (Jensen, 2005) and integrative fitness (Peeke, 2007), this paper suggests ways that LIS education can productively incorporate the body into pedagogy so that future generations of public librarians feel comfortable and capable developing programs and services focused on fostering lifelong healthy movement and physical literacy.  
References  
Detroit Public Library. (2017). Yoga for Job Seekers . http://detroitpubliclibrary.org/event/yoga-job-seekers.
Engeszer, R. J., Olmstadt, W., Daley, J., Norfolk, M., Krekeler, K., Rogers, M., ... & McDonald, B. (2016). Evolution of an academic–public library partnership.  Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA ,  104 (1), 62-66.
Flaherty, M. G., & Miller, D. (2016). Rural Public Libraries as Community Change Agents.  Journal of Education for Library and Information Science ,  57 (2), 143-150.
Gillaspy, M. L. (2005). Factors affecting the provision of consumer health information in public libraries.  Library Trends , 53(3), 480-495.
Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind . ASCD.
Kaplan, A. (2014). Get Up and Move! Why Movement is Part of Early Literacy Skills Development. University of Wisconsin Madison School of Library and Information Studies. http://vanhise.lss.wisc.edu/slis/2014webinars.htm.
Lenstra, N. (2017a). Let’s Move! Fitness Programming in Public Libraries.  Public Library Quarterly , 36(3) 1-20: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2017.1316150.
Peeke, P. (2007). Integrative fitness: the new science of body-mind medicine.  IDEA Fitness Journal ,  4 (6), 56-63.
Rubenstein, E. (2016). Knowing How to Help: Providing Health Information in Public Libraries.  Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet ,  20 (3), 114-129.
Woodson, D. E., Timm, D. F., & Jones, D. (2011). Teaching kids about healthy lifestyles through stories and games. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 11(1), 59-69.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Meadowbrook I

2:00pm

Session 2.1B - Juried Paper: Health Literacy and Physical Literacy: Public Library Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities.
This paper will discuss recent research focused on understanding how public libraries support health literacy and physical literacy in the communities they serve. Three studies, one in Oklahoma, one in North Carolina, and another spanning the U.S. and Canada, found that movement and other health-related activities and services are being implemented in libraries to varying degrees, although library personnel also report multiple challenges. This research looks at what public libraries are doing, what dilemmas they are encountering, and how they are strategizing to nurture healthy communities. Furthermore, at a theoretical level, this paper will introduce and discuss the concepts of health literacy and physical literacy , illustrating how they are intertwined in the practices of many public librarians.
According to the Aspen Institute’s Project Play initiative (n.d.), health literacy and physical literacy are distinct ideas. The Institute’s Project Play defines physical literacy as “the ability, confidence, and desire to be physically active for life” (para. 1); however, other definitions expand on this, stating that physical literacy encompasses “the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life” (Whitehead, 2016, para. 3) and that “these skills enable individuals to make healthy, active choices that are both beneficial to and respectful of their whole self, others, and their environment” (Physical and Health Education Canada, 2017, para. 2).
The most commonly used definition of health literacy describes it as “the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions” (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d., para. 1), whereas the World Health Organization (2017) also speaks to the environmental, political, and social aspects that play a role in health literacy. Thus, although the ideas of physical literacy and health literacy have seemingly different emphases, with the former focusing more on healthy physical activity and the latter focusing more on health decision-making, our work indicates that their overlapping elements are being enacted through the work of public librarians as they provide opportunities that contribute to public health and wellness.
To discuss how these literacies are supported by public library practices, this paper will first report on a qualitative study (Rubenstein, 2016) examining the practices of 38 public library staff in 18 libraries in Oklahoma, highlighting their experiences and perceptions about providing health information, and thus supporting health literacy. The results indicated that many staff were unsure of the overall health needs of their communities, and found fielding health information questions to be challenging, including issues related to understanding questions, providing online resources, and the need for more training.
The study also found that many strides were being made throughout the state, with the support of several partner organizations interested in promoting health in one of the unhealthiest states in the nation.
The paper will then discuss a parallel study (Lenstra, in progress) that examined the practices of 39 public library staff in North Carolina who have experience developing and implementing movement-based programs that contribute to increasing physical literacy (e.g. yoga and tai chi classes, StoryWalk initiatives, Music and Movement Storytimes). The results indicated that public library staff nurture physical activity in diverse ways, often based on their personal interests. These programs also emerge as a result of partnerships, particularly with entities like public health and parks & recreation departments, but also with community groups like yoga or tai chi clubs. Common challenges reported by staff relate to space and the identity of the library. Some staff reported struggling to justify this type of programming to their directors; others reported struggling with spaces that were not created with physical activity in mind.
Finally, to extend this analysis, in spring 2017, a convenience sample of 1622 public library staff from throughout North America completed a survey about movement-based programming in their libraries (Lenstra, 2017). The results from this survey show that, at a minimum, 1574 public libraries in the United States of America and Canada have offered movement-based programs, or intend to do so in the future. In addition, the results from this survey suggest that these types of programs are being offered for all ages, in that libraries reported approximately as many movement-based programs being offered for adults as being offered for youth. 
This paper will conclude by discussing what these different studies tell us about public library practices, challenges, and opportunities related to community health, and how the concepts of health and physical literacy are intertwined in the practices and programs of many public libraries. The results from these three studies show that in many places public library staff, in collaboration with partners, are creating opportunities for members of their communities both to learn more about and to enact healthy, active lives. By better understanding how these processes work, this research will better enable library and information science educators to prepare future public librarians (as well as partners in health science and medical libraries, e.g. Engeszer et al., 2016) to support community health.
References
Aspen Institute. Project Play. (n.d.) The definition . http://plreport.projectplay.us/the-definition/
Engeszer, R. J., W. Olmstadt, J. Daley, M. Norfolk, K. Krekeler, M. Rogers, G. Colditz et al. 2016. Evolution of an academic–public library partnership. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 104(1), 62-66. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4722645/pdf/mlab-104-01-62.pdf
Lenstra, N. (2017). Yoga at the Public Library: An Exploratory Survey of Canadian and American Libraries. Journal of Library Administration , 57(7).
Lenstra, N. (in progress). Developing Movement-Based Programming: Experiences of North Carolina Public Librarians.
Physical and Health Education Canada. (2017). What is physical literacy? http://www.phecanada.ca/programs/physical-literacy/what-physical-literacy
Rubenstein, E. (2016). Knowing How to Help: Providing Health Information in Public Libraries. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet , 20(3), 114-129.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Quick guide to health literacy. https://health.gov/communication/literacy/quickguide/factsbasic.htm
Whitehead, M. (2016). Definition of physical literacy and clarification of related issues. ICSSPE Bulletin 65 (1), 1.2. http://www.icsspe.org/sites/default/files/bulletin65_0.pdf#page=29
World Health Organization. (2017). Health promotion. http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/7gchp/track2/en/








 


Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Meadowbrook I

2:00pm

Session 2.1C - Juried Paper: Cultivating a critical thinking mindset among new information professionals in an era of “alternative facts”.
This exploratory research seeks to understand the critical thinking mindset of thirty-five LIS students by analyzing online class discussions of two management case studies.  Three categories of mindsets were identified: Idealists, Pragmatics, and Skeptics.  Overall findings revealed that seventy-five percent of participants appeared to be strategic in their approach to resolving management problems.  This study demonstrates that cultivating a critical thinking mindset among new information professionals would be an effective way to address societal and organizational challenges of the current “alternative facts” era.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Meadowbrook I

2:00pm

Session 2.2A - Juried Papers: Teaching User Experience (UX) in LIS Programs and iSchools in North America: Challenges and Innovations.
This research study examines UX education in LIS curriculum. Out of 67 program websites inspected, 66% offered UX courses. Twenty-six respondents of an online survey reported 37 UX courses that they teach. Syllabi analysis of 42 UX courses provided insights into learning outcomes, session topics, projects, and more. Although instructors believed in the importance of UX in LIS, they saw the value of UX being significantly less appreciated by their schools/programs. Participants’ responses regarding final projects, the presence of a usability lab, and the teaching of UX online versus face-to-face, highlighted challenges and innovations in LIS UX pedagogy.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Meadowbrook II

2:00pm

Session 2.2B - Juried Paper: The Place of Reference Courses in LIS Curriculum in North American ALA Accredited Programs.
In the landscape of professions, Library and Information Science (LIS) stands out as a service profession and the reference course is a central part of most LIS programs. The courses offerings started at the end of the 20th century with the first recorded course taught under Melvil Dewey’s own supervision. In fact, in 1883 Dewey believed offering courses in what was then referred to as “bibliography” was an essential part of the LIS curriculum. These courses aimed at providing instruction in the “…knowledge of what reference books there are, their comparative merits in respect to given subjects, and how to use them to the best advantage.” (Genz, 1998). The creation of these courses responded to a broader need identified by LIS professionals which was centered on helping the user of the library and also as a way to encourage the use of the collection by making the library more welcoming to patrons (Genz, 1998).
Although, historically, the reference course was always one that was meant to prepare librarians in order to serve their patrons in a more effective manner, the focus of reference courses for many years was on the reference collection. And one important aspect to affect the reference collection in libraries is the change in their nature, formats and types throughout the years. In the days before electronic databases and search engines, the main way to help patrons was to find answers and reference materials were those specialized in finding answers to questions (Katz, 2004). However, as the information landscape has changed and locating information in order to answer everyday answers is easier, faster and more intuitive every day, the nature of reference services in libraries has also changed. Nowadays, there are many calls to acknowledge the complexity of the transactions with which librarians deal as part of their work with the public including their pedagogical nature (Elmborg, 2002).
This evolution in the nature of reference services, including the change in the ways we refer to this aspect of the job, has also mandated a change on how the course is approached. From a focus on resources and locating information to one that is more social in nature (Sproles, Johnson and Farison, 2008). This new approach to preparing future information professionals focuses more on the interactions with the patron, understanding the way in which people search for information, which is not linear in nature but much more complex, and the evaluation of information. The importance of information sources is still there, but the new focus of reference is in the social aspect. In LIS fields alone this is a clear delineation and the purpose of preparing for this type of work is a direct one to the kind of jobs students will apply to. But what happens to the curriculum when other fields join librarianship? Fields that bring their own sets of paradigms and ways of approaching work? Other fields not necessarily connected to the service aspect of librarianship?
In recent explorations of the role of reference courses in LIS, the centrality of the so called “reference” course, was uncovered when many professional librarians mentioned this course as the main way in which they encountered topics of bringing appropriate customer service to their patrons (Colón-Aguirre, 2017). As a service profession this aspect shouldn’t be neglected. But LIS education also needs to accommodate for ways of working of different fields in which students might find themselves employed. That is, in an ever-expanding education universe full of interdisciplinary collaborations and also one in which LIS education has expanded and enriched itself with knowledge from fields beyond itself and the social sciences, what place does reference courses have?
This study looks to answer this question by analyzing the reference course offerings in various ALA accredited LIS programs. The focus of this analysis will be on the required nature of the reference course the course’s title, description and the activities and readings required in the available syllabi. This project will employ a content analysis with constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in order to analyze the syllabi and uncover patters that will help inform how reference courses are currently conducted in the field. Preliminary results show that what is generally referred to as a ‘
 


Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Meadowbrook II

2:00pm

Session 2.2C - Juried Paper: Developing Research Practitioners: Exploring Pedagogical Options for Teaching Research Methods in LIS.
This paper reports on an investigation into the effectiveness of teaching research methods to master’s-level students in library and information studies programs. The research focused on a required research methods course taught every fall and spring at an American Library Association-accredited program. The research explored outcomes of the strategies used to teach the course in four semesters: Fall 2013, Spring 2014, Fall 2015, and Spring 2016. In Fall 2013 and Spring 2014, course content was delivered in a blended format using asynchronous lesson delivery and biweekly face-to-face class sessions, and students completed individual research proposals via an iterative process where they received feedback and a chance for modification after each stage. In Fall 2015 the course was taught online asynchronously and students completed the research proposal in teams. In Spring 2016, the course was again taught online with biweekly synchronous sessions, and the research proposal was replaced with an experiential learning approach in which the students worked in teams to conduct a complete research project for an outside client. The same textbook was used across all four semesters and similar course content was covered.
The LIS community is engaged in a long-term debate about how best to teach research methods in LIS programs, especially considering the challenge inherent in the diversity of student academic backgrounds, with many coming into LIS graduate programs with little or no research or statistics background and with anxiety about learning these subjects (Dilevko, 2000). And “many students who do take a basic course in research methods often cannot see the practical applicability of the course” (Berg, Hoffman, & Dawson, 2009, p. 593). In light of this, LIS research methods courses must explain what research is, why research is done, the purpose of research, and how to use research (Juznic & Urbanija, 2003). Furthermore, research is becoming more important for LIS practitioners as professionals—90% of US/Canadian LIS practitioners read at least one research journal, half apply research findings to their practice, and 42% occasionally or frequently perform research either in their job or for the profession (Juznic & Urbanija, 2003). Also, it is important for have LIS practitioners to contribute to the professional knowledgebase through research (Evans, Dresang, Campana, & Feldman., 2013). In light of this, there is a need to develop new strategies to teach research methods in LIS programs (Juznic & Urbanija, 2003), such as offering hands-on experience collecting and analyzing data (Evans et al., 2013).
The research addressed three questions: To what degree the different approaches to the research proposal/research project assignment affected (1) students’ achievement of course learning objectives, (2) students’ views of research after completing the course, and (3) students’ engagement with research after completing the course. To answer these questions the researchers developed a survey consisting of 20 closed-ended questions covering three categories: respondents’ experience with the course, their current use of research, and their opinion of research. Invitations to take the survey were emailed to 54 former students; 20 surveys were completed, a 37% response rate. Of the completed surveys, 35% represented students in the Fall 2013/Spring 2014 courses (N=7), 30% represented students from the Fall 2015 course (N-6), and 35% represented students from the Spring 2016 course (N=7). Due to the low Ns for the subsets, the researchers decided to analyze the responses for all respondents rather than breaking out the results by semester.
To gauge achievement of course learning objectives respondents were asked 11 multiple-choice questions querying their retained knowledge of course content. On all but three questions, 75% or more of respondents answered correctly and 90% or more answered four questions correctly. Students reported having a relatively high comfort level with research skills after they finished the course: when answering a series of 15 questions, the median response for all of the questions fell into the top two categories on a five-point scale, with respondents reporting being “somewhat comfortable” with ten areas of research skills and “very comfortable” with five areas.
To understand the respondents’ views of research after completing the course, respondents were asked for their views of the importance of research to the LIS field and for their jobs. All of them report that research is important to the field, and 60% report that it is important for their jobs.
The final area explored was respondents’ engagement with research after completing the course. When asked about research activities they conduct at work, the top activities reported are accessing research articles to assist patrons (55%), reading research articles for work-related projects (40%), and accessing research articles for work-related projects (35%). However, 40% of respondents reported not using research at work. Respondents were asked about their level of comfort in completing research tasks now. All reported feeling “very comfortable” with evaluating the quality of published research. They reported feeling “somewhat comfortable” with the majority of other tasks queried (such as writing a literature review; conducting surveys, interviews and content analyses, and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data). They were “not at all comfortable” with conducting focus groups and experiments and publishing research findings. Finally, when asked a series of questions about their engagement with research, the top responses were related to reading and using research articles, understanding how to conduct original research, and understanding key issues of research ethics. Respondents disagreed with statements connected to enjoying conducting research and believing that the research they gather through original research has an impact on their jobs.
These initial results show promise for further research in the pedagogy of LIS research methods courses. Survey respondents demonstrated achievement of and retention of course learning objectives and a generally positive attitude toward research. Further research is needed to understand the interplay of specific course delivery methods (e.g., blended online versus asynchronous) and pedagogical methods such as an experiential learning approach. This research demonstrates the limitations of conducting research on small samples from individual LIS programs; expanding this research to include more programs and courses may prove fruitful.
Berg, S. A., Hoffman, K., & Dawson, D. (2009). Integrating research into LIS field experiences in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 591-598.
Dilevko, J. (2000). A new approach to teaching research methods courses in LIS programs. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 41(4), 307-329.
Evans, A., Dresang, E., Campana, K., & Feldman, E. (2013). Research in action: Taking classroom learning to the field. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 54(3), 244-252.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Meadowbrook II

2:00pm

Gender Issues SIG: Is What you See What You Get? (Fake news and gender issues: Gender in visual image cataloging)
This session provides a gendered lens on the media universe.
“Fake News and Gender Issues”
Dr. Lesley Farmer, California State University Long Beach
Fake news is a hot topic, but the gendered aspects of it have not been as actively examined. Nevertheless,  throughout the process of creating, disseminating, accessing, and using fake news has gender implications. This presentation addresses these issues, and provides several strategies for teaching and promoting news/media literacy. 
 
“I Can See Queerly Now”: Reconsidering Gender in Visual Image Cataloging and
Information Organization Pedagogy
Travis L. Wagner; The University of South Carolina
This paper explores the complexities of visual image cataloging during an increased move towards machine learning and information organization. By focusing directly on the idea of the semantic gap as it pertains to what is teachable and knowable by computers, the paper offers a cautionary approach to the ‘knowability’ of identity-based ways of being. The paper concludes by imaging research, which can help to show the complicated perceptions of gender encountered by catalogers to better understand whether or not the practice of gendering is a social act preceding cataloging standards, or if the aforementioned histories of essentializing gender within knowledge organization have stifled such potentials for interpretation.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Cotton Creek I

3:30pm

Afternoon Break
Wednesday February 7, 2018 3:30pm - 4:00pm
Foyer

4:00pm

Birds of a Feather
Meet fellow conferees who share your teaching subject interests for informal, roundtable discussions about course content, teaching techniques, learning activities, and best practices. Attend looking for advice or offering knowledge and experiences. Discover contacts for the rest of the conference and beyond.

