Transcript Seeking Serendipity with Summon

Seeking Serendipity
with Summon
Jennifer DeJonghe, Michelle Filkins and Alec Sonsteby
Metropolitan State University
Agenda
• Our implementation and branding of Summon
• Usability studies of discovery tools
• Getting buy-in/demonstrating value
• Break
• Hands-on activity
• Educational opportunities
• Ways to change reference and teaching
• Q&A
Discovery
• A discovery tool is a unified index. It includes scholarly
content that you subscribe to and local content like a
catalog.
• A discovery tool is not federated search. It does not
“search databases”. It is an index of content that may or
align with your database subscriptions. Focus on full text.
• Faster, more relevant, higher maintenance
• Summon, EBSCO Discovery Service, WorldCat Local,
Primo. VuFind (catalog layer).
• Questions?
Why?
• Usability testing
of website and
LibGuides
• Experience at
reference desk
Success!
Fail
• Current system =
broken
Task: Locate a journal article on the topic
of computer science.
Implementation: Metro State
Timeline
•
Metro State’s implementation team: Two reference & instruction
librarians and the assistant director of technical services. Web and
eresource expertise.
•
Started meeting in late August 2012.
•
Meet once weekly during fall semester.
•
Sharing and transparency: Reported progress at biweekly
librarians’ meetings.
•
Soft launch of Summon/One Search: October 31, 2012.
•
Staff training: Third week of February 2013
•
Official launch: Last week of February 2013
Implementation: The Index
• “A discovery tool is supposed to make all of the resources
available to the library ‘discoverable’. What are all of the
resources? This question is at the heart of the planning
process” (Brennan, 2012, p. 47).
• Time-consuming process: Determining what resources,
i.e., databases, to include in index. “Non-bibliographic”
and primary source databases problematic.
• Also time-consuming: Verifying subscriptions and
holdings of individual e-journal subscriptions and ereference sources.
Implementation: The Index
• Two other considerations (Welch, 2012)
• Patron-driven acquisitions placeholder records
• Con: May increase price of discovery service.
• Con: Requires two-step process of adding and deleting
records in the catalog and in the index.
• Open access publications
• Con: OA records may “dilute” the records for the library’s
paid resources.
• Metro State: Selectively turned some “on,” e.g. National
Academies publications.
Implementation: The Index
• Items not in the index risk becoming orphans,
“particularly if the library promotes the discovery
service as the primary method of accessing its
collections” (Welch, 2012, p. 326).
• Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
Talk to vendors/publishers
Subject guides
A-Z list of resources
User education
Database recommender system
Implementation: Data
Integrity (Brennan, 2012)
• Quality of metadata harvested by discovery tool?
• Proper mapping between discovery tool’s facets and
corresponding fields and terms in harvested records.
• Metro State: Spreadsheet/worksheet.
• How often is data refreshed, e.g., adds and deletes?
• Metro State: Catalog records four times daily.
• Local availability data: Real-time or delay?
Implementation:
Interoperability
• How well can your authentication system, e.g.,
proxy server, and link resolver interoperate with
your discovery tool? (Brennan, 2012)
• Metro State: EZproxy and 360 Link (SerSol product)
Implementation:
Customization
• Customizing and branding options (Brennan, 2012)
• Metro State: Main logo, link at top, inclusion of
LibraryH3lp chat widget. Few other options in
Summon.
• Labels and terminology (Welch, 2012)
• Metro State: Some options available, but nothing has
been changed yet.
• Authentication (Welch, 2012)
• Metro State: Pre-authenticate or not? ArtStor issue.
Alumni and ILL service.
Implementation: Branding
• What to call it?
• Library One Search
• Clear meaning
• But not quite true
• Very common name in the literature
Implementation: Library
Homepage
Implementation: One Search
Homepage
Implementation: LibGuides
Marketing: Soft Launch
• Notes to liaisons
• Facebook announcement (promoted post)
Marketing: Social Media
Marketing: Official Launch
• Facebook announcement
• LMS announcement
• Student and faculty/staff newsletters
• Library newsletter
Marketing: Social Media
Marketing: LMS
Marketing: University
Newsletters
Marketing: University Newsletters
Marketing: Library Newsletter
Usability
• Metro State: No studies conducted—yet.