- Children and Youth Services
- Design Thinking / Innovative Pedagogies
- Information Literacy
- Information Organization
- Online Teaching
- Research Methods
- School Media / Literacy Instruction

Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Westminster I

4:00pm

ALISE Conn@ct Grant: Addressing LIS Needs of Social Justice Organizations
The inaugural winners of the ALISE Community conn@CT mini-grants will present their projects (see below) and share their experiences collaborating with social justice organizations to create and innovate solutions to advance their missions. Grant winners will present the social justice organization’s library and information needs, their community engagement experiences, the impact on research, teaching, and/or practice, and how the collaboration serves as a model for progressive community action in the library and information field.  Audience discussion will follow to examine how these projects/experiences represent or contribute to developing a progressive community action model in library and information science, and what would constitute such a model.
•    Christine Angel, Assistant Professor, Division of Library and Information Science, St. John’s University
Project Title: Creating Access to Archival Documents for Immigration Policy Reform: A Project of Original Legislative History from the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law for the (Re)construction of Immigration Policy within the United States Community Institution: The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS-NY)

•    Karen Gavigan, Associate Professor, School of Library and Information Science, University of South Carolina
Project Title: Creating an Anti-Gang Graphic Novel – Social Justice from Behind the Fence Community Institution: South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (SCDJJ)

•    Joyce M. Latham, Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee,  AND Milo Miller/Christopher Wilde, Co-founders, Queer Zine Archive Project (QZAP), Milwaukee, WI
Project Title: The Queer Zine Archive Project (QZAP) Community Institution: The Queer Zine Archive Project (QZAP)


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Standley II

4:00pm

Session 3.3 Juried Panel: Will "Online" go the Distance? The Quality of Teaching and Evaluation in Online LIS Education
The universe of LIS education has dramatically expanded through the of online distance education, bringing new opportunities and posing new challenges, which can be best solved collectively through the shared wisdom and experience of online educators. In the spirit of collaboration, this interactive engagement session will bring together the expertise and experience from three US and Canadian institutions. The panelists will delve into the larger ethical and pedagogical dilemmas of online teaching and also address specific methodological problems encountered by online instructors. Two aspects will be in the focus: (1) achieving the parity of educational experience in face-to-face and online courses; and (2) developing viable and valid evaluation methods for online projects.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Standley I

4:00pm

Session 3.1A - Juried Papers: So Far Away: Expanding the Boundaries of LIS Education to Include Rural Students.
The rural landscape often includes expansive views of farmland, woods, and open spaces. Murray (2016) describes rural life as offering decided advantages for connection and a space where community might rally together, for example, to build a new library. But this geography is also often seen as a barrier to access for professional development (Kendrick, Leaver, & Tritt, 2013; Little, 2017) and graduate education (Kymes & Ray, 2012; Mellon & Kester, 2004) in the library field. Rural librarianship is fraught with challenges of isolation, small size, and distance (Freeman, n.d.).
Distance education expands the opportunities of rural residents with the promise of access to online webinars, courses, and graduate programs (Kymes & Ray, 2012; Little, 2017; Mellon & Kester, 2004). In turn, LIS education should also expand the boundaries of our programs away from a “metropolitan-centric” curriculum (Roberts, 2017) to be more inclusive of the rural perspective on librarianship and library education.
Rural school libraries represent a particular kind of geographic and economic diversity and have an under-served need for access to 21st century library resources and school library professionals. K-12 students in rural areas are less likely to have a school librarian with a master’s degree than those in urban or suburban regions (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). In Virginia, many rural counties face poverty levels well above the state average of 11.3 percent, with the county’s highest poverty level at 26.8 percent (Index Mundi, 2017). Strange (2011) notes the inequities of federal Title One funding to rural schools, citing Virginia’s Lee County Public Schools particularly (p. 15). K-12 students from schools of poverty also have fewer school library resources including staffing, new materials, and access to school libraries (Pribesh, Gavigan, & Dickinson, 2011). Teachers in these areas also face lower professional salaries and geographic and professional isolation (Mollenkopf, 2009).
Purpose and Methodology
While online education has expanded the reach of our programs to rural and remote areas, it is necessary to expand the boundaries of our thinking about librarianship and library education and explore the unique challenges of school library professionals in rural areas. Through an IMLS grant [#RE-01-13-0008-13], NextGen2, coupled with an online program, Old Dominion University was able to provide financial, academic, and mentoring support to a cohort of 11 school library candidates drawn from rural, western regions of Virginia. These students, who were classroom teachers, were educated as a cohort to fill positions as school librarians and as leaders in their communities and the profession. In this case study, we seek to understand their perceptions of distance education, particularly as rural students, and the features of an online program that promoted professional connections. The following research questions guided the study:
What are the perceptions of these participants about the experience of engaging in the activities of an online cohort, including coursework, fieldwork, and opportunities to participate in state and national conferences?
What do participants report regarding outcomes of the online experience, including changes in employment, leadership, and professional engagement?
Participants in this study included the 11 NextGen students and the two practicing school librarians assigned to work with them as mentors. The data sources for this study were interviews with the 11 students who completed the program and the two mentors. Interviews were conducted online through Adobe Connect and transcribed. Transcriptions were analyzed using a qualitative process of coding and developing themes across the participant responses. The three researchers independently coded each transcript and then met to discuss discrepancies and develop a final coding scheme. Our preliminary themes are discussed below.
Preliminary Findings
So Far Away
Distance from the university and each other was an ever-present concern for the participants. Students discussed challenges trying to connect with each other and with their mentors, as well as limited opportunities to get together face-to-face with faculty. Even the distance to travel to regional conferences that were designed to be closer to participants was viewed as prohibitive. While students were assigned mentors in their region, they were unlikely to meet these mentors in-person. This led to weak mentor relationships and furthered feelings of isolation.
Rooted in This Place
Students expressed deep connections to the communities where they lived. More than half of the students have yet to find employment as school librarians because they are unwilling to move away from their communities. Advertised positions are further away than students are willing or able to travel. Community was also mentioned relative to course assignments; many students spoke about those assignments that required them to learn about and work within their communities as particularly meaningful. Additionally, due to the distance from other classmates, faculty, and mentors, students often fell back on their local librarian for assistance.
Building Bridges
Despite distances, the support structures built into the program and learning community that was fostered created a means of engagement for the students. Students frequently mentioned class assignments that required them to work with each other and the design of the cohort model as powerful mechanisms that strengthened relationships. These relationships have continued to endure after the students’ graduation as both friendships and professional support. Distances have been overcome through phone calls, texting, Facebook, and Twitter.
Implications
This cohort of students provides a unique perspective regarding the opportunities and challenges found in the preparation of 21st century librarians for rural areas. Their experiences and perceptions remind us of the importance of geography. Some distances can be overcome through relationships developed in a cohort and by harnessing social media and other technologies. Closer to home, family and community relationships are also powerful resources to be leveraged in our graduate courses and LIS programs. The findings of this case study help LIS programs explore practices best implemented to engage and connect with a diverse set of students, particularly those in outlying rural areas.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Meadowbrook I

4:00pm

Session 3.1B - Juried Papers: Expanding LIS Education in the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomacy Lab Program: GIS and LGBTI Advocacy in Africa and Latin America.
This paper focuses on two collaborative projects selected by the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennessee to partner in the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomacy Lab program that engages college students and faculty to study foreign policy challenges. The projects involved information science graduate students to learn applied research in the process of developing geographic information systems for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex advocacy. The paper identifies opportunities, challenges, and best practices in content delivery, resource development, and extended relationship-building while drawing upon teaching-research-advocacy intersections in library and information science education.






Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Meadowbrook I

4:00pm

Session 3.1C - Juried Papers: Expanding LIS Education Abroad: Opportunities and Strategies for Developing Global Study Programs.
Increasingly, Library and Information Science (LIS) programs are offering study abroad opportunities for students to have broader global classroom experiences to gain knowledge, exposure and to think beyond the confines of geographic boundaries. While study abroad courses have long been a part of undergraduate and graduate education, few opportunities exist for students studying LIS. This paper argues for the development of study abroad courses in LIS. Why? Global study programs help students understand the interconnectedness and interdependence of the world (IFLA, 2012), they expose students to other practices in the information professions, and create opportunities for library science programs to tap into new markets for recruitment. A study abroad program will serve as a model to discuss these factors as well as pedagogy, strategies for student learning and cross-classroom collaboration. 
Assertions have been made that study abroad students accrue important knowledge and intercultural competency that enable them to succeed in an expanding global marketplace (Evans et al., 2008). It has also been argued that students choose to study abroad for personal development and to enhance friendships (Swinder, 2016). This is especially important for students who are online learners. Effective global study programs require intensive and sustained contact with students, instructor and individuals from different nations and cultures. Most models for study abroad programs provide opportunities for students to travel and live in different countries and experience the culture there. The intent is that students will return with a greater understanding of similarities and differences between cultures, an enhanced educational experience, and insight into future employment, new interpersonal networks, and personal growth.
Students who study abroad, develop enhanced cultural understanding and are motivated to engage in future international travel experiences (Bente and Janda, 2013). Targeting international students for short-term exchanges or study in the United States is also an opportunity to expand the LIS education universe. In 2012 it was estimated that international exchanges in all 50 states contributed $22.7 billion to the U.S. economy (Institute of International Education, 2012). Focusing on this group may provide opportunities for library science programs to make up for decreasing enrollments (Institute of International Education, 2012; Ludlum, Ice and Sheetz-Nguyen, 2013). Students would benefit not only from the acquisition of a language in a native environment, but also from enrichment provided by the total immersion in the culture of the receiving country. Furthermore, by targeting more international students for short-term exchanges or short-term study in the U.S., the cultural diversity of the classroom will be enhanced academically, adding to the globalization of the classroom and the expansion of LIS education internationally.  
Educating Urban Librarians Summit (2008) finds that information professionals who work in urban communities should possess specific cultural competencies, one of which is determined to be, “An understanding and appreciation of various cultures, a respect for diversity and a willingness to deliver library and information services to each and every patron” (Wayne State University, 2008, p. 5). Living, even for a short period of time in another country will provide opportunities for participants to gain first-hand knowledge of the social, economic, political, and religious climate of the host country that shape everyday life. Students will also gain ground zero perspectives of many of the critical issues facing information centers by making connections with users, library professionals, and in some cases, library students and LIS faculty from other programs. 
Developing and leading a study abroad program will not only provide insight on how students respond to cultural immersion as a means of achieving cultural competency, but it will also highlight how sustained connections, friendships, and alliances are formed with professionals in a host country can be utilized to enhance the cultural competency of LIS students. Furthermore, it will provide opportunities for students interested in managing an information center or information system with a global perspective, and explore how LIS schools in various parts of the world respond to the growing career opportunities in the information professions. 
Visions of Italy: Culture in the 21st Century Rome and Florence is a course that I redesigned in 2015 and serves as a good model for other study abroad courses. It highlights pedagogy, strategies for student learning and cross-classroom collaboration. The course has run three times; two of which I have led  This paper outlines from beginning to end the planning process of creating such a program, strategies for instruction, student learning, assessment, and samples of student projects.
REFERENCES
IFLA, (2012). Guidelines for Professional Library/Information Educational Programs.
Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/publications/guidelines-for-professional-libraryinformation-educational-programs-2012
Institute of International Education. (2012).
Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/Why-IIE/Announcements/2012-International-Education-Summit-2012
Janda, S. (2016). Segmenting students based on study abroad motivations, attitudes, and
preferences, Journal of International Education in Business, Vol. 9 Issue: 2, pp.111-122, https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-06-2016-0013
Janda, B. and Janda, S.  (2013). Retrieved from
https://www.k-   state.edu/today/announcement.   php?id=10284
Ludlum, M., Ice, R., and Sheetz-Nguyen, J. (201


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Meadowbrook I

4:00pm

Session 3.2A - Juried Papers: Academic Libraries: Serving Hidden Communities Within the Academy.
Academic libraries are adept in outreach and collaborative initiatives serving multiple communities within the academy and their local communities. University and community outreach, when done well, establishes partnerships, creates awareness, and garners goodwill for the library.  Understandably, outreach is a common mission of academic libraries (Edwards & Thorton, 2013) and vital to promoting the resources and services available to the community at large.  Outreach services are often targeted to traditional library users ie. students, faculty, and various campus constituencies.  One overlooked segment of the campus community are staff employees in need of basic digital and literacy skills.  Non-teaching staff are not the usual focus of outreach and are often unaware of the services and resources that the library offers.  In a preliminary review of the literature pertaining to academic library outreach, very little addresses staff employees or project-based collaborations with outside organizations.  The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness and explore the implications that a collaborative partnership between academic libraries, human resources, and non-profit adult literacy organizations can have on the professional development of staff employees in service-sector occupations.
Service-sector occupations include jobs such as housekeeping, food preparation, buildings and grounds keeping, and other related service type work.  These are often jobs that do not require a high school diploma or equivalent (Bureau of labor statistics, 2017a, 2017b) .  This sector of employment is the lowest paid occupational group, with a median annual wage of $20,810 as of May 2016 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017a, 2017b).  In an era of massive income inequality and stagnant economic mobility, academic libraries can support collaborative outreach efforts that help service-sector employees close the opportunity gap with continuing education and professional development.
Access to higher education is often a benefit extended to employees who work at universities.  However, these benefits, for the most part, do not transfer to employees that lack the requisite education or basic skill sets to attend university level courses
Furthermore, wage employees are often precluded from attending professional development courses due to work schedules that do not offer the flexibility to take classes during the workday.  Libraries that provide specialized outreach to employees especially when delivered at times that best accommodate the adult learner, are better positioned to help these valued employees take advantage of such benefits.
A Virginia Tech librarian, who is also a literacy volunteer for a local non-profit organization, had the opportunity to pilot a small-scale program working with three university dining services employees in a weekly English conversation group.  All three women were native Mandarin speakers who left prominent careers before immigrating to the United States and aspired to improve their English language skills.  At the end of a year of weekly sessions the former engineer, who was a line cook, became a lead cook and successfully had one of her recipes included on a dining hall menu.  The former neurologist moved to upstate New York and became a nurse’s aide providing homecare services. And the former biologist, whose goal was to speak English more clearly, gained confidence in speaking with her children’s teachers. 
Due to an overwhelming need to extend these services to even more service-sector employees a partnership was formed to improve the literacy needs with a larger scale program.  According to Meyer (2014), these types of partnerships are beneficial in raising awareness of local non-profit organizations, highlighting the value of libraries, building a network of higher education professionals, and takes advantage of shared resources.  Two Virginia Tech departments, University Libraries and the Office of Employee Relations, along with Literacy Volunteers of the New River Valley (LVNRV), are actively creating a collaborative partnership to support the literacy needs of Virginia Tech service-sector employees.  LVNRV provides free one-to-one or small group tutoring in basic literacy, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), digital literacy, and basic math (Literacy Volunteers of the New River Valley, 2017).  This organization fosters support, advocates, and instructs adults who seek opportunities to achieve greater independence through literacy.
Project-based collaborations that include student organizations, various institutional offices, and external non-profit organizations can provide libraries with flexibility, personal relationships, and increase openness to work outside of academic units (Mehra, 2007; Meyer, 2014).  Leveraging these types of collaborations can enable the library to extend its reach far more than acting alone ( Meyer, 2014 ).  Academic libraries can act as liaisons between the literacy organization and other university departments to help increase student and campus volunteerism, improve employee skills, and expand awareness of local non-profits and library outreach.  When individuals improve their basic literacy skills and computer skills, they have the power to improve career opportunities, increase their earning potential and ultimately change their lives. 
Bibliography:
Adeyemon, E. (2009). Integrating digital literacies into outreach services for underserved youth populations. The Reference Librarian , 50 (1), 85-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763870802546423
Adult literacy facts. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.proliteracy.org/Resources/Adult-Literacy-Facts
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017a) Building and ground cleaning workers in Occupational outlook handbook . Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/ooh-faqs.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017b) Food preparation and serving occupations in Occupational outlook handbook. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/food-preparation-and-serving/home.htm
Edwards, M. M., & Thornton, E. (2013). Library outreach: Introducing campus childcare providers to the academic library. Education Libraries , 36 (2), 4-16.
Literacy Volunteers of the New River Valley (LVNRV). (2017). Mission . Retrieved from http://www.lvnrv.org 
Mehra, B., & Srinivasan, R. (2007). A framework for proactive community action: The new role of the library as a catalyst of social change. Libri , 57 (3), 123-139.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2007.123
Meyer, E. E. (2014). Low-hanging fruit: leveraging short-term partnerships to advance academic library outreach goals. Collaborative Librarianship , 6 (3), 112-120.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Meadowbrook II

4:00pm

Session 3.2B - Juried Papers: Leveraging internal and external grants to promote curriculum development through collaboration and experimentation.
Grants are often regarded as revenue generators for faculty and institutions and are seen as an essential support for faculty research. However, grant-funded work can also be a major catalyst for curriculum change, either directly or indirectly, depending on the grant, and can have a profound effect on teaching practice and curriculum development and program direction.
This presentation looks at the experience of three faculty members teaching at the School of Library and Information Management (SLIM) at Emporia State University and the ways in which their grant-funded work has influenced the MLS curriculum. The internal grants were directly related to curriculum development and have given rise to experiemtnation with teaching concepts of leadership and ethics across three different courses within the MLS curriculum, while the external grant was focused on STEM education and information literacy, but has provided insights into the general MLS curriculum and the ways in which it must develop to prepare librarians who are ready to meet the challenges of the new teaching environments.
One presenter is the Project Director on a three-year grant funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Studies. The major focus of the grant is establishing a certificate in Information, Technology, and Scientific Literacy, which is taught by both science faculty from the College of Arts and Sciences and faculty from SLIM. Participants are evenly divided between school librarians and educators at both the elementary and secondary levels, and both pre- and in-service teachers and librarians have participated in the program. A major goal of the grant is to increase the STEM literacy of the librarians and the information literacy of the science teachers by educating them together, so that they develop not only the scientific and information literacy skills, but that they understand the differing viewpoints of the other professionals with whom they will be working, and can therefore develop stronger professional relationships based on a mutual understanding of the cognitive strengths of each profession. Four new courses were developed specifically for the certificate program. However, through the development and co-teaching of these four courses several things have come to light that highlight the limits of current MLS curriculum and also indicate the ways in which our curriculum must advance in order to prepare all librarians for work not only in STEM-related fields, but in libraries in general.
The two other presenters are both recipients of multiple grants from the Koch Centre for Leadership and Ethics at Emporia State University. These grants are specifically designed to encourage the teaching of leadership and ethical thinking within a broad spectrum of classes at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Faculty are encouraged to experiment and to develop new curriculum materials, activities or assignments that expose the students to ethical professional behavior or to ethical leadership within the context of specific courses. To date, in SLIM, these grants have been deployed to provide curricular support in the foundational library management class and the collection development class, and will be being used in the coming fall in the Global Experiences course to experiment with a new method of debriefing students returning from a field trip to Serbia. Debriefing international experiences can be a tricky process, with the students often becoming too involved in comparisons rather than focusing on their actual learning. In particular, the students will be looking at their Serbian learning experiences through a leadership lens, as a way of giving a particular focus to their inter-cultural experience, and putting their learning in context.  
SLIM has traditionally introduced ethical concepts of librarianship in the first foundational course MLS students all take, but these newer experiments are building specific ethical activities and assignments into courses midway through the program and towards its conclusion, which provides a more sustained strand of ethics instruction throughout the program, and continually instils the professional ethical values into the students.
This presentation will discuss the original intention of each of the grant proposals, the curriculum developments that were produced as a direct result of the grants, the lessons learned from each experiment or course, and the wider lessons that have been learned across the program, in light of the changing nature of the library world and the necessity of preparing librarians able to provide high-quality information services in a wide variety of situations.
The presenters will also discuss the collaborative work that continues in SLIM in the area of curriculum development, and how the various grant-supported courses and curriculum experiments feed into the longer range program goals. They will also provide details of the rationales that were used to secure this grant funding, and the reported outcomes returned to the grant-making agencies.
This presentation will be of interest to all library faculty who are engaged in curriculum review, who are looking for ways to facilitate experimentation within the curriculum, and who are looking for new ideas in the teaching of STEM capabilities, leadership or ethical thinking within the library profession.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Meadowbrook II

4:00pm

Session 3.2C - Juried Papers: Exploring Potential Barriers to LAM Synergies in the Academy: Institutional Locations and Publishing Outlets.
In recent times, a range of “LAM” (or “GLAM”) initiatives concerned with addressing various issues of importance to collecting institutions indicate a push towards greater collaboration between the library, archive and museum professions (Zorich, Waibel & Erway, 2008; Glam Peak, n. d.). These initiatives are set against a backdrop of “small government” budget squeezes and the challenge that all LAM institutions face of remaining visible in an increasingly online, and increasingly crowded, information environment. It appears that libraries, archives and museums (including art museums) find themselves with much in common, including the upholding of shared goals around equitable access to education and ideas, the development of inclusive narratives of culture and history, and the free flow of information (Hedstrom & King, 2006).  
However, the closer working relationship between the LAM sectors does not appear to have translated to equivalent synergies in the educational sphere. For the most part, the education that supports the LAM professions continues to be conducted, at least at the university level, through separate programs and accredited by different professional (Given & McTavish, 2010). While examples of programs covering Library and Information Science (LIS) and Archival Science (AS) can be readily identified, with some being the product of the ‘iSchools’ movement (Cox & Larsen, 2008), examples of programs covering Library and Information Science (LIS) and Museum Studies (MS; we use the term here to include studies of art curation), such as at those offered at Kent State University and the Technological and Educational Institute of Athens, are rare, although they demonstrate that the implementation of a “LAM curriculum” is possible (Latham, 2015; Giannakopoulos, Kyriaki-Manessi & Zervos, 2012; Bastian, 2017).
One major obstacle to further implementation of a “LAM” curriculum would be a lack of institutional correlation between existing schools and departments of LIS and MS. The authors’ preliminary survey of MS programs in Australia confirmed the earlier observation by Howard, Partridge, Hughes and Oliver (2016) that “very few museum studies programmes were located in the same university as library and/or archives programmes.” While the MS and LIS programs in Australia are similar in number, the former are offered by many of the older, more established Australian universities, whereas the latter are offered by a more heterogeneous group of institutions. This circumstance points to two quite distinct histories of LIS and MS professional education in Australia (Barrett, 2011; Wilson et al, 2012; Carroll, 2016). The question arises as to whether differences in the institutional locations of LIS and MS programs are also to be found in other countries, with different traditions of LIS and MS education, and of higher education more broadly. The paper addresses this question by reporting on an environmental scan of professional-entry LIS and MS programs offered by universities in five English-speaking countries.
Another possible barrier to greater collaboration between academics across the LAM fields might be the different research and publishing traditions of the LIS and MS fields, likely to have been exacerbated by institutional divisions amongst the corresponding groups of academics. The extent to which the publishing traditions of Australian LIS and MS, and their venues of scholarly communication, remain divergent is reported in this paper through a bibliometric study of publishing outlets used by LIS and MS academics currently based in Australia.
SURVEY OF LIS AND MS PROGRAM LOCATIONS
A systematic survey of the institutional, and also the sub-institutional, location of programs of LIS and MS in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, was carried out. Specifically, it compared the levels of institutional coordination (and discoordination) between the two fields in the five countries. At the sub-institutional level, analysis is provided on the extent to which LIS and MS programs are situated in schools and colleges which represent divergent disciplinary paradigms, and the extent to which differences in sub-institutional location might be considered “historically accidental”. The survey was carried out with reference to authoritative list of LIS and MS programs offering professional-entry qualifications in the five countries. The institution and its first-order administrative unit in which each program is currently located, according to information found on the Web, was recorded. The disciplinary coverage of each administrative unit was classified into the first-level fields of education set out in the International Standard Classification of Education (UNESCO, 1997). The operational prospects of an integrated LAM curriculum are discussed in light of these findings, with possible solutions to institutional discoordination suggested.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC STUDY OF LIS AND MS ACADEMICS’ OUTLETS
A bibliometric analysis of individual LIS and MS academics in Australia was conducted in order to gauge the extent to which the two groups use, and publish in, common journals and other research outlets. The LIS and MS academics were identified as those currently engaged in teaching and supporting the programs listed in the institutional survey, as indicated on the relevant websites. Publications data from Informit (a database of Australian scholarly literature), Scopus and Google Scholar were downloaded into Excel, de-duplicated and analyzed for common sources (journals, conference proceedings and books). In addition, the two lists of journals used to identify the “Library and Information Studies” field of research of research (coded 0807) and “Curatorial and Related Studies” (coded 2102) in the Australian Research Council’s most recent Excellence in Research for Australia exercise, were compared. Ways in which LIS and MS academics could increase the level of their interdisciplinary dialogue, as one step towards implementing more LAM initiatives in the academy, are considered.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Meadowbrook II

4:00pm

Historical Perspectives SIG: History and Theory, Past and Future: Understanding the Changing Ideals of Professional Service
Research on the history of the field includes both theoretical and applied studies, and this panel incorporates both perspectives in four papers. 
First, a theoretical interpretation of the political status of public libraries based on the work of Theda Skocpol and Elisabeth Clemens allows for an alternative analysis of U.S. public libraries’ early history, particularly the work of women in leadership positions.  Next, and moving forward to mid-century America, the origins of an urban public library in St. Louis, Missouri developed in a neighborhood once dominated by immigrant communities and razed in the 1970s, illuminate the purpose-driven urban librarianship of the 1960’s and ‘70’s.  Further, the Clark-Atlanta University LIS program also began in the mid-twentieth century, and examination of its rise and closure frames a timely discussion of how minority-serving institutions (MSIs) can advance LIS education.  Finally, evaluating the history of user-oriented ideals in the profession leads to the identification of two dominant schools of thought, a synthesis of which girds a proposed third-wave of design thinking about user-centered service in the twenty-first century.
Papers include:  "The Political Place: Public Libraries and Public Administration" (Latham); "Hope in the Urban Desert:  The Libraries of Pruitt-Igoe" (Bossaler & Freeland): "LIS Education & HBCUs," (Ndumu); and "Toward  a Third Wave of User-Centered Librarianship" (Clarke).


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Cotton Creek I

4:00pm

Innovative Pedagogies SIG: STEM in Libraries: Opportunities and Alliances for LIS Educators in this Uncharted Territory
Libraries across the country have been reimagining their community role and leveraging their resources and public trust to strengthen community-based learning and foster critical thinking, problem solving, and engagement in STEM. What started some years ago as independent experiments has become a national movement. Librarians have varying levels of commitment to and capacity for promoting the interest, engagement, and literacy of library users in STEM-related topics. It is timely that we extend the conversations on lifelong STEM learning in libraries to the preparation of librarians in library and information science (LIS) schools (Subramaniam, et al, 2012). Sponsored by the Innovative Pedagogies SIG, this session will explore opportunities and alliances for LIS educators through panel presentations, discussions, and hands-on STEM activities. Lankes will introduce ideas on how to prepare librarians to incorporate STEM learning experiences into library services (Lankes, 2015; Subramaniam et al., 2013). Stansbury will outline discussion questions and readings that illustrate ways that STEM-related skills and programming resonate with the basic values of librarianship. Subramaniam will illustrate examples of how technology is enhancing library services and collaborations in STEM learning (Hoffman et al., 2016). LaConte will demonstrate strategies for engaging groups underrepresented in STEM fields, through the examination of the roles of libraries as informal learning spaces (Braun & Visser, 2017; LaConte & Dusenbery, 2016), to provide equitable access to lifelong learning. Each panelist will facilitate small group discussions, and LaConte will facilitate a whole-group discussion on the top discussion points. LaConte will provide hands-on demonstrations of teaching and learning approaches. Additionally, participants will receive information about relevant literature, resources, curriculum, and tools to seamlessly incorporate a focus on STEM in their existing courses.


Wednesday February 7, 2018 4:00pm - 5:30pm
Cotton Creek II

5:45pm

Past Presidents' Reception (Invitation Only)
Wednesday February 7, 2018 5:45pm - 7:00pm
Library
 
Thursday, February 8
 

7:30am

All Conference Continental Breakfast
Thursday February 8, 2018 7:30am - 8:30am
Foyer

7:30am

School Reps' Breakfast
Thursday February 8, 2018 7:30am - 8:30am
Westminster I

7:30am

SIG Business Meeting III
Youth Services SIG
School Libraries Education SIG
Archival/Preservation SIG
Curriculum SIG
MEHC (Multicultural, Ethnic, and Humanistic Concerns) SIG
Technical Services Education SIG 
Doctoral Students SIG 

Thursday February 8, 2018 7:30am - 8:30am
Standley II

7:30am

Registration
Thursday February 8, 2018 7:30am - 6:00pm
Foyer

8:00am

Exhibits
Thursday February 8, 2018 8:00am - 5:00pm
Foyer

8:00am

unCommons
Thursday February 8, 2018 8:00am - 8:00pm
Windsor

8:30am

Eugene Garfield Doctoral Dissertation, Research Grant, Connie Van Fleet Award
Winners of the Garfield Doctoral Dissertation, Research Grant, Connie Van Fleet Award present their work.

Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Cotton Creek I

8:30am

Session 4.3 Juried Panel: Revisiting the Evolving Landscape of Open Access and Scholarly Communication
The Open Access movement is transforming scholarly communication. While the notion of Open Access to scholarly information is not new, various factors, including federal mandates for sharing the products of federally funded research drive scholars to rethink traditional scholarship models.
The panelists will explore the various facets of open access and how the movement impacted scholarly communication in general. In particular, the panelists will argue that open access play significant role in expanding LIS Education Universe, among other things by enabling scholars more equitable participation in research and development activities globally. Based on the current practices and emerging trends, this panel will further assess the open access and scholarly communication landscape and speculate on the future direction, and the influence on global scholarship. Panelists will also highlight trends in open access practices around research datasets, including the publishing, sharing, use, citation, and management of research datasets alongside scholarly publications.
PANEL AGENDA
Each panelist will provide her/his unique perspective on the issues and panelists will share their personal viewpoints on how to enhance audience members’ engagement with respect to open access. In light of the prospects and challenges that this new environment brings, the panelists will provide overviews and lead discussions among audience members on a number of issues related to open access from a variety of perspectives:
Dr. Daniel Alemneh , is a faculty member at the University of North Texas, coordinator of digital curation activities and also teaching at the College of Information.  Dr. Alemneh will offer a presentation on promoting Open Access and use of institutional repositories. He will also engage audiences in discussing the need for removal of barriers (including legal and technical) to facilitate the numerous digital curation activities required in the lifecycle management of digital resources.
Dr. Abebe Rorissa is an Associate Professor in the Department of Information Science at the University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). Dr. Rorissa’s research focuses on multimedia information organization and retrieval, measurement and scaling of users’ information needs and their perceptions of multimedia information sources and services, and use/acceptance/adoption and impact of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Dr. Rorissa will provide a broad overview of the articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN General Assembly, 1948) that are relevant to open access. He will also facilitate a discussion among members of the audience on the idea of access to information as a basic human right. The guiding question for the discussion will be: what are the roles of information users, information creators (e.g., publishers), information professionals, educators, governments & elected officials, professional associations, etc., in ensuring that access to information is guaranteed as a universal and basic human right.
Dr. Shimelis Assefa is Associate Professor in the Department of Research Methods and Information Science at the University of Denver. His research interests include scholarly communication and measurement of knowledge production; knowledge diffusion, learning technologies, and health informatics. He will discuss the landscape of scientific and technical research outputs together with trends and practices in open access efforts to publishing and sharing research datasets. Dr. Assefa invites panel attendees to participate in discussions that explores the following questions – to what extent does open access ease the lack of access in scientific and research outputs in developing countries; what is the perception of ‘open data’ in scholarly communications, and what are the challenges and enabling environments for data sharing. 
Dr. Kris Helge is Assistant Dean for Academic Engagement Services at Texas Woman’s University Library.  Dr. Helge received his Ph.D in Information Science from UNT, his J.D. from South Texas College of Law.  He will examine how the removal of legal barriers facilitates access and use of scholarship globally. Some of these barriers consist of paywalls, contractual obstructions, obsolete or inadequate technology, and often outdated policy.  Strategies to remove such barriers include consortia agreements that successfully disseminate information, open institutional and research repositories, updated policy that fervently circulates information, educational endeavors that lead to open access, and the advocacy and implementation of licenses, policy, and contractual tools that lead to the free dissemination of information.
Dr. Suliman Hawamdeh is a Professor and Department Chair in the Department of Information Science at the University of North Texas. He is an expert and a pioneer in the field of knowledge management. He will discuss about Open Access in the context of Global Information Infrastructure. Given the important of information as a key economic resources, access to information is a basic human right issue. This include highlighting the important of both physical and virtual libraries role in providing open access to information. While open access to information might not mean free access to information, there is a need for developing an open access business model that insures the continuation and sustainability of open access repositories.
Dr. Samantha Hastings: Former Director and Professor of School of Library and Information Science at University of South Carolina; will moderate the discussions of this panel. As a proponent of Open Access and the former ASIS&T and ALISE President and monographs Editor, she will offer her perspectives of the impact of open access for LIS research and scholarly communication in general.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
The panel will be relevant to ALISE. In addition to the conference theme “The Expanding LIS Education Universe”,coincedentally this year’s 10th International Open Access Week theme “Open in order to…”, is an invitation to answer the question of what concrete benefits can be realized by making scholarly outputs openly available.
So, it is very fitting to revisit issues related to open access and answer what openness means in various contexts, including as enabler to increasing the visibility and impact of scholarship at the individual level, at a particular institution, or in a specific discipline.
In addition, panelists and audience members will use the hashtag #OpenInOrderTo to join the global community and continue an online conversation about the benefits of an open system of communicating scholarship, way beyond the time and location of the 2018 ALISE Annual Meeting.


Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Standley II

8:30am

Session 4.1A - Juried Papers: “Give Me Some Slack”: Public Librarians LINQ Together for Professional Development.
School-based and community-based educators use a form of critical inquiry for practitioners to research their own professional practices to consider the impacts of their work. The Librarians’ Inquiry Forum (LINQ) is a professional development program which uses social media as the framework to implement a collaborative ethnographic approach to professional learning for librarians. This session will share the analyzed data of 15 librarians from Hawai'i’s public library system who collaborated to research and learn from one another's professional practices employing the practitioner model of reflective inquiry. The main implication of employing practitioner inquiry for public librarians is that this collaborative approach, using social media as the interface, heightens and enhances networking and sharing of ideas and practices for ongoing professional learning and identity development. Lastly, LINQ is a low-to-no-cost initiative that can be replicated for meaningful outcomes throughout librarianship.


Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook I

8:30am

Session 4.1B - Juried Papers: Role of LIS Schools in Ongoing Professional Development for Practitioners.
In this age of libraries transforming, continuing education is a necessity for library professionals to keep relevant. Ongoing challenges for the Library and Information Science community are to identify key areas to increase professional knowledge and skills and to determine the best ways to deliver professional learning (Harhai & Krueger, 2016). One of the goals of the Media Smart Libraries grant, funded in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services and awarded to the Graduate School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Rhode Island, was to increase the digital and media literacy skills of practicing school and public youth librarians. Through a partnership with the Rhode Office of Library and Information Services, the grant project providing two years of continuing education workshops on digital and media literacy competencies for librarians serving children and teens.  An evaluation of the program indicated that practicing librarians are motivated to continue their learning in topics they consider critical in servicing today’s user needs and behaviors.
Continuous professional learning is the acquisition of professional skills and knowledge beyond those required for initial qualification and learned in formal programs of education. (Rafiz, Jabeen, & Arif, 2017).  Librarians in all phases of their careers have reasons to continue their education. A librarian freshly graduated from a LIS program may want or need additional education for their first professional job. Professional learning can facilitate a mid-career librarian’s chance for promotion. For senior staff, continuing education may be needed to stay up to date in the field from a multitude of angles (Chapelle & Wark, 2014). According to Cromer & Testi’s (1994) study, within 10-12 years of receiving formal education, most information professionals are about half as competent to meet the demands of the profession as they were at graduation. With the rapid technological advances of the past 20 years, the amount of time an information professional’s knowledge and skills get out of date is likely much quicker, accentuating the need for continuing education. 
Workforce training benefits both the library employee and employer. Training increases skills, enhances professional and personal knowledge, supports career growth, and helps develop professional social networks to share ideas (Hamid & Soroya, 2015). A library organization’s success is indirectly related to training of their staff because their increased knowledge and skills can reduce time and money wastage (Hamid & Soroya, 2015) and result in services that better meet user needs, ultimately demonstrating the library’s value in the community. Hall-Ellis & Grealy (2013) argue the need for a professional development system by stating that graduate LIS programs move students from novice to advanced beginner. Then the responsibility to move professionals from advanced beginner to competent and beyond should be a joint effort of the professional, employer, and other state library organizations such as LIS schools.
The success of the MSL program suggests the positive outcomes of LIS schools taking initiative to support librarians’ continuous professional learning. In order to explore methods to continue and broaden the impact of the grant program, this qualitative study will engage library professionals from all six New England states to investigate 1) What competencies do library staff see as important for practicing professionals? 2)  How do practicing librarians prefer delivery of professional learning? And 3) What role should a regional LIS school play in supporting continuous professional learning? 
Data collection will take place during one-hour sessions at each New England state, facilitated by the faculty members of GSLIS who also comprise the MSL grant team. The session will be open to all library professionals and staff, and promoted by each state’s library organization and associations.  Data will be gathered through focus groups during which participants will engage in hands-on activities, such as completing consensograms, to convey their thoughts on professional development needs of practicing librarians.  Researchers will employ qualitative content analysis to analyze data from the focus group interviews and visual and textual information from the consensograms and other activities. Data will be analyzed using qualitative methods for the group interviews and content analysis of the written and visual data. 
Professional development and lifelong learning are key areas identified in either the core organizational values, strategic plans or competency standards of library groups such as the American Library Association, the Public Library Association, the American Association of School Librarians, the Association of Academic and Research Libraries, and the International Federation of Library Associations. The significance of this study will be to inform how a regional ALA accredited LIS school can work with library professionals and organizations to develop and support continuous professional learning. One impact of this study is that it could drive curriculum changes that include new courses and course revisions for the development and implementation of post-graduate certificates and other modes of learning. Other impacts may include an increased awareness of the leadership role a regional LIS school can play in creating proper platforms for learning and the benefits of partnerships to support the information and library community’s basic need for continuing professional learning.
References:
 Chapelle, J. L., & Wark. L. (2014). I’ve got my MLIS, now what? Further educational opportunities for LIS professionals. Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 9 (1).
Cromer, D. E., & Testi, A. R. (1994). Integrated continuing education for reference librarians.  ReferenceServices Review, 22 (4).
Hall-Ellis, S. D., & Grealy, D. S. (2013). The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition: A career development framework for succession planning and management in academic libraries. College and Research Libraries, 74 (6), 587-603.
Hamid, A., & Soroya, S. (2015). Current trends of continuing education programs in the LIS professions. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal, 46 (3), 3-12.
Harhai, M., & Krueger, J. (2016). Competency-based professional development. Journal of Library Administration, 56 (8), 939-956.
Rafiq, M., Jabeen, M., & Arif, M. (2017). Continuing education (CE) of LIS professionals: Need analysis and role of LIS schools. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43 (1), 25-33.


Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook I

8:30am

Session 4.1C - Juried Papers: Learning by Doing: Using Field Experience to Promote Online Students’ Diversity Engagement and Professional Development.
This proposal describes our response to two challenges of online education: professional socialization and diversity engagement. We discuss experiential learning, active learning, and concrete experience to increase student engagement with diverse populations as a way to involve them with professional concerns in libraries and archives. This paper focuses on interactive projects that can be accomplished by students at separate locations and projects that students undertake in their own communities. We conclude by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the projects.
Short Abstract:
Our faculty have responded to two challenges of online education, professional socialization and diversity engagement, through experiential and active learning using concrete experience to increase student engagement with diverse populations as a way to involve them with professional concerns. This paper focuses on interactive projects that can be accomplished by students at separate locations and projects that students undertake in their own communities.


Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook I

8:30am

Session 4.2A - Juried Papers: Developing MISSILE Curriculum to Train LIS Students as Mobile Technology Consultants.
In the background of rising popularity of mobile technologies, organizations are increasingly investing in mobile applications and technologies to serve their patrons effectively and efficiently. As a result, there is a growing demand for experts in developing and managing mobile applications and technologies.


Project MISSILE (Mobile Information Skills and Solutions in Library Education) developed an interdisciplinary curriculum for training library and information science (LIS) students to serve as mobile technology consultants (MTCs) for libraries and not-for-profit organizations including schools and churches. Planning for this project was funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in 2016, and with input from the Project MISSILE’s advisory board, consisting of researchers and practitioners from libraries and information technology (IT) industry, the feasibility and utility of the proposed curriculum has already been assessed.


This paper introduces the curriculum design that resulted from the assessment. We also seek feedback and guidance from the 2018 ALISE Conference attendees, to further strengthen this innovative interdisciplinary curriculum with the following four clusters.


Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook II

8:30am

Session 4.2B - Juried Papers: Librarians as Participants in Technology Governance: The role of librarians in educational technology selection.
Librarians use educational technology for teaching, learning and outreach for library services. As faculty, librarians should also participate in shared governance for selecting which educational technology will be adopted for use on campus. In a qualitative research study, findings indicate that librarians were rarely active participants in the selection process for choosing a learning management system at several land-grant universities. This paper discusses the role of educational technology (particularly the learning management system) in academic librarianship, and if librarians should be more involved in educational technology selection.  


Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook II

8:30am

Session 4.2C - Juried Papers: Integrating Virtual Computing Lab (VCL) in Distance Education for LIS Programs.
We are experiencing an intensive period of innovation, we need to keep our students in mind and prepare them with competencies needed for their future job market. In recent years, we have heard many buzz words such as Big Data, Data Science, and Cloud Computing in academia. The common denominator of all of them is the great enthusiasm and the need for data analytics skills in the next generation of college graduates. The pervasive nature of big data and cloud technologies is not limited to computer science or informatics, it touches upon many disciplines. The McKinsey Global Institute (Manyika et al., 2011) has predicted that by 2018 the U.S. could face a shortage of between 140,000 to 190,000 people with deep analytical skills, and a shortage of 1.5 million managers and analysts who know how to leverage data analysis to make effective decisions. The demand for such skills has been on a steady rise and in most predications about the job market, such skills are expected to be the most valuable and well-paid in the future. Therefor, this is a promising area for expanding the LIS universe.
Effective teaching of both data analytics and cloud-computing requires intensive hands-on lab experience. “Research has shown that hands-on experiences in the science laboratory play a central role (arguably the central role) in scientific education” (Brinson, 2015, p. 218). In a data analytics hands-on lab, students learn how to methodically deploy data collection tools to collect large data sets and how to use computational tools to extract meaningful patterns from collected data.
By 2011, nearly 3 million students were enrolled in fully online programs (Enduventures, 2012). More than 70% of academic leaders now see online learning as the critical strategic component of higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2015). LIS programs are also increasingly moving to the online teaching and learning environments. For example, the School of Information at Kent State University, now offers almost all its courses in an online format. Moving to a dominantly online learning environment makes it challenging to equip our students with data analysis and cloud-computing skills. In particular, the methods for providing in-lab experience requires rethinking, because, as Brinson (2015) observes, “Computer-based and remote data acquisition, virtual simulations, and automated processes have all challenged and altered the methods and practices of what have traditionally been considered ‘hands-on’ labs” (p. 219). Recently, systematic reviews of data from more than 120 studies in the past ten years find equal or greater outcome achievements in virtual/remote labs as in traditional hands-on labs (Brinson, 2015). However, the success of such labs requires novel and creative approaches in teaching. For example, one of the challenges of hands-on lab is how to assess the learning outcomes beyond using quizzes as the major assessment method, or how we can design and assess proper assignment for deploying cloud technologies?
To summarize, to prepare competitive LIS graduates for the job market, we face a challenge in educating our students in the areas of data analytics and cloud technologies. Addressing this challenge depends on how we can integrate hands-on lab experiences required for cloud computing and data analytics into the curricula of online education in LIS programs. To address this question, this study conducted a feasibility study of a Virtual Computing Lab (VCL). VCL is an integrated environment for distance experimenting, learning and testing, without the fear of breaking the system. In other words, it is a place for fearless experimentation in data analytics and cloud technologies. It makes it possible for the students in the online courses to remotely connect to the lab and work with different environments crafted for them to learn a variety of skills and to experiment with a wide range of computational tools. VCL can be conceptualized as a Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS) platform that can be integrated in many courses. It is a new form of lab which replaces the brick and mortar lab in the era of cloud-computing and allows our students to walk into a virtual lab in a distance learning context and directly interact with the cloud-computing environment and work with tools required for learning data analytics skills.
Currently, there are different technologies available to create a VCL for distance education. This study compared three of the main existing options including VMware remote desktop, Amazon Workspaces, and Apache VCL. For this purpose, the author designed a teaching scenario for the Social Media Analytic workshop to use a prototype VCL. The findings showed the pros and cons of each solutions for integrating VCL in online LIS education.
The Virtual Computation Lab (VCL) Prototype project illustrated that VCL has great potential in improving both the teaching and learning experience of LIS distance education, particularly for courses in the broad area of data analytics. VCL can considerably reduce the frustration and barriers for students to access analytical tools and reduce the amount of time instructors spend on troubleshooting trivial problems, allowing them to focus on interacting with the students to improve their learning experience. However, the project revealed a major gap in the existing infrastructure both in terms of hardware and expertise. Considering the increasing importance of distance education, it seems of paramount importance that LIS programs invest in these areas, particularly by improving the in-house expertise on cloud-computing infrastructure.
References:
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States . Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/survey-reports-2014/
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education , 87 , 218–237.
Eduventures, I. (2012). Online higher education market update 2012/13: Executive summary . Retrieved from http://www.eduventures.com/insights/online-higher-education-market-update/download/
Manyika, J., et al. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/big-data-the-next-frontier-for-innovation


Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook II

8:30am

School Libraries Education SIG: The Expanding Universe of School Library Pedagogy, Practice, and Research
The ALISE School Library Special Interest Group (SIG)   presents three papers exploring the SIG theme  The Expanding Universe of School Library Pedagogy, Practice, and Research .  The SIG session will begin with a panel presentations of 3 competetively selected research papers. This will be followed by an interactive round-table discussion, during which participants will interact with panelists regarding issues raised by the papers, implications for practice, and future areas for research.  
Reseach Presentations include:
Co-Teaching across Academic Disciplines –  Dow and Thompson, Emporia State University
Modeling Instructional Partnerships – Lucy Santos Green, University of South Carolina
Regarding Empathy – Abigail Phillips, Utah State University


Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Cotton Creek II

8:30am

Youth Services SIG: Expanding Literacies Across the LIS Education Universe
An overarching mission of librarianship has always focused on the need to prepare an informed citizenry, and in the era of “fake news,” “transmedia texts,” and increasing nationalism, this is more necessary than ever, especially in the context of young people. From understanding community needs on a local level to embedding practice with information literacy on a global level, contemporary library practice means incorporating practice with research, and addressing multiple literacies--from media literacy, to multiple literacies required to interpret and consume transmedia texts, to the types of literacies required to educate global citizens whose reach goes beyond borders. In order to create professionals who understand community needs in the context of multiple literacies, LIS educators must address each of these areas, and provide continuing education to keep professionals current as literacy needs evolve. This 90-minute panel will feature four 15-minute presentations, followed by 30 minutes of world cafe style discussion. Panelists will explore how to use research to create advocacy tools, how to leverage fake news to empower students via news media literacy, how to foster cultural competency via translations, and how to evaluate, critically analyze, and synthesize information across media platforms. Each of these presentations will highlight areas of information literacy necessary for an informed citizenry in the digital age.


Thursday February 8, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Waverly

10:00am

Morning Break
Thursday February 8, 2018 10:00am - 10:30am
Foyer

10:30am

Session 5.3 Juried Panel: Expanding LIS Youth Services Curriculum to Embed Computational Thinking.
Decades of formal computer science (CS) education have failed to produce qualified computer scientists and software engineers that the world needs (Google & Gallup, 2016). Approximately 40% of K-12 schools in the US offer CS courses with programming/coding elements and 9% offer Advancement Placement (AP) CS courses. Black students in the US are 23% less likely to have taken CS classes in schools than their White counterparts (Google & Gallup, 2016). A lack of qualified teachers, mentors, and resources continues to be the root of this lingering problem (Code.org, 2017). Other regions in the world also report similar figures (OECD, 2014).  Libraries hold tremendous potential to offer informal CS learning opportunities to underserved youth, thus having the potential to overcome these shortcomings. Libraries can provide mentors and social learning spaces that encourage underserved youth to geek out and tinker with technology (Bertot et al., 2014; Braun, et al., 2014; Hoffman et al., 2016).
Libraries worldwide have implemented steps to create and offer such resources, programming, and spaces (Braun & Visser, 2017; Library Planet, 2017), but admittedly librarian preparation programs need to transform their courses to produce librarians who are prepared to flourish in these roles and responsibilities. A report from the University of Maryland (Re-envisioning the MLS) describes findings of the value and future of a Master’s in Library Science degree and specifically addresses “the opportunities of focusing youth learning and education...working with youth in schools [through school libraries]...facilitating learning in libraries through making, STEAM (STREAM), coding, and a range of other activities.” (Bertot, Sarin & Percell, 2015, p. 10). Libraries Ready to Code (RtC), an initiative led by the American Library Association’s Office for Information Technology Policy, released a report that indicates librarians lack of knowledge and understanding of computational thinking, their struggle with facilitating learning in new ways, such as through the use of connected learning frameworks, their inability to connect with community partners and experts that may have the expertise in coding and computational thinking programs, and their failure to build on or augment coding activities occurring in classrooms (Braun & Visser, 2017).
LIBRARIES ARE RtC
The Phase I RtC report recommended focusing action on librarian preparation programs for youth and school librarians by creating and expanding curricula that will allow librarians to help youth develop computational thinking. The RtC report suggested creating opportunities for librarians to develop deeper facilitation and teaching skills grounded in computational thinking design as a critical area for additional work. Through creation of such opportunities in LIS curriculum, librarians will be better equipped to provide coding activities for youth that 1) increase exposure to and interest in coding, 2) change perceptions of who codes and increase affinity to coding activities among non-dominant youth, 3) build foundational computational thinking skills, and 4) help youth connect coding to non-computer science specific domains (Braun & Visser, 2017).
In early 2016, a cohort of six RtC LIS faculty members were selected to redesign and pilot pre-service courses for youth librarians that they will teach in Fall 2017. These revised courses will result in strategies to address the above-mentioned objectives (see press release at: http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2017/04/ala-announces-libraries-ready-code-faculty-fellows). These “RtC Faculty Fellows” teach at graduate schools of LIS that are ALA-accredited (includes iSchools and LIS schools) and graduate schools providing school library certification programs in the United States. Each course differs - target student populations include solely school librarians or both school and public youth services librarians; delivery modes include online or in-person, with both asynchronous and synchronous meetings; the level of redesign varies from a dispersion of RtC concepts to a complete overhaul; and some are tied to state standards and some are not. Thus, this redesign will result in a wide range of courses serving as models and examples to other LIS institutions worldwide, including courses targeted for school and youth services librarians as well as technical courses targeted for all other library types.
STRUCTURE OF PANEL
The panel will be moderated by Mega Subramaniam (Co-PI of this project), and all RtC Faculty Fellows (listed as authors above) will serve as panelists. The panel will begin with a brief of panelists and an overview of the Libraries RtC project (7 minutes). This will be followed by brief presentations by the panelists who will share overviews of their pre- and post-RtC syllabi, how they re-designed their courses, changes they made, and their personal reflections on the process (i.e. what was rewarding and what was challenging) (8 minutes each = 48 minutes). The next 30 minutes will be dedicated to small group audience engagement with RtC faculty Fellow or Fellows of their choice. Attendees will spend five minutes at each RtC Fellow table (attendees are welcome to continue to engage at a single table, if they would like to have a longer discussion with a host). The concluding five minutes will be spent sharing parting thoughts by each Faculty Fellow, highlighting what was discussed at their table.
QUALIFICATION OF THE PANELISTS
Each panelist has redesigned their course by embedding computational thinking and RtC concepts into course content and activities and will have finished teaching these courses in December 2017. They have collaborated as a cohort during the redesign, and they will be able to convey the redesigning process, including opportunities and challenges that they have encountered. The panelists’ backgrounds differ, as do their student body characteristics, allowing them to relate to the differing backgrounds of LIS educators. This session will offer techniques and approaches for integrating computational thinking - allowing attendees to blend syllabi and strategies to meet the needs of their respective schools.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Google K-12 Education Outreach for their leadership and support of the Libraries RtC project. We would also like to thank the American Library Association (ALA) Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP) for their support of this project, especially to Marijke Visser (co-PI for Phase II of this project), Linda Braun (the researcher for this project), and Caitlin Martin (project evaluator).
 


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Standley I

10:30am

Session 5.4 Juried Panel: Teaching For Justice
This proposed lightning talk panel is based on the 2017 publication Teaching for Justice (Cooke & Sweeney, 2017), which was written as a response to the rising awareness amongst Library and Information Science (LIS) educators of the need to actively integrate social justice frameworks, values, and strategies into LIS teaching practices and curricula as a foundation for training the next generation of just and critically-minded library and information professionals. “Teaching for justice” is a timely topic, as internal conversations about professional identity, status, scope of the field, and the role of LIS education are playing out against a panoply of complex external forces that include: decreased public funding for education and social services, increased state spending on mass incarceration and defense, widening wealth gaps, and the privatization of information. These are just some of the forces that are held in tension with LIS core professional values that emphasize access, democracy, public good, intellectual freedom, diversity, and social responsibility. These tensions are felt in the lived experiences of members of our communities, most keenly amongst those belonging to oppressed and marginalized groups.
Libraries and librarians have the potential to serve as the front lines of advocacy and information provision in their communities. Research demonstrates the critical community-building and informational roles that libraries take on in times of economic downturn, natural disasters, and social crises. These issues raise questions for LIS educators; namely, are we, in fact, preparing students to engage in justice-oriented professional practice? Do they have the appropriate knowledge and tools available to them to name, and interrogate, structures of power and inequality as they impact information professions and user communities?  We cannot expect that students will somehow magically be prepared to take part in conversations about power and privilege or be automatically culturally competent and self-reflective in their practice. These are skill sets that have to be intentionally developed, refined, and practiced as part of a life-long education process. Additionally, many LIS students come to their graduate education without prior exposure to cultural studies, gender and feminist studies, or ethnic and race studies courses. Initiating conversations about power reflected in systems of race, gender, class, and sexuality at this late stage provides a challenge for LIS educators who are effectually tasked with teaching students proficiency in these areas along with discipline-specific knowledge.  Thus, spreading social justice education across the LIS curriculum is crucial for sharing the burden amongst educators as well as for normalizing these values to our students.  
Lastly, it is crucial that students come to think of justice oriented professional practice as part and parcel of everyday LIS work.  The real stakes are in keeping justice anchored as a foundational and persistent feature of LIS professional norms and status quo.  Social justice as an ethical framework can guide daily activities such as policy development, collection building, interpersonal interactions, reference work, information literacy, programming, outreach activities, and cataloging.  Our role as LIS educators is to make these connections explicit for our students and provide them with the tools and strategies they can use as they go forward.  
This panel will feature 10-minute lightning talks from several Teaching for Justice chapter contributors; each speaker will describe their chapter and how they employ social justice in the LIS classroom. All of the speakers have experience teaching either a stand-alone course related to social justice or otherwise infuse social justice principles and frameworks across the LIS curriculum in their courses.
Kevin Rioux will describe his social justice framework, which articulates a “unified social justice stance for LIS curricula” to help bridge potentially disparate conceptual understandings of social justice within the field.
John Burgess will discuss his chapter “Teaching the long game: Sustainability as a framework for LIS education,” which posits sustainability theory as a potential framework for social justice in LIS that is compatible with extant professional values such as fair and equitable access to information and the public good.
Julie Winklestein will discuss her chapter “Social Justice in Action: Cultural Humility, Scripts and the LIS Classroom,” which identifies the concept of “cultural humility” as a potential starting place for social justice librarianship.
Sandra Hughes-Hassell will introduce her co-written chapter “Examining race, power, privilege and equity in the youth services classroom,” which describes her master’s level LIS course “Youth and Children’s Services in a Diverse Society” that draws on critical race theory (CRT) and other cross-disciplinary frameworks to prepare students to work with diverse user communities.
Jenny Bossaller will discuss her chapter “Social Justice in Study Abroad,” which evaluates the intentions and outcomes of three graduate level LIS study abroad programs that she designed and taught at the University of Missouri.
Bharat Mehra and Vandana Singh will discuss their chapter “Library Leadership-In-Training as Embedded Change Agents to Further Social Justice in Rural Communities,” which explains the integration of social justice agendas in the teaching of library management courses that were formed as a part of two grant projects associated with their university’s “Information Technology Rural Library Master’s Scholarship Program.” These short talks will highlight the challenges associated with transforming the normative space of higher education that go beyond updating content modules in a given course. A social justice curriculum, by definition, critiques and disrupts the normative environment, exposing asymmetrical power relations, within the classroom and discipline, for the purpose of formulating interventions and actions to redress inequalities associated with the status quo. It is hoped that these conversations will inspire, validate, and support LIS educators who are or wish to incorporate social justice into their pedagogy. The suite of talks will be followed by a 20-minute moderated and interactive discussion with the audience.
Cooke, N. A., & Sweeney, M. E. (Eds.) (2017). Teaching for Justice: Implementing Social Justice in the LIS Classroom. Library Juice Press.


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Standley II

10:30am

Session 5.1A - Juried Papers: STEMming the Tide: Trends in Librarians’ Educational Backgrounds.
In recent years, increased attention has been paid to diversity in librarianship, or discussions of the lack thereof. While many of these discussions have focused on gender or ethnicity, other factors such as educational and disciplinary background, also contribute to diverse perspectives. This is especially true in places where the master’s degree serves as the professional criteria for the field, presuming previous undergraduate education in a specific area of study.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Early studies found English to be a predominate focus of librarians’ undergraduate educations (Bryan 1950; Douglass 1957). White and Macklin (1970) found “the large majority [of library students] are from liberal arts backgrounds, with English and history being the two largest concentrations.” Denis (1970) reported similar findings for Canadian public and academic librarians at the time, with no significant differences between the two types of librarians: “the educational background of the vast majority of respondents is in the humanities and to a lesser extent the social sciences.”  Subsequent studies showed that librarians across the board came from predominately liberal arts educational backgrounds (Brown 1988).  Studies began to focus on narrower slices of librarianship, such as one’s role or position in the library, or librarians in subject-based libraries, but little changed in librarians’ educational backgrounds (Reynolds 1982; Karr 1983; Mech 1985). Cain found the fact that nearly 60% of undergraduate degrees are in the same fields—history, English, and education—“disturbing” and laments the poor representation in the hard sciences: “they indicate that we have a fairly narrow educational perspective from which to examine issues or approach problems” (Cain 1988).
Of these small numbers of librarians with STEM backgrounds, many appear to choose specialized positions in science-related settings (Thomas 1988; Sandy, Lembo and Manasco 1998; Winston 2001; Ortega and Brown 2005). Winston acknowledges the overall propensity toward humanities backgrounds in librarianship and how science librarians buck this trend: “In a profession in which English and history majors are the most predominant, the academic science and engineering specialty includes more science majors, as well as those with more traditional backgrounds.” However, Winston still notes a lack of diversity within STEM backgrounds—specifically the lack of engineering education. Additionally, if the already limited numbers of librarians with STEM backgrounds go into specialized positions, it removes them from the larger pool of librarians serving broad communities, leaving that pool more homogenous.
RESEARCH PROBLEM AND QUESTION
This historical examination clearly shows librarians skewing heavily toward backgrounds in English, the humanities, and social sciences. But contemporary librarianship needs to represent and reflect the diversity of today’s patron bases. Increased focused on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields in all walks of life—not just specialized communities—requires a more educationally diverse library profession. What are the educational and disciplinary backgrounds of contemporary librarians? In what ways, if any, do the educational and disciplinary backgrounds of contemporary librarians differ from those of the past?
METHODS AND APPROACH
To answer this question, this paper will explore the educational and disciplinary backgrounds of contemporary students enrolled in master’s level library education programs. Although students are not yet librarians, they represent a picture of the near-future of the profession. Anonymous de-identified data about matriculated students’ year of enrollment, previous undergraduate and graduate degrees, and the areas of study for those degrees from the last five years was solicited from 60 ALA-accredited master’s programs in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The collected data was coded and classified based on both broad disciplines (e.g., humanities, social sciences, STEM) and specific degree subject to offer a descriptive picture of the educational and disciplinary backgrounds of contemporary librarians as well as any notable differences from past profiles. Beyond simply identifying librarians’ knowledge backgrounds, this project ultimately aims to identify specific underrepresented areas of study to be targeted for outreach and recruitment to the profession.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Young-In Kim, College of St. Rose, New York, for her assistance in collecting and analyzing the data.
REFERENCES
Brown, L. B. (1988). Recruiting science librarians. In Librarians for the new millennium . Chicago, IL: American Library Association, Office for Library Personnel Resources.
Bryan, A. I. (1950). The Public Librarian: A Study of Professional Personnel in the American Public Library. In A forum on the Public Library Inquiry. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Cain, M. E. (1988). Academic and Research Libraries: Who are We? Journal of Academic Librarianship , 14 (5), 292.
Denis, L.-G. (1970). Academic and Public Librarians in Canada: A Study of the Factors Which Influence Graduates of Canadian Library Schools in Making Their First Career Decision in Favor of Academic or Public Libraries (Ph.D.). Rutgers The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick, United States -- New Jersey. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/docview/302435847/citation/7282417991BA4529PQ/1
Karr, R. D. (1983). Becoming A Library Director. Library Journal , 108 (4), 343.
Mech, T. (1985). Small college library directors of the Midwest. Journal of Academic Librarianship , 11 (1). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/lisa/docview/57064467/ABEFDABFB42C43A3PQ/17
Ortega, L., & Brown, C. M. (2005). The face of 21st century physical science Librarianship. Science & Technology Libraries , 26 (2), 71–90.
Reynolds, D. (1982). A Survey of Libraries in American Four- Year Colleges. In College librarianship . Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press.
Sandy, J., Lembo, M. F., & Manasco, J. (1998). Preparation for Sci-Tech Librarianship: Results of a Survey. Sci-Tech News , 52 (1). Retrieved from http://jdc.jefferson.edu/scitechnews/vol52/iss1/4
Thomas, J. (1988). Bibliographic Instructors in The Sciences: A Profile (Research Note). College & Research Libraries , 49 (3), 252–262. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_49_03_252
White, R. F., & Macklin, D. B. (1970). Education, Careers and Professionalization in Librarianship and Information Science. Final Report. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED054800
Winston, M. D. (2001). Academic science and engineering librarians: a research study of demographics, educational backgrounds, and professional activities. Science & Technology Libraries , 19 (2), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1300/J122v19n02_02


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Meadowbrook I

10:30am

Session 5.1B - Juried Papers: Big Data Analytics Literacy Development and the Information Profession: Looking forward from within.
Big Data analytics (BDA) or simply Data Analytics figure among the trendiest topics in the beginning of this century. While discussions involving technological breakthroughs abound, not so much attention has been given to organizational capabilities that are necessary to make sure data analytics lives to its promise. Literature about those capabilities is still scant and, as it evolves, suggests that talent and skills development are crucial to ensure success in data analytics use. In that context, information and data literacy should now be discussed in the light of data analytics phenomenon, a reality that poses important challenges to information professions as well as to the educational and research agenda in information science. Given the emerging and interdisciplinary importance of data savviness across a myriad of fields and industries, this ongoing research paper suggests that more attention should instead be given to “data analytics literacy”, a goal to which information scientists should be committed with and that LIS education should sponsor and foster. However, getting that understanding involves understanding two sides: a) the supply side, or the side that has the expertise to prepare data and information scientists; and b) the demand side, or the side that expects certain skills so data analytics can be used. This ongoing research introduces the importance of a preliminary understand on what both see as being “data analytics” and on what they consider critical. Interviews with LIS educators and BDA practitioners can help identifying points of overlap and mismatches between those visions and inform both audiences on how they can reciprocate to accomplish talent development goals. 


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Meadowbrook I

10:30am

Session 5.1C - Juried Papers: Coding with a Critical Lens: A Developing Computer Programming Curriculum for Diversity and Equity.
As LIS and computer science programs expand to educate students for the ever-growing array of jobs in the information professions, they are beginning to address issues of diversity and equity in their computer programming courses. To date, the focus is primarily on how to help students learn programming skills more successfully with course material that is more relevant to the interests of diverse students and by adopting more inclusive teaching practices (Alvarado, Dodds & Libeskind-Hadas, 2012). Only a few programming courses directly address these issues as part of the course content (Kules, 2017a; Salo, 2016). This is important because as students transition to their professional careers they will need to understand, navigate, overcome and undo inequitable practices and cultures within their work environment (Reynolds & Hartman, 2014).
This paper describes a developing curriculum to help students recognize, analyze and take action when they encounter these issues. It has been used at both the graduate and undergraduate level. This paper describes the rationale, conceptual frameworks, and some practical consideration. It concludes by identifying some of the challenges and arguing for stronger, more explicit connections between technical skills courses and program-level diversity and inclusion themes.
Rationale
There are compelling ethical and practical reasons why information professionals need to understand these issues in their organizations and communities (Forsgren & Humble, 2016; Sinclair, 2004; Wajcman, 2009; Wolske, Rhinesmith & Kumar, 2014). Within organizations, the value of diverse teams is well established (Phillips, 2014), but organizational success depends on teams managing diversity effectively (Jackson & Ruderman, 1995). Programmers and other technical professionals will be more effective team contributors if they understand how these issues intersect with team dynamics. Thus an important element of this curriculum is helping students to understand the dynamics of teams and particularly the relationship to issues of team culture and individual bias.
Frameworks
The curriculum uses two primary conceptual frameworks: social justice teaching and organizational/team dynamics. The social justice approach addresses issues of social identity and how this impacts power relationships and confers advantages or disadvantages. It helps students to recognize and analyze issues more deeply then common approaches to diversity, which emphasize cultural and social differences and commonalities (e.g., cultural competency) without necessarily addressing issues of inequality (Adams & Zúñiga, 2016). Structural inequality occurs at multiple levels – individual, institutional, cultural (Hardiman, Jackson, & Griffin, 2013) and reinforces unearned, inequitable, and often-unrecognized forms of privilege and oppression (McIntosh, 1988).
All of these elements are evident in teams. Teams reflect their organization, but team culture is more easily changed than the larger organizational culture, so they provide a useful entry point for this curriculum. We also use small groups extensively in class so they provide a natural learning environment where patterns of privilege and oppression emerge. By analyzing and acting upon these issues within their groups, students can develop skills in a supportive environment, where mistakes are recognized as learning opportunities.
Structure
The initial curriculum was part of a graduate level to JavaScript course taught in Spring 2016. It has been refined and used in five more classes, including two semesters of a mid-level undergraduate Python course and one section of an introductory undergraduate Python course.
Readings and activities are used for weekly reflective discussion on the "bigger picture" of computer programming. I introduce a reflective practice at the beginning of the semester, starting with more pragmatic questions focused on the programming language and computational thinking concepts. The diversity and equity elements are introduced about half way through the semester, after the students have settled in and gotten to know each other. At the end of the semester students write a final essay analyzing one example of a diversity or equity issue in technology.
Discussion topics include:
  • Coding for social good
    Coding in its social context
    Systems of power in tech: individual, organization, culture
    Forms of inequity, unearned privilege and oppression in tech
    Taking action and forms of resistance in tech
    Team dynamics - structures to support equitable practices
    Conclusion
    The discussions with students are tremendously satisfying, but there are a number of challenges in teaching this curriculum. It requires changing the way the course is taught by using more inclusive pedagogy (Kules, 2017b; Alvarado, Dodds & Libeskind-Hadas, 2012). It takes time to develop a level of trust within the class, and not all students are willing to engage. Student essays and course evaluations reflect a range of reactions and levels of growth. Some students are enthusiastic and grateful for the opportunity to discuss programming in a larger context. They find it meaningful and motivating. Some students continue to question the rationale. One current challenge is to help students – especially more privileged students – recognize how this is relevant to their own careers. Overall, most student essays demonstrate an ability to recognize and analyze diversity and equity issues.
    Developing this curriculum has stimulated conversations with the iSchool. Presentations have prompted faculty colleagues to discuss how diversity and equity themes could be integrated into their own courses. It has also provided an opportunity for discussions with the student diversity group, iDiversity. In turn, this led to significant contributions to the readings and suggestions on structure.
    In the larger academic context, this curriculum demonstrates one way for programs to respond to the ongoing challenge in LIS education of meaningfully engaging curricula with issues of diversity, inclusion and equity (Jaeger et al., 2015). This can be visualized as a part of a “T-shaped” curriculum. Courses focused on diversity and equity provide deep understandings, and other courses, like this one, examine how they intersect with the course topic. This can help students develop the technical and ethical skills needed to be successful as they move into their careers as information professionals.


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Meadowbrook I

10:30am

Session 5.2A - Juried Papers: Teaching the ACRL Framework: Reflections from the Field.
This paper presentation relates to the conference theme of expanding the LIS Education Universe through exploration of the experiences and perceptions of academic librarians as they work to incorporate the Framework into information literacy instruction.
BACKGROUND
The recent adoption of the new Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (ACRL, 2016) is a paradigmatic change in thinking about how information literacy instruction should be approached at the college and university level.  The Framework moves away from a “competency” approach to teaching and assessing information literacy skills and promotes a view of information literacy as an exploration of six threshold concepts and the practices and dispositions they evoke.  These threshold concepts are (ACRL, 2016):
Authority is constructed and contextual
Information creation is a process
Information has value
Research as inquiry
Scholarship as conversation
Searching as strategic exploration
While the development of the new Framework was several years in the making, it does not address how to implement the Framework or how to assess students’ assimilation of the central concepts and related practices and dispositions.  Rather, the Framework leaves these issues in the hands of librarians and other campus stakeholders (ACRL, 2016).  To fill this gap, articles by researchers and librarians are beginning to appear in the LIS literature (see Bauder & Rod, 2016; Carncross, 2015; Franzen & Bannon, 2016; Hosier, 2017; Jacobson & Gibson, 2015; Scott, 2016, 2017a, 2017b). However, there is much to be known about how academic librarians are incorporating the Framework into instruction, the efficacy of the Framework to information literacy instruction and learning outcomes, and how LIS educators can best incorporate the Framework into the professional preparation of academic librarians.
A 2016 survey administered to academic librarians in the United States gathered data about current information literacy programs, pedagogical strategies, and instructional challenges (Julien, Gross, & Latham, in press).  The survey was distributed online via the ILI-L listserv, and 622 librarians with instructional responsibilities in an academic library context participated.  Among the findings, respondents indicated that information literacy instruction is only partly informed by the Framework and 41% reported that the Framework has had no, or only a minor, influence on their practice. Thirty-one percent indicated that the Framework has had significant influence on their practice.  Some respondents reported now including topics such as social media, open access publishing, images and fair use, and citation metrics in their instruction, and the vast majority of respondents see connections between the concepts presented in the Framework and their responsibility to raise the level of information literacy among students.  However, most instruction remains skills-based and, though increasingly integrating information technology, has yet to incorporate the threshold concepts articulated in the Framework . The survey data provides a snapshot of current information literacy practices in higher education in the U.S., but also raises additional questions. 
In response, hour-long semi-structured interviews are being conducted with approximately 30 academic librarians to explore their experiences and perceptions as they work to incorporate the Framework into their instructional practice.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study seeks to address the following research questions:




  1. What pedagogical strategies are being used by academic librarians in implementing the ACRL Framework ?
    What do academic librarians perceive to be the most successful strategies for implementation of the ACRL Framework ?
    What do academic librarians perceive to be the greatest challenges in implementing the ACRL Framework ?
    How are academic librarians approaching the evaluation of student learning when implementing the ACRL Framework ?
The products of this study will include examples of strategies for implementation, a list of challenges in adopting the Framework , examples of best practices in integrating the Framework into teaching, and examples of how librarians are evaluating student learning regarding the threshold concepts.
SIGNIFICANCE
As the instructional role continues to be emphasized in professional librarians’ work in academic libraries (Gold & Grotti, 2013), so it remains important to properly prepare professionals for that role and to understand the practices of instructional librarians. Previous evidence suggests room for improvement in both instructional practices and in the preparation of librarians for instruction (Cooke & Hensley, 2013; Ishimura & Bartlett, 2010; Julien, 2005; Julien, Tan, & Merillat, 2013; Sproles, Johnson, & Ferison, 2008).
The transition from a skills-based approach to a focus on teaching the threshold concepts promoted in the new Framework has left many open questions about how to design instruction and evaluate student learning. Understanding how professional practice transitions to this new paradigm will inform library administrators, instructional librarians, and library and information science educators. Ultimately, information literacy instruction is meant to prepare students to navigate and contribute to life in our information rich society. The long-term effects of effective information literacy instruction support our democracy, quality of life, and students’ self-identity as life-long learners.
CONCLUSION
This paper will offer a brief summary of the salient findings from the 2016 survey and will focus on reporting findings from the interviews in relation to the research questions.  It will conclude by discussing implications for preparing students for work in academic libraries, and will discuss research needs related to the adoption of the Framework and how it is taught.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Florida State University Council on Research and Creativity Small Grants Program for their support of this work.
REFERENCES
Association of College and Research Libraries (2016).  Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.  Chicago, IL:  American Library Association.  Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Bauder, J., & Rod, C. (2016). Crossing thresholds: Critical information literacy pedagogy and the ACRL framework, College & Undergraduate Libraries , 23(3), 252-264.
Carncross, M. (May 2015). Redeveloping a course with the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: From skills to process. C&RL News, 248-273 .
Cooke, N. A., & Hensley, M. K. (2013). The critical and continuing role of library and information science curriculum in the teacher training of future librarians, Information Research, 1 8(23). Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/
Franzen, S., & Bannon, C. M. (2016). Merging information literacy and evidence-based practice in an undergraduate health sciences curriculum map. Communications in Information Literacy, 10 (2), 245-263.
Gold, M. L., & Grotti, M. G. (2013).Do job advertisements reflect ACRL’s standards for proficiencies for instruction librarians and coordinators?: A content analysis. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39 (6), 558-565.
Hosier, A. (2017). Creating learning outcomes from threshold concepts for information literacy instruction. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 24 (1), 1-13.
Ishimura, Y., & Bartlett, J. C. (2010). Information literacy courses in LIS schools: Emerging perspectives for future education. Education for Information, 27 (4), 197-216.
Jacobson, T., & Gibson, C. (2015). First thoughts on implementing the Framework for information literacy,  Communications in Information Literacy , 9 (2), 102-110.
Julien, H. (2005). Education for information literacy instructi


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Meadowbrook II

10:30am

Session 5.2B - Juried Papers: E-Advising: Expanding Advising for Distance LIS Students.
Online instruction and programming have expanded the universe of LIS education. Across the field, we have worked to convert our courses into the online environment and to implement pedagogies appropriate for online teaching and learning. However, the physical classroom is not the only aspect of graduate education impacted by moving to an online space. The changes in instruction and advising have not just changed at the course level, but also at the program and university levels. From recruitment to alumni relations, LIS programs and their universities are seeking to expand and adjust how they reach distance students in online programs.
For the online student, the challenge of commuting to campus and hunting for a parking space has been replaced with navigating course management systems and other online technologies. Yet students report that it is not technology that is most challenging, but a sense of isolation and lack of confidence as students (Combes & Anderson, 2006). These are issues we need to address with human contact at the program and university levels, and with an expanding focus on electronic or e-advising for online students (Luna and Medina, 2007; Waldner, McDaniel & Widener, 2011).
Relevant Literature
With the increase of availability and demand in distance learning (Ortagas, 2017), more of our students will never physically set foot on our campuses, let alone in a faculty office. Distance education provides more flexible opportunities for students who live in rural areas or non-traditional students who have full-time jobs and/or family responsibilities. LIS students choose programs that are entirely online because they aren’t required to relocate (Oguz, Chu, & Chow, 2015). Students in online MLIS programs are, on average, older than those choosing a blended or face-to-face program (Oguz, Chu, & Chow, 2015). Nontraditional students, employed full-time, are more likely to choose an online program, with the flexibility to work asynchronously and keep their current job (Pastore & Carr-Chellman, 2009).
In their survey of online students in MLIS programs, Oguz, Chu, and Chow (2015) found that areas needing improvement for online students included advising, mentoring, and career services. Combes & Anderson (2006) studied the sources of anxiety and frustration in online LIS students. They found students who experienced isolation wanted earlier and more consistent contact with their instructors, more information on their courses, and a more detailed explanation of overall university expectations. These students felt they were missing the contact and information available to on-campus students. They specifically asked for an online orientation and more transparency about university procedures. When this study was completed in 2006, students identified technology as a barrier, but not as strong a barrier as feelings of isolation and anxiety. Over a decade later, we would argue that technologies have improved but the emotions experienced by online students and need for human contact are still very real.
            Time is a particular barrier exacerbated for online students, especially students who work during university office hours or live in different time zones. They may become accustomed to 24-7 access to courses, the university website, their accounts, and library databases, possibly resulting in frustration when questions arise with any of these outlets and they cannot receive immediate answers. Buchanan (2004) studied students in a web-based MLIS program and noted their frustration navigating the university’s maze of information and trying to get answers through emails and phone calls regarding finances, registration, field work, and graduation. Online students do not experience the same affordances as those who can come to campus and wait in offices until they receive assistance. Buchanan (2004) suggests that institutions create the infrastructure necessary to support online students, providing them the same service and human connection that on-campus students receive.
Mellon and Kester (2004) surveyed online LIS students to determine program satisfaction and areas for improvement. A need for human interaction was one of their primary findings. The program featured a student manager as point of contact for early and immediate interaction with online students, to help with completing paperwork, and to be a “caring individual” (p. 217) for those students. Aversa and MacCall’s (2013) case study of a synchronous, online LIS program that was successful in retaining and graduating students also reported using a “distance education coordinator” to assist students. Additionally, the program in the Aversa & MacCall case study implemented town hall meetings every semester where students had access to the program director and faculty for questions about scheduling and other issues.
While there are indications that some efforts are being made by LIS programs to provide the appropriate advising for their online students, the literature has little to share on best practices to ensure that online students have the best chance at success.
Findings and Potential Impact
To help mitigate some of the challenges and barriers to online learning for students, we have taken several proactive steps in our online LIS program to provide e-advising to our students throughout our program. These include a program advisor with responsibility for initial and continuing contact with students from the first inquiry through admissions, program of study, other program requirements, and graduation. In the proposed paper, we will detail course interventions and other innovative uses of technology and staffing for e-advising. We will share what online students have told us in a survey about the kinds of advising they need and expect. Finally, we hope to provoke a discussion and sharing of best practices with the audience.
The expanding universe of online learning means an expansion in online needs for individual and personalized assistance. As LIS educators, we need a more holistic view of online education focused on student success not just in our courses, but throughout the entire program of study. We need to expand our discussion of best practices to include e-advising.


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Meadowbrook II

10:30am

Session 5.2C - Juried Papers: (Re)Discovering LIS Education Identity, Image, and Purpose in Engaged Scholarship.
We [LIS education] are challenged by the “increasing difficulty in maintaining coherence of identity, image, and purpose.”  This is reflected in past, present, and future changes to the discipline. Information scientists finding academic home in library education programs in post-WWII higher education marked the beginning of LIS education and promised ensuing changes. Advent of the Internet in the late 21st century ignited a LIS education rebranding movement. Ubiquitous access to information through computers posited the unsettling question regarding relevance and needs for traditional libraries. In response, many LIS schools abandoned the ‘L’ opting for labels of information science reflecting modernized information access and subsequent student recruitment beyond interests in librarianship. Y2k ushered in the iSchools movement inviting interdisciplinary faculty, diversified curricula, and increased focus on funding for faculty research. More recently, LIS schools promote niche programs to the likes of big data, archival studies, and social justice. Changes remain centered upon preparing LIS professionals for meaningful practice. Standards for accreditation of Master’s programs in LIS continually ensure responsibility to prepare practitioners while straining meaningfulness of LIS Education within the academy entrenched in goals of research, teaching, and service. Ubiquitous pressures that drive change rekindle Cronin’s insight haunting, taunting, and provoking LIS education to find its “coherence of identity, image, and purpose." The dawning of 2018 marks a major LIS education conference theme beckoning LIS educators and practitioners to reflect and act upon ‘The Expanding LIS Education Universe.’


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Meadowbrook II

10:30am

Archives/Preservation Education SIG: Trends in Archival Education
The Archival / Preservation Education SIG panel engages with current trends in teaching preservation and archival studies at the master's, doctoral, and undergraduate levels. Four individual presentations and audience discussion focus on innovative classroom pedagogy, community archives engagement, student research, and practical experience working with archival collections. Jennifer Douglas examines personal archives in archival curricula, and Patricia Franks considers pedagogical lessons from assembling an International Directory of National Archives for publication. Sarah Buchanan analyzes archival work through the lens of reported job titles, and Rhonda Clark evaluates current information services for genealogy and family history. Panelists will field questions and engage attendees in discussions contemplating future directions for archival education drawing on current classroom experiences. Below we present abstracts for each contribution in order of their presentation. We anticipate, in sequence, two 20 minute presentations, two 10 minute presentations, and 30 minutes for engaging in discussion with attendees.
 
Presentation 1: Personal Archives in Archival Curricula
 
Jennifer Douglas presents the findings of two exploratory research projects regarding the teaching of personal archives in archival programs. The first project examined the extent to which personal archives are included in archival curricula through a content analysis of program and course descriptions on school websites. The second project is a survey of recent graduates (since 2012) regarding their experiences of learning about personal archives during their archival degree programs. Through the study of personal archives, the shortcomings of traditional archival theory are highlighted and can be examined in context. Additionally, the study of personal archives can contribute to developing understanding of the affective dimensions of recordmaking and recordkeeping, as well as of the need for more empathic approaches to archival work and relationship building. Finally, personal archives might provide a real point of connection between archivists and archival institutions and a variety of stakeholders, and could be situated at the centre of new archival advocacy initiatives. For these reasons, personal archives are deserving of more attention than they currently receive from archival educators. The proposed paper will suggest ways that archival educators can reinforce the value and potential of personal archives by including them in more substantial, sustained and meaningful ways in their program development and teaching.
 
Presentation 2:  International Directory of National Archives : Strengthening Research Skills and Expanding Horizons
 
In July 2016, SJSU Professors Patricia C. Franks and Anthony Bernier embarked upon the daunting task of assembling an International Directory of National Archives for publication in mid-2018 by Rowman & Littlefield. Since then, over 60 graduate students and alumni of the School of Information have contributed their time and talents to gathering data about the status of the national archives of 198 countries. Serving as part of the extended research team contributing to the International Directory of National Archives helped participants understand how nations worldwide address the challenge of managing and preserving their documentary heritage and enabled them to contribute to a work that will share their findings with a global audience. Franks will describe the project, the research process, and lessons learned about the status of national archives today.  She will also describe value gained and lessons learned by members of the research team, such as core competencies mastered, ethical issues encountered, and challenges presented by participation in this 100% online field experience.
 
Presentation 3: Expansion of Job Titles Across Archival Practice
 
Sarah A. Buchanan shares research which analyzes a set of job titles reported by archivists in a recent study (published in American Archivist, Fall 2017). Over 440 responses from archival professionals indicate that while some archivists are responsible for a given regional area, others have purview for a certain type or format of records. Some titles combine archival responsibilities with management or coordination at some level, but also on the spectrum are titles that fail to name the archival work, which individuals still perform unofficially and unsaid. The presentation will analyze archival work in terms of the official titles by which archivists are known, and will integrate this analysis with findings from the larger study about emerging directions for pursuing archival advocacy.
 
Presentation 4: Genealogy and Family History in the Cultural Heritage Setting
 
Rhonda L. Clark evaluates the extent to which information professionals are called on to perform genealogy reference services, collaborative programming, and collection processing in an era of highly popular family history in popular culture, as well as the emergence of genealogy as science through DNA testing and analysis.  Insights will be shared from a study of cultural heritage institution programs, as well as responses from interviews with librarians, archivists, historians, and volunteers who work in the blended environments of family history collections. 


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Cotton Creek I

10:30am

Curriculum SIG: Practitioner Input in Curriculum Design: Is Our Present Model Working?
This panel discussion consisting of LIS Educators and Practitioners will be a continuation of the successful 2017 discussion on this topic. 
While it is recognized that library and information graduates are still required to be taught core theories, knowledge, and skills while at university, employers are increasingly demanding them to have additional skills to enable them to function as competent information professionals (Stephens & Hamblin, 2006, p. 224). A study on perceived preparedness of recent graduates by Creel and Pollicino (2012) still supports this. They surveyed both recent MLS graduates and practitioners. It revealed that there are still larger gaps between the two sides and suggested service learning projects and course work may need to be reexamined within the curriculum.
            In a panel discussion at the ALISE 2016 Conference, Abbas, Garnar, Kennedy, Kenney, Luo, and Stephens (2016) concluded that research is necessary to inform LIS education and practice but that numerous barriers place constraints on this process (p. 94).  One of those barriers is that there is a need to establish relationships with practitioners and to involve them in the research. Because they are not frequently involved in research, the focus may not be on issues important to practitioners. 
             While it is important for LIS research to inform practice, it is also important to curriculum development that LIS faculty are aware of exactly what skills and knowledge practitioners are expecting of new graduates and the types of positions being created. In a perfect world, educators and practitioners would have plenty of time to read research and follow position advertisements, but this does not happen on a regular basis. Serendipitous discovery of new job titles may take place when educators attend the ALA conferences and attend meetings geared toward LIS Education such as the ACRL LIS Education Interest Group.  At the ALA Midwinter 2016, it was discovered that positions such as Assessment Librarian and Instructional Design Librarian were being advertised. It is important for educators to learn of these types of jobs in a timely fashion and not have this knowledge bogged down in the time it takes to publish an article.   
            As many library schools implement internship programs, it might be wise to review the programs where all parties can meet together. Bird and Crumpton (2014) presented their case study with internships in an attempt to propose a model where all parties, the student, practitioner supervisor, and the LIS educator, can get benefits from the internship. They introduced Crowley’s (2005) proposal, ‘The Real Learning Connections project’ where faculty could help practitioners with literature reviews; librarians could use those to create evaluation or assessment activities that have a theoretical basis; and researchers could conduct interviews with librarians about best practices and use those results in their classrooms. Bird and Crumpton also suggested mentorship programs between librarians and students as one of the models.
            There have been some collaborative works between practitioner and academic programs (Mehra, Black, Singh, & Nolt, 2011; Richardson, 2010; Simmons & Corrall, 2010). In Richardson’s (2010) report, the author presented a review of a practitioner-based teaching model for the Maters Science in Information and Library Management (ILM) at the University of the West of England (UWE) where the courses were taught and developed by the practitioners. The review revealed positive results that the model is meeting student and employer needs in terms of the skills they require in their future roles. This might be obvious but it is important to reflect the needs of employers in our profession. The findings also questioned how one can ensure the involvement of practitioners and how one can maintain the balance of academic and practical skill in the future of the course.
             Even with recognition of the importance of collaboration with practitioners for our LIS curriculum, there is not a mechanism for practitioners to inform educators on the requirements of the field and this needs to be developed. This panel discussion consisting of LIS Educators and Practitioners will be a continuation of the successful 2017 discussion on this topic to consider just how this could be accomplished. 
 
Panel composition: LIS educators: Linda Lillard, Professor, Clarion University of Pennsylvania; YooJin Ha, Associate Professor, Clarion University of Pennsylvania; Cecilia L. Salvatore, Associate Professor,  Dominican University; Nora J. Bird, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Practitioners: Michael Crumpton, Assistant Dean for Administrative Services at University Libraries, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Jason Coleman, Head of Library User Services, Kansas State University Libraries


References
Abbas, J., Garnar, M., Kennedy, M., Kenney, B., Luo, L., & Stephens, M. (2016). Bridging the            divide: Exploring LIS research and practice in a panel discussion at the ALISE '16            conference.   Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 57 (2), 94-100.
Bird, N. J., & Crumpton, M. A. (2014). Real learning connections: Questioning the learner in the            LIS internship.   Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 55 (2), 89-99.
Creel, S. L., & Pollicino, E. B. (2012). Practitioners' & LIS students' perceptions on preparedness             in the New York metropolitan area.  Education For Information, 29 (1), 53-69.
Crowley, W. A. (2005). Spanning the theory-practice divide in library and information science.             Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.
Mehra, B., Black, K., Singh, V., & Nolt, J. (2011). Collaborations between LIS education and             rural libraries in the Southern and Central Appalachia: Improving librarian technology             literacy and management training.  Journal Of Education For Library & Information             Science, 52 (3), 238-247.
Richardson, A. (2010). Practitioner involvement in teaching LIS at UWE.   Aslib             Proceedings, 62 (6), 605-614.
Simmons, M., & Corrall, S. (2010). The changing educational needs of subject librarians: A            survey of UK practitioner opinions and course content.  Education For Information, 28 (1),            21-44.
Stephens, D., & Hamblin, Y. (2006). Employability skills: Are UK ILM departments meeting             employment needs?" New Library World, 107( 1224/1225), 218-227.


Thursday February 8, 2018 10:30am - 12:00pm
Cotton Creek II

12:15pm

Awards Luncheon
Thursday February 8, 2018 12:15pm - 1:30pm
Westminster I-II

1:30pm

ALISE Business Meeting
Thursday February 8, 2018 1:30pm - 2:30pm
Westminster I-II

2:30pm

2:30pm

2:30pm

Session 6.4C - OCLC/ALISE LIS Research Grant Papers: Investigating Engagement of Public, Academic, and Medical Libraries with Community-based Health and Wellness Activities in Diverse Urban Communities
Investigating Engagement of Public, Academic, and Medical Libraries with Community-based Health and Wellness Activities in Diverse Urban Communities


Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Standley I

2:30pm

IMLS - ALISE 2018
The IMLS Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian (LB21) grant program, now entering its fifteenth year, focuses on recruiting and educating the next generation of librarians and developing a diverse workforce. As IMLS looks to the future, we are gathering key library and archives stakeholders and thought leaders to explore the Master’s and Doctoral component of the LB21 program.
As libraries increasingly serve social, civic, and technological functions, the nature of librarianship has expanded. Academic libraries often need experts in research methods and data science; public libraries increasingly need staff with a wide range of community development experience, engagement skills, and cultural competencies; and all libraries are seeing the need for expertise in fundraising, project management, software development, as well as leadership, supervisory, and management experience. As the jobs library leaders are trying to fill have an expanding list of necessary skillsets and expertise:
  • Where are the knowledge gaps between formal Library and Information Science (LIS) education graduates and the needs of hiring managers in libraries and archives?
  • What kinds of curricular changes are necessary in MLIS and PhD programs to keep up with the changing needs of practitioners into the future?
  • How can we identify, develop, and refine strategies to recruit, train, and retain diverse professionals?
In November 2017, IMLS, representatives from ALA-accredited LIS programs, and key stakeholders and leaders met to discuss how to position LIS graduate programs for 21st century practice. Members of the public were invited to watch the event via livestream and to join the conversation on Twitter with #LB21focus. The purpose of the convening was to explore how the formal education component of the LB21 program can best support LIS programs to meet the needs of students and libraries, and to increase diversity within the library profession.
At ALISE we provide an additional opportunity for LIS educators, leaders from across the library sector and library service organizations, and other expert stakeholders to formally join the discussion. Your input is critical to helping us determine best strategies for investing limited IMLS funding to achieve the greatest impact. We hope to facilitate participation and input from all attendees.


Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Waverly

2:30pm

Session 6.1 Juried Panel: LIS Qualifications, Certification, and the Meaning of ‘Professional’ around the World.
As the field of library and information science (LIS) grows increasingly interconnected on account of transborder mobility and international collaborations, the transferability of LIS credentials takes center stage. The knowledge of qualification and certification requirements become paramount for developing credential equivalencies across geographic borders and quality assurance standards for relevant and meaningful LIS education. To address these issues, the proposed international panel will present selected results of the international survey, conducted by the IFLA BSLISE Working Group in the spring of 2017, thus injecting a timely international dimension into the conference discussion of the expanding LIS education universe.


Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Standley II

2:30pm

Session 6.2A - Juried Papers: What doctoral student motivation tells us about the future of LIS education.
This study identifies factors motivating individuals to earn a doctoral degree in library and information science. Data about doctoral student motivation was collected from first-year students through a survey, semi-structured interviews, and personal admission statements. Analysis reveals that students are motivated by an interest in research,  affirmation of others, and appreciation for academic environments. Results not only inform prospective doctoral students and the work program administrators, findings shed light on the future of graduate level education, addresses concerns in the literature about faculty supply, and offers recommendations for improving the pipeline from graduate study to doctoral study to the academy.

Moderators
Speakers

Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Meadowbrook II

2:30pm

Session 6.2B - Juried Papers: The expanding LIS research in North America: A reflection of the LIS doctoral co-authorship network.
Library and Information Science (LIS) has been undergoing a radical change since the 1980s when some universities closed their traditional library schools (Wiggins & Sawyer, 2010) as the iSchool movement began (Shu & Mongeon, 2016). Then LIS has gradually become an interdisciplinary field (Tang, 2004) ingesting the library science, information science, computer science and other fields (Bruce, 2011). As an original contribution to the advancement of knowledge (Johnson, 2009; O'Connor & Park, 2001), the doctoral research topics has been used to investigate the LIS disciplinary identify (Sugimoto, Li, Russell, Finlay, & Ding, 2011) and its interdisciplinary relations (Shu, Larivière, Mongeon, Julien, & Piper, 2016); but LIS doctoral research co-authorship network has never been investigated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the evolution of the network of LIS doctoral research collaboration, which reflects the expanding LIS research universe.
Literature Review
Scholars with shared research interests collaborate with each other and form communities (Girvan & Newman, 2002) that play important roles in knowledge creation (Lambiotte & Panzarasa, 2009). Co-authorship networks provide a copious and meticulously documented record of the social and professional networks of authors (Newman, 2004); they can therefore be used to understand the research landscape within or between disciplines (Biscaro, Giupponi, & Ouzounis, 2014).
An increase in the interdisciplinarity in LIS research is well documented.by Tang (2004) and Shu et al. (2016). Chang and Huang (2012) report an increase in collaborations between LIS doctoral students and researchers affiliated with non-LIS institutes, in which LIS PhDs could benefit from the collaborations and improve their publication productivity (Kamler, 2008; Lariviere, 2012). However, no study has investigated the evolution of the LIS doctoral co-authorship network.
Methodology
First, a manually validated list of doctoral students who graduated between 1960 and 2013 and their advisors was compiled using the MPACT database (MPACT, 2010), which stores all LIS doctoral graduates from 1930 to 2009. Second, LIS doctoral students who graduated on or after 2010 and their advisors were identified and added to the list by searching the ProQuest Thesis and Dissertation Database and corresponding university websites. This process produced a list of 3,561 LIS doctoral graduates and their 928 doctoral advisors.
The papers published by the identified graduates during their supervised doctoral studies, defined as between six years before and two years after graduation, were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS). Based on the journals in which the papers were published, all publications were categorized into 144 disciplines (LIS is one of 114 disciplines) according to the NSF classification system, which assigns each journal to a single discipline. All authors and the affiliated institutions listed on the papers were identified.
Findings
From 1960 to 2013, 3,561 doctoral students graduated from 44 LIS programs. The number of LIS doctoral graduates has increased from 18 in 1960 to 114 in 2013, peaking at 116 in 2010. Excluding128 students whose advisors were not identified, 3,433 LIS doctoral students were supervised by 928 advisors. 469 advisors (50.5%) obtained a doctoral degree in LIS supervised 2,097 LIS doctoral students (61.1%), and the remaining 459 advisors (49.5%) graduated from non-LIS fields and supervised 1,336 students (38.9%).
Only 26.1% (930/3,561) of LIS doctoral graduates published at least one paper indexed by the WoS during their doctoral studies. The percentage of published students increased from 3.5% in the 1960s to 42.8% in the 2010s. These 930 LIS doctoral graduates contributed 1,804 papers of which 75.2% (1,357/1,804) are published in a LIS journal; they also published papers in journals in Computers (8.0%), Law (2.6%), Management (2.4%), Communication (2.1%) and 36 other disciplines. The percentage of papers published in LIS journals has been decreasing from 90.0% in the 1960s to 59.7% in the 2010s.
1,218 of these 1,804 papers are co-authored papers, including 616 papers showing collaborations within the same institution and 602 papers between different institutions. 593 of 984 (60%) external collaborators are affiliated with non-LIS institutes in co-authorship between different institutions. Wisconsin-Madison is the largest source institution in terms of the number of LIS collaborators while Penn State is the largest non-LIS contributor. A visual mapping (see Appendix) presents the LIS doctoral co-authorship network from the 1970s to 2010s. The co-authorship network is shown as 9 separated small clusters in the 1970s while a big cluster and 5 other small clusters appear in the 1980s. The meaningful co-authorship network emerges in the 1990s; the number of collaborators from a LIS institution (red nodes) and from a non-LIS institution (red nodes) are the same in the 1990s but the percentage of non-LIS collaborators increased from 50% in the 1990s to 66% in the 2010s.
In addition, LIS doctoral students collaborated with more non-LIS collaborators (79%, 232 out of 294) when publishing the paper in non-LIS journals; but the ratio of non-LIS collaborators is only 52% (361 out of 690) when the co-authored papers were published in a LIS paper. The impact of advisors’ disciplinary background on students’ collaborators’ background is not significant. LIS doctoral students supervised by non-LIS advisors collaborated with more non-LIS collaborators compared with those supervised by LIS advisors (LIS supervision: 59%; non-LIS supervision: 62%).
Conclusion
This study presented an analysis of LIS doctoral co-authorship network since the 1970s, which showed a trend in collaboration with researchers affiliated with non-LIS institutes. Both the journals in which their papers are published and the advisors’ disciplinary background have impact on LIS students’ collaborators’ background. The evolution of LIS doctoral co-authorship network reflects the expansion of LIS research as more and more external collaboration with researchers from non-LIS instutions.
 
Reference
Biscaro, C., Giupponi, C., & Ouzounis, C. A. (2014). Co-Authorship and Bibliographic Coupling Network Effects on Citations. PLoS ONE PLOS ONE, 9 (6), e99502.   
Bruce, H. (2011). The Audacious Vision of Information Schools. Journal of Library and Information Science (Taipei), 37 (1), 4-10.    
Chang, Y.-W., & Huang, M.-H. (2012). A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (1), 22-33.
Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99 (12), 7821-7826.
Johnson, I. (2009). Education for Librarianship and Information Studies: fit for purpose? Information Development, 25 (3), 175-177.
Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking Doctoral Publication Practices: Writing from and beyond the Thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (3), 283-294.
Lambiotte, R., & Panzarasa, P. (2009). Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion. JOI Journal of Informetrics, 3 (3), 180-190.
Lariviere, V. (2012). On the Shoulders of Students? The Contribution of PhD Students to the Advancement of Knowledge. Scientometrics, 90 (2), 463-481.
MPACT. (2010). The MPACT Project.   http://www.ibiblio.org/mpact/
Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101 , 5200-5205.
O'Connor, D., & Park, S. (2001). Crisis in LIS research capacity. Library and Information Science Research, 23 (2), 103-106.
Shu, F., Larivière, V., Mongeon, P., Julien, C.-A., & Piper, A. (2016). On the Evolution of Library and Information Sci

Moderators
Speakers

Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Meadowbrook II

2:30pm

Session 6.2C - Juried Papers: The Beginning, Acting, Telling (BAT) Model: Integrating Information-Seeking Research and Information Literacy Research.
In the LIS discipline, as research into information-seeking behavior and information literacy has become much more commonplace, the two concepts have remained largely separate, the former demonstrating an emphasis on how users search for information inside and outside the workplace and the latter on instructional strategies in educational environments, specifically in the context of school or academic libraries. Where the research does overlap is in the emphasis on information retrieval, especially pertaining to searching and to a lesser extent to evaluation and relevancy; information-seeking behavior focusing more on the user, and information literacy on instructional strategies. Furthermore, research into information-seeking behavior has resulted in the development of several diagrammatic process models (Bates, 1989; Dervin, 1983, 1992; Wilson, 1999) that can predict behavior in different contexts to provide a series of steps or stages that users can follow on their own. Information literacy research, however, tends to report on instructional strategies that help users understand how to better find information by exploiting different navigational tools such as indexes, online library catalogs, and search engines. Neither research area, however, examines in-depth other aspects of the process such as before the search begins or how the information is used once retrieved and evaluated.
A specific example of these two major gaps is found in the results of a larger study into the information-seeking behavior of third grade students (Nesset, 2009). The results revealed that these younger students required extensive preparation through instruction before they were ready to begin searching for information on the topic under investigation and that they also needed guidance afterwards in such aspects as interpreting the information and integrating it to fit the parameters of the assignment.  To address these gaps, features from research into information-seeking behavior (e.g., diagrammatic modeling) and information literacy (instructional strategies) were combined to form a model for information literacy instruction, the Beginning, Acting, Telling (BAT) model.  




Information-Seeking Behavior and Information Literacy Instruction
One of the main purposes of modeling information-seeking behaviors is to present a more simplified, concrete version of reality and identify and describe relationships between concepts (Case 2012). These models, for example, Kuhlthau’s (1991, 2004, 2008) Information Search Process (ISP), focus primarily on the users, documenting and illustrating their thoughts, feelings, and actions through the use of visual imagery, usually diagrams, as they move through a series of stages. While the diagrammatic structure and simplicity of the models allows the user to visualize what the process will look like, these models often emphasize a particular stage to the detriment of others and struggle to adequately depict the need to revisit certain features as part of an iterative process. 
Unlike models of information-seeking behavior, literacy instruction models, for example, the Big6 (Eisenberg & Berkowitz, 1990) are almost always textual and do not take into account the affective or physical domains. They often appear as a series of steps to be followed or questions to be asked in a certain order. As they do not make use of visual cues as models do, they are more abstract, requiring the user to memorize the steps or questions, potentially making them more difficult to apply. Similar to the models of information-seeking behavior, however, is the inadequate explication of an often-iterative process.
 
An Integrated Model
The Beginning, Acting, Telling (BAT) model (Figure 1) is a three-stage diagrammatic model that was designed to bridge these gaps to provide a more holistic overview of the research process by incorporating aspects from both approaches. The BAT incorporates the diagrammatic features characteristic of models of information-seeking behavior in its use of the visual image of a bat. A bat was chosen to represent the process because it provided a useful mnemonic both visually and in its name. A bat’s body comprises three main parts – two wings and its head. The head is literally the brains of the animal, directing all movement, with the ears acting as its navigational system through the use of sonar. The wings act as the support for the head and allow the bat to carry out its various tasks such as searching for food. Thus, in the diagrammatic representation, to emphasize the equal importance of all of the stages, the same way that an actual bat requires all of its body parts to work together, no stage acts in isolation of another or is perceived as more important. The first stage (Beginning) represented by the wing to the left of the image is a highly instructional stage to prepare the student to begin the actual search for information, listing such instructional aspects as inquiry into the broad topic under investigation, reading, and construction (i.e., activities such as concept mapping and vocabulary building). The focused inquiry , the actual assignment or task that must be completed by the student, is represented by the ears because it directs the process in the same way sonar guides the bat. The second stage (Acting) which outlines the various actions the student must take during the information search is represented by the head (i.e., brains) because it is largely self-directed.  The final stage (Telling), represented by the right wing integrates aspects related to information use, often requiring guidance by an educator. Thus the wings (Beginning, Telling) while they act as support mechanisms for the head (Acting) they are equally important as they are the sole means of movement. Indeed, the lines representing the wings in motion are used to represent additional, more abstract aspects of the research process. In the same way that the bat’s flight may be influenced by external factors such as the wind, the research process is also affected. Such things as what the student learns as they navigate the process (thinking) and whether or not metacognition takes place (reflection), affective behaviors (feelings), and impact factors or things largely out of the student’s control such as currency of resources and website design (things that matter), all influence the process in some way. Making them explicit can help the student to be aware of their potential effects whether positive or negative and increase or mitigate their influence as appropriate. Finally, all actions depicted in the model are in the present, active tense to help provide a sense of being a part of the model in real time.




Insert Figure 1: The BAT (Beginning, Acting, Telling) Model: Final Iteration  




This final version of the BAT which was revised informed by findings of a validation study that presented a very basic version that showed only the actions associated with each stage to two third-grade classes in an inner-city school in New York State (Nesset, 2014a, 2014b, 2015). The model has also been aligned to indicators in the New York State Information Fluency Continuum (New York City School Library System, 2013), which forms part of the Common Core curriculum (Nesset, 2017) and as it is content-independent, can be applied to any subject. In fact, preparations are underway for the model to be integrated into the 2017-2018 curriculum for a special science program to be offered to a select group of students in a school district in a city in New York State.
 
Conclusion
By providing a visual model that shows the entire research process at a glance the BAT incorporates the best aspects of the results of research into information-seeking behavior and research into information literacy instruction. Easy to remember, engaging, and informative, the BAT serves as an example of how the integration of concepts from these two approaches can be used to bridge the gaps inherent within both thus expanding the LIS educational universe by enhancing th


Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Meadowbrook II

2:30pm

Session 6.3A - Juried Papers: Co-designing the Next Generation of Education for Children and Youth Librarians: A Research-Practice Partnership.
Too often, we in the academy rue the division of research and practice. This is often evident in the disjuncture between what is covered in the MLIS curriculum and what is needed in the communities our graduating librarians serve. While the student body of MLIS programs can offer feedback to the LIS schools, these students may not be working at library and/or may have limited exposure to the needs of the communities that they would like to serve. In the youth librarianship area, development in learning, technology, and youth culture is so swift that librarians need to adopt new roles and approaches in working with youth that are quite different from what they have learned in the graduate preparation programs.
YOUTH EXPERIENCE (YX)
In this paper, we take up this challenge of re-envisioning the education of children and youth librarians so that they can better understand how youth learn with technology and promote 21st century skills among youth ages 0-18. Drawing on the latest thinking and research from domains in and outside LIS, four categories of interrelated knowledge and skills sets emerge as potentially needed by librarians to promote learning and innovation among youth:
Transition from expert to facilitator by engaging in active and continuous learning with teens and for teens (Braun, Hartman, Hughes-Hassell, & Kumasi, 2014, Braun & Visser, 2017) to “re-imagin[e] services and spaces” (IMLS, 2015, p. 2).
Apply interdisciplinary approaches drawing on research, methods, and best practices from domains such as the learning sciences to establish equal partnerships and learning opportunities that facilitate discovery and use of digital media.  (ARUP, 2015; Bertot, Sarin, & Percell, 2015; IMLS, 2015).
Develop dynamic community partnerships that reach beyond the library, specifically “building partnerships and collaborations in their communities” (Braun, et al., 2014, p. 23).
Work with youth from non-dominant groups who need the libraries the most (Braun, et al., 2014, p. 23; IMLS, 2015).
We have coined a term to classify these knowledge and skills that children and youth librarians must posses as the Youth eXperience (YX) (inspired by the term User Experience in computing).  We offer YX specialization within our MLIS program and also as a post-master’s certificate program for in-service librarians. Through a series of participatory design activities with children and youth services librarians across the country, we answer the following three questions:
What knowledge and skills do librarians need to possess to excel as YX librarians (in addition to the ones we have identified above)?
How do we bring in approaches, methods, and best practices from disciplines outside of the LIS (if needed) into the YX curriculum?
How do we package these skills into courses (including types of assessments, etc) for pre-service (in our MLIS program) and in-service youth librarians (continuing education certificate programs)?
METHOD
Using the skills and knowledge described conceptually in the reports mentioned above, we tentatively outlined the learning objectives of the four YX required courses using our collective expertise in youth and children’s librarianship, the learning sciences, human computer interaction, emerging literacy, and youth learning/culture. These courses were Facilitating Youth Learning in Informal and Formal Environments, Promoting Rich Learning with Technology, Design Thinking and Youth and Capstone in YX. Course learning objectives were developed with the end in mind - the Capstone course acts as a culminating project pulling all the skills and dispositions together. We conducted participatory design sessions with 57 youth service librarians at both the Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) symposium and the American Library Association Midwinter meeting. These sessions drew from a toolbox of participatory design techniques, including “big paper” brainstorming exercises, ideation using sticky notes and presentations by the participating librarians. All activities were designed to solicit unfettered feedback and determine which skills were the most critical and useful for them (Guha, Druin, & Fails, 2013, Walsh et al., 2013). These sessions were documented using field notes, audio recordings, and photographs (see Fig. 1).
Themes, or “big ideas,” (see fig. 2 & 3 in the uploaded document) emerged from these design sessions and formed the basis of refining these courses. A thematic content analysis approach similar to that described by Libarkin, Thomas, and Ording (2015) was utilized to transform these needs into refined learning objectives, which then informed the topics that need to be covered, skills that will be facilitated, and assignments that will measure the achievement of the objectives for each of these courses.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
As a result of the above-mentioned design activities, the needs of the children and youth librarians were adequately captured. In this presentation, we will share artifacts from these design activities to demonstrate how decisions were made. We will also share how we ensured the progression of skills and knowledge from one course to the other. Additionally, we will offer recommendations on how we have structured the courses to ensure that continuous observations of librarians’ acquisition of skills is monitored and informs the subsequent design of the courses and entire YX curriculum (currently the first cohort of continuing education YX certificate program is in progress). We will conclude this presentation by sharing the opportunities and challenges that such research-practice partnerships offer to LIS educators within youth librarianship or other sub-fields within LIS.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Institute of Museum and Library Services for their generous funding for this project. We would also like to thank our partners (the Office for Information Technology Policy and Young Adults Library Services Association  - both divisions within the ALA) who provided ideas and perspectives on engaging librarians in the design and conception of this project. Our heartfelt thanks to our fabulous advisory board members who provided valuable advice throughout the project and the librarians who participated in our design sessions.


Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Meadowbrook I

2:30pm

Session 6.3B - Juried Papers: Collective Leadership Roles for Supporting Community Digital LIteracy Initiatives
Digital literacy is an area of importance for information professionals, reflected in the emergence of community-serving makerspaces and fabrication labs within library settings. Digital literacy programming often involves unique information needs and potentially burdensome financial, human, and infrastructure challenges. Partnerships are often sought out mitigate these challenges. However, collaboration brings its own set of issues around leadership, coordination, and communication. In this paper, we discuss a collective leadership framework, the foundation for a case study exploring community organizing around digital literacy initiatives. The main conceptual foundations will be highlighted and it will be argued that the framework can contribute understanding to the organizing processes present in multiple stakeholder community collaborations, with implications for the development of essential leadership education and training for LIS professionals.


Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Meadowbrook I

2:30pm

Session 6.3C - Juried Papers: A Data, Information and Knowledge Map: Epistemic and Ontological Considerations for Information Literacy
One of the main challenges in information science education is teaching the distinction between data, information and knowledge and explaining the importance of the understanding to a diverse student population. Introductory texts either provide a highly simplified version of the concepts, using the DIK pyramid and simply suggesting information is when you add meaning to data (e.g. Ackoff, 1989), or, in other occasions, providing an exhaustive list of definitions from diverse thinkers and philosophers (Bawden & Robinson, 2012; Zins, 2007). Numerous good treatises, of course, have provided deeply insightful explanations about these concepts and their relevancy in the world today. Nevertheless, in my view, important concepts need to be emphasized and clarified. More specifically, data, information and knowledge need to be understood in relation to the process of science and research.  A non-naïve objective view of information may be used as basis for teaching information literacy and basic research practice. 
This work is based on various theoretical developments in philosophy (Oberholzer & Gruner, 2016; Searle, 2008) and information sciences (Cornelius, 2002; Hjørland B, 2007; Mai, 2013). I present a data, information and knowledge map which may be used for students from diverse backgrounds that are being introduced to these concepts. The intention is to assist academic research and information seeking behavior. Given this orientation, I take an interest in reliable information. Although information is defined as any data, with or without truth, information literacy and basic research education requires the establishment of a reliable information framework for defining information and knowledge at least based on a concept of “probably true” and “probably false”. This perspective has an ethical undertone, as it is intended to address larger social issues regarding “fake news”, political communication on the web, hypermediated environments, business control of search results and so on. With this essay I aim to clarify concepts regarding subjectivity and epistemology, and emphasize the difficulties of the research and reasoning processes themselves designed to obtain reliable information and knowledge.

Moderators
Speakers

Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Meadowbrook I

2:30pm

Multicultural, Ethnic, and Humanistic Concerns SIG: A Critical Dialogue: Faculty of Color in Library and Information Science
"In order to break the cycle, we need to move forward and promote an environment in which historically oppressed and underrepresented groups are not only actively recruited in institutions of higher learning, but also in which members of these groups are mentored and encouraged to be full members of the academic community. It is our view that this process needs to start with an honest conversation about the different factors affecting the professional experiences of faculty of color” (Ceja et al. 2017, 1).
Inspired by the recent article, A Critical Dialogue: Faculty of Color in Library and Information Science (Ceja et al. 2017), the MEHC SIG proposes a panel composed of LIS faculty of color who will share brief stories of what it’s like to be a faculty member of color in LIS, and they will put forth truths they would like the rest of the field and professoriate to know about their experiences and concerns. This will be an informally produced, but powerful, panel of stories that will shed light on the experiences of faculty of color while also generating discussion and avenues for support and advocacy.
Panelists are faculty from around the United States, with an abundance of teaching, research, and service contributions. Among their commonalities are their desires to be productive and retained in an environment that isn’t always conducive to underrepresented or otherwise marginalized groups, their desire to recruit additional faculty of color, and their desire to transform the field for the better.
The session will be moderated by one of the SIG’s conveners, who will give each panelist a story prompt: 1) Tell us about a time when you experience discrimination as an LIS faculty member. 2) What do you want the rest of the world to know about the experiences and/or needs of faculty of color? This panel will not have slides or other technology, so that panelists can really engage in a meaningful conversation, among themselves and with the audience. The stories of the panelists will be reflective and indicative of the below excerpt, which comes from an article co-authored by two of the panel speakers.
"We present our stories here to breathe life into the aforementioned statistics and open up a larger discussion to engage academic administrators, faculty, and future faculty members across all racial and ethnic groups. We believe our stories can prepare future doctoral students of color entering LIS or at the very least address some their concerns about academia. As such, this piece sets out to engage in a much-needed critical dialogue about our hardships and positions of privilege as faculty members of color in LIS in the United States" (Ceja et al. 2017, 1).
It is anticipated that this session will provide a necessary space and opportunity for faculty of color to express themselves, and provide an opportunity for the audience to learn from the panelists’ experiences and brainstorm new and significant ways to be supportive and serve as allies to their colleagues of color.
Each panelist will have 3 minutes to respond to each prompt; the remainder of the session will consist of discussion between the panelists and the audience.


Reference
Ceja Alcalá, J., Colón-Aguirre, M., Cooke, N. A., & Stewart, B. (2017). A Critical Dialogue: Faculty of Color in Library and Information Science. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 13(2). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1gq2s8q5


Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Cotton Creek I

2:30pm

Technical Services Education SIG: Expanding Technical Services Education: From Cataloging and Classification to Electronic Resources and Information Infrastructure Development
Four presentations by an expert group of LIS educators and practitioners provide perspectives on the future of technical services education. Presentations will cover new perspectives on and practices in traditional technical services topics of cataloging and classification as well as new areas into which technical services education is expanding.
(1) Expanding the Universe of Cataloging Education: No Crystal Ball Required, presented by Karen Snow, Gretchen Hoffman, Maurine McCourry, and Heather Moulaison-Sandy
It seems that the boundaries of the current information organization universe expand every day: new standards, linked data, automated and user-generated metadata – the list goes on and on. At the same time, traditional cataloging standards and practices remain and continue to evolve over time due to shifting user information needs and emerging technologies. Catalogers must adapt to these changes, but also exercise caution to avoid succumbing to fly-by-night trends.  Boundary-expansion can be overwhelming for catalogers who must keep up with the old and the new, but it also offers exciting opportunities and new ways of approaching traditional cataloging standards and practices.  Those who perform cataloging work know that it can be fun and intellectually stimulating, but cataloging has been and continues to be viewed by some as an “undesirable occupation” – boring, resistant to change, details-obsessed, and a professional dead end. This perception can thwart catalogers seeking to push boundaries and convince stakeholders of the importance of cataloging work.
The above concerns are also shared by cataloging educators who must prepare new catalogers for the current information environment while ensuring that they can survive and thrive in the unknown future.  How can cataloging educators best prepare LIS school graduates to successfully navigate this expanded information organization universe while also convincing them that cataloging is far from dry and dull?  No crystal ball is required! For the Technical Services Education SIG session, a panel of cataloging educators will recommend ways of educating the next generation of catalogers who must engage with standards and stakeholders beyond what is found in traditional information centers.  Using references such as the new ALCTS Competencies for Cataloging and Metadata Professionals document (Cataloging Competencies Task Force, 2017) and Re-Envisioning the MLS , the white paper published by the University of Maryland’s iSchool in 2015 (Bertot, Sarin, & Percell, 2015) the panel will discuss how cataloging and cataloging education have evolved, and explain the importance of obtaining competencies beyond simply learning and using library standards, such as Resource Description & Access (RDA) and MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), to remain relevant in a rapidly changing information society.
Cataloging Competencies Task Force. (2017). Core competencies for cataloging and metadata professional librarians . Retrieved July 13, 2017 from http://hdl.handle.net/11213/7853
Bertot, J. C., Sarin, L. C., & Percell, J. (2015). Re-envisioning the MLS: Findings, issues, and considerations. Retrieved July 13, 2017 from http://mls.umd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ReEnvisioningFinalReport.pdf 
   
(2) Expanding Classification: LIS Education Asks Why and How to Undo Dewey, presented by Sue Kimmel.
Genre-fying fiction collections has become a very popular alternative in school libraries and has created a stir in the literature with an issue of the AASL membership journal, Knowledge Quest dedicated to the “Dewey Debate” (Nov./Dec. 2013). Pre-service youth librarians are often attracted to alternative classification systems such as “genre-fying.” In our coursework, we address these alternatives in our introductory course as a current issue and in our Technical Services course as an alternative to the Dewey Decimal System. Often our students find themselves in practicum placements where they assist with genre-fying, and many of our graduates report to us that they have re-classified their fiction collections by genre. The problem for this research and for us as instructors and for our students: a lack of guidance about why and how to make this change, the kinds of questions that need to be considered in the short and long term before making such a change, and the impacts intended and unintended on users. 
In this case study, staff at a small, rural public library changed the arrangement of the children’s collection to better serve the knowledge needs of users: children and their caregivers. Library staff members were interviewed before and after the change about the decisions they made, the process of making the changes and the experience of introducing the change to the community. A snowball technique was employed to identify other community stakeholders impacted by the change. Additionally the researcher was a participant helping to sticker and re-shelve books and spending numerous hours observing use of the collection before and after the change.Findings from this study will be shared using a theoretical perspective that considers a classification system as a “boundary object” between librarians and users (Albrechtsen & Jacob, 1998); one that is responsive to the information needs and interests of users, in this case: children and their caregivers. A sociocultural perspective is employed to uncover the community impacts of this reclassification.
Albrechtsen, H. & Jacob, E. K. (1998). The dynamics of classification systems as boundary objects for cooperation in the electronic library. Library Trends 47 (2) 293-312.


(3) Electronic Resources Related Curricula at Accredited Library and Information Science Programs presented by Cris Ferguson.
A review of the literature surrounding technical services curricula at library and information science programs in the U.S. raises questions as to the degree to which electronic resources are formally addressed as part of graduate level programs. It is not clear 1) whether any courses are specifically devoted to electronic resources are offered and 2) what LIS courses on continuing resources, acquisitions, and technical services cover in relation to electronic resources.  Answers to these questions will be explored in this presentation. Results presented will include the degree to which electronic resources are being addressed as part of technical services curricula based on an investigation of the course and catalog offerings at accredited LIS degree program and whether or not technical services related courses cover the subject of electronic resources based on an examination of syllabi for technical services related courses for the occurrence of the keywords “electronic resources” or “e-resources.”
Electronic resources are a rapidly evolving and ever changing field, and any course teaching the subject would necessarily need to evolve just as rapidly.  Recommendations for further areas of research could include alternative methods for addressing electronic resources education outside of a traditional LIS course, such as internships and practicum experiences. 
 
(4) Incorporating Human-centered Design as part of an Expansive LIS Technical Services Education Fit to Digital Information Infrastructure Development, presented by John D’Ignazio
Based on the literature and field developments, there are several approaches to digital curation that have reached maturity. The most prevalent regards digital repository appearance and growth as a natural occurrence—part of the information infrastructure of modern business and research environments. This infrastructure is built through the combined efforts of technologists and domain specialists. If digital curators are involved, they evaluate post facto the repositories’ large-scale operation and impact (Rajesekar & Moore, 2001; Marcial & Hemminger, 2010). This approach leaves a gap that is problematic given the missing expertise tha


Thursday February 8, 2018 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Cotton Creek II

3:30pm

4:00pm

Afternoon Break
Thursday February 8, 2018 4:00pm - 4:30pm
Foyer

4:00pm

Focus Group: Planning the New Edition of Rubin's Foundations of Library and Information Science
Much has happened since the current edition of this benchmark text was published in 2016. Today's LIS professionals are experiencing both excitement and trepidation as sweeping societal, technological, political, and economic changes affect our users and institutions and transform our discipline. As well, there has been a transformation in the way core courses in library and information studies are being taught, and how future--and current--professionals envision their careers in this field. The LIS profession demands constant growth, continuous learning, and open minds. We invite all interested attendees of ALISE 2018 to come to this informal session and share your thoughts with author Rick Rubin on how a new edition of Foundations can continue to help you provide students with a firm foundation of knowledge of the many facets of the discipline and its many futures.


Thursday February 8, 2018 4:00pm - 5:00pm
Meadowbrook I

4:00pm

4:30pm

6:15pm

ALISE Kick-off to 2019
Thursday February 8, 2018 6:15pm - 6:30pm
Westminster I-II

7:00pm

Doctoral Student Research Poster Session and Reception
hors d’oeuvres  and cash bar

Thursday February 8, 2018 7:00pm - 8:30pm
Westminster I-IV
 
Friday, February 9
 

7:30am

All Conference Continental Breakfast
Friday February 9, 2018 7:30am - 8:30am
Foyer

7:30am

SIG Business Meeting IV
International Library Education SIG
Distance Education SIG

Friday February 9, 2018 7:30am - 8:30am
Standley II

7:30am

Registration
Friday February 9, 2018 7:30am - 12:00pm
Foyer

8:00am

Exhibits
Friday February 9, 2018 8:00am - 12:00pm
Foyer

8:00am

8:00am

unCommons
Friday February 9, 2018 8:00am - 12:00pm
Windsor

8:30am

Session 7.3 Juried Panel: Teaching Research Methods in LIS Programs: Approaches, Formats, and Innovative Strategies.
This panel session features LIS faculty members exchanging information about their research methods courses, and discussing approaches ensuring that courses deliver both core knowledge and practically relevant skills. Panelists will present how research methods courses are taught in their respective LIS curricula with regard to whether it is required or elective, prerequisites, textbooks, delivery format, and assignments/projects. With emerging positions in UX, data science, and assessment librarianship, it is essential for LIS educators to understand how core knowledge areas are taught, and explore ways of incorporating emerging content areas, tools and approaches into the research methods pedagogy. 


Friday February 9, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Standley I

8:30am

Session 7.4 Juried Panel: Autism Spectrum Disorder and iSchools: Expanding the Possibilities through Research.
LIS researchers and practitioners have a long history of working to understand and serve the needs of their communities. The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a neurodevelopmental disorder marked by social and communicative impairments, now measured at approximately 1 in 68 children (Baio, 2014), makes this is a growing segment of every community, whose specific needs are yet to be adequately addressed.
Recognizing the need for research in this area, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) recently awarded grants to two iSchools to study the intersection of information services and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This interactive panel will describe what researchers are doing to address information needs and improve services for those with and impacted by autism. Additionally, this panel seeks to increase awareness among LIS educators of the complexities of serving this growing population, as well as the importance of including it in library school curricula.
Florida State University. At FSU, a multidisciplinary team is working to develop evidence based strategies for academic librarians and library staff to better serve college students with ASD – Project A+.
Building on the work accomplished within a previous IMLS funded grant, Project PALS, a series of online training modules to educate librarians about ASD, and addressing the need for strategies specifically for the higher education environment as initially explored in Dr. Anderson’s dissertation (Anderson, 2016), Project A+ is working with three academic libraries to determine best practices in educating academic librarians about college students on the autism spectrum.
The results will be incorporated into an online implementation guide for librarians that will include step-by-step instructions for making the library more conducive for students with ASD, allowing for broad impact and the potential to influence and enhance practice in all types of libraries. Voices of students with ASD will figure prominently as they are surveyed and interviewed as part of Project A+, as will voices of librarians who identify as having ASD, currently serving on the A+ advisory board and vetting all content prior to dissemination.
This project has relevance for current practice in the enhancement of library programs, facilities, and services to students with ASD. The identified audiences for the resulting research findings and implementation guide include professional librarians, LIS students and educators, and researchers – but, the ultimate beneficiaries will be students with ASD themselves.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Gibson’s current IMLS funded Career project: Deconstructing Information Poverty: Identifying, Supporting, and Leveraging Local Expertise in Marginalized Communities focuses on integrating critical disability, race and gender theory into an updated model of information poverty, and using this model to inform library approaches to integration of people with ASD into library planning and programming. The project is being done in partnership with the Durham Public Library, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library, and the Autism Society of North Carolina (ASNC).
The project builds on a previous study on the information needs and information source choices of parents of individuals with Autism in North Carolina (Gibson, 2017), which showed that very few of these parents use libraries to help them meet what they considered important information needs related to their children with ASD. Despite parents’ fears about their own information literacy (and their fear of searching for information about ASD on the internet), few parents considered libraries a trustworthy source for information or health information literacy training. 
The current project engages individuals with ASD, their families, and library staff in interviews and focus groups about information needs, seeking and sharing. It also facilitates and records the process of planning a series of local public events addressing information needs identified among local library staff and ASD community. The study will yield practical information about information needs of people with ASD and their families, important information sources, a description of conditions that support information access or poverty in the study communities, and a guide for community assessment and local parent engagement. Interview and evaluation data will also be used to extend the scope of the study impact, and support development of a rich, intersectional theoretical model of information poverty that explicitly acknowledges place, community, and the needs of local, marginalized groups.
PANELISTS
Amelia Anderson. Dr. Amelia Anderson, project coordinator for Project A+, is a postdoctoral researcher at FSU’s iSchool. Dr. Anderson’s research focuses on young adults with ASD, including their experiences in the academic library as well as their communication in the online environment. Dr. Anderson served as the research assistant for Project PALS, A Laura Bush Professional Development IMLS grant that developed four online training modules for librarians and library staff to learn how to better serve their users on the autism spectrum. 
Amelia Gibson.   Dr. Amelia Gibson is an Assistant Professor at the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her primary research interests center on health information behavior, local communities as information systems, and information poverty among marginalized groups. Dr. Gibson also served as PI for the Healthy Girls Know project, which explores health information seeking among Black and Latina teen girls, and the Disability Lines project, which explored information access and poverty among parents of individuals with Down syndrome and Autism. 
Paul Wyss. Dr. Paul Wyss is the Distance Learning Librarian at Minnesota State University Mankato.  He earned his M.L.S. at Indiana University and his Ed.D at the University of South Dakota.  He received an Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis in 2007 and now devotes many of his energies toward informing those in academia of what it takes to be successful in higher education with an ASD. He serves on the Project A+ Advisory Board.
Charlie Remy. Charlie Remy is the Electronic Resources & Serials Librarian/Assistant Professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Being on the autism spectrum himself, he is interested in how libraries can better serve the autistic population (both patrons and employees). He holds an MSLIS from Simmons College and a BA from Elon University. He serves on the Project A+ Advisory Board.


Friday February 9, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Standley II

8:30am

Session 7.1A - Juried Papers: The Expanding LIS Education Universe: A combined degree program for translation and information science.
Information professionals from all sectors are increasingly likely to encounter situations where knowledge of a foreign language might be useful; however, at present, few LIS programs incorporate language courses. We present a proposal for a Combined Degree Program (CDP) that will allow students to receive a BA in Translation and a Master of Information Studies within a reduced time period by allowing a limited number of identified program credits to count towards both programs. While translation and LIS might not appear to have much in common, we demonstrate that there is actually considerable overlap and complementarity as regards research, teaching and practice, thus making a CDP an attractive proposition.






Friday February 9, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook I

8:30am

Session 7.1B - Juried Papers: Developing a framework for educating and training mid-career LIS professionals.
Library and information science (LIS) programs have traditionally focused on post-graduate education, making a conversion Master’s degree following a Bachelor's degree in any subject the standard entry-level professional qualification, particularly in North America. In a recent article, Chawner and Oliver (2016) identified alternative models to this type of qualification, in part to meet the challenges and changing demands of the field. The lack of advanced qualifications offered through traditional LIS programs may not be meeting the needs of individuals looking for new positions or new challenges (La Chapelle & Wark, 2014; Peet, 2017). In addition, this situation also presents an opportunity for LIS programs to work with professional organizations and other stakeholders to expand LIS education opportunities using a more formalized process. There has been limited discussion about what the LIS profession needs for further professional development, and even less discussion about what qualifications, skills, and knowledge an LIS professional needs when moving into mid- and late-career positions(Lyon et al, 2014;  Rafiq & Arif, 2017).  At the moment, LIS professionals interested in expanding their knowledge and skills following their initial qualification have access to a range of formal and informal educational experiences that offer varying levels of learning opportunities. In this paper, we use the term ‘formal education’ when referring to traditional LIS education involving direct interaction between teachers and learners. ‘Informal education’ includes flexible learning opportunities often offered through the Internet in the form of self-paced courses. In addition to formal and informal education, training, or the development of new and improved skills, also plays a part in professional development.


Friday February 9, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook I

8:30am

Session 7.2A - Juried Papers: Approach to Harmonization of Entry Requirements for Graduate Program in Information Science at European Higher Institutions: EINFOSE project.
Various aspects of harmonization at European Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that offer programs in Library and Information Studies (LIS) have been studied since early 1990s. Since 2004-05 – when a project on Curriculum Development was funded through Erasmus program – up to 2016, there were no projects on education in Library and Information Science funded by European Union. The main goal of this paper is to present and discuss the results after the first year of the Erasmus plus project entitled European Information Science Education: Encouraging Mobility and Learning Outcomes Harmonization (EINFOSE).  


Friday February 9, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook II

8:30am

Session 7.2B - Juried Papers: Building Connections between LIS Graduate Students and Undergraduates: A Case Study in Curricular Engagement.
This paper considers how LIS graduate programs can expand their reach through greater engagement with undergraduate students. The author uses a case study approach to experiment with connecting graduate and undergraduate students via an experiential learning project and suggests that there were perceived benefits for both student groups in doing so. This paper is intended to initiate a dialogue about deepening LIS graduate programs' connections with undergraduate students. It provides a broader look ways in which other professional graduate programs engage undergraduate students through curriculum or other means, considers the benefits in doing so, and highlights approaches through which LIS graduate programs can facilitate this engagement.


Friday February 9, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Meadowbrook II

8:30am

International Library Education SIG: Within and Without: International Aspects of LIS Education
This session will address issues affecting LIS education and the future role of libraries, with perspectives from within North America and from other parts of the world. Many of the issues we face are the same, although different regions of the world and specific countries often face unique challenges that have given birth to innovative solutions that can be used or adapted to great advantage in other circumstances. The faculty on the panel are of diverse national origin with wide experience of teaching and learning in the library science curriculum.


Friday February 9, 2018 8:30am - 10:00am
Cotton Creek I

10:00am

Morning Break
Friday February 9, 2018 10:00am - 10:30am
Foyer

10:30am

12:00pm

Board of Directors Meeting
Closed Board of Directors meeting

Friday February 9, 2018 12:00pm - 3:00pm
Westin Boardroom