• Univ. System of MD (USMAI) (Holman et al.,
2012)
• Interface: Users failed to recognize “visual cues such
as format icons or full-text availability” (p. 260).
• Search: Irrelevant results. Users did not see suggested
spellings.
• Facets: Half of users “did not engage with facets” (p.
260). (But half did!)
• Save Features: Few used at all.
Usability
• Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia (Gross &
Sheridan, 2011)
• Users “had no problems getting started” (p. 242).
• Did have trouble “interpreting the… results and
understanding the differences between different
formats.”
• “…a greater information literacy focus on evaluation of
information is required” (p. 245).
Usability: Common Themes
•
Relevance algorithm still needs some work (Holman et al., 2012;
NSCU, 201; DeFelice et al., 2009)
•
Users are disappointed that not all items are available online, an
expectation heighted by the tool itself (Howard & Wiebrands,
2011; Ford, 2010; DeFelice et al., 2009)
•
Users can’t distinguish among types of materials (Holman et al.,
2012; Gross & Sheridan, 2011)
•
Users don’t see or deeply engage with facets (Holman et al, 2012;
Ford, 2010)
•
Users like the single search option offered by Summon (Howard
& Wiebrands, 2011; NSCU, 2010; Sharman & Hiller, 2011; Ford,
2010; DeFelice et al., 2009)
Usability: Some Instruments
• Gross & Sheridan, 2011
• Fagan et al., 2012
Not Usability, but Perceptions
Compiled from feedback from students in credit-bearing information literacy courses at Metropolitan State.
•
I really enjoyed using the One Search Metro State Library Search Engine, there is just so much
information to choose from. I found articles that were not even in my specific topic area that I plan to
read when I can find a little free time. Google Scholar for me is nothing to write home about its not
terrible but not excellent either.
•
I am going to follow a common theme and say after using Google Scholar and One Search, I prefer
One Search. I don't know if it may be because I've become to comfortable with it that I can just find more
specific things easier now or not, but I found it to be easier for me to find better info.
•
I like the ‘One Search box,’ it was much easier and the articles was easy to be find. It narrow down to
specific catalogues. I found, ‘Search by subject,’ was complicated and hard to organize of which
subject goes for Mentoring. Google Search was also easily used but I have to search for the articles that I
need. Overall, all the search tool was easy to used and nothing seems difficult.
•
I agree with you about One Search. I found it to be much easier to find articles. I think with more
practice on Google Scholar it could become just as easy.
•
After using all three of the resources, I liked using the OneSearch box on the library homepage the
most. This resource was easy and it helped me find reliable articles for my final project topic. Google
Scholar worked better than I had expected it to as well.
Return on Investment
• Pro
• Materials that are easily discovered will get greater use
(Vaughn, 2011)
• Increased usage makes the investment in library resources
more justifiable to administrators
• Con (?)
• Decreased use of subject databases could mean that
specialized resources become underutilized
• Some librarians fear Summon could encourage the use of
“good enough” sources, undermining the value of library
collections (Buck & Mellinger, 2011)
Impact on Collection Usage
Significant increase in full text downloads
and link resolver click-throughs:
• Grand Valley State University (Way, 2012)
• 66% increase in downloads from top 5,000 journals totaling
81,371 click-throughs in first semester of implementation
• University of Texas at San Antonio (Kemp, 2012)
• Link resolver use increased 84%, full text downloads
increased 23% in first year
Impact on Collection Usage
Unclear impact on circulation:
• Grand Valley State University (Way, 2012)
• Users found and selected monographs via Summon
• University of Texas at San Antonio (Kemp, 2012)
• -13.7% direct catalog usage first year after
implementation, -3% circulation
Impact on Collection Usage
Significant increase in newspaper access
and downloads:
• Grand Valley State University (Way, 2012)
• NY Times use increased 202%, local newspaper Grand
Rapids Press use increased 400%. Increased access of other
newspaper titles.
Impact on Collection Usage
Decrease in use of indexing and abstracting
databases:
• Grand Valley State University (Way, 2012)
• Large drop in use regardless of platform, subject, or
discipline
• University of Texas at San Antonio (Kemp, 2012)
• -5% first year after implementation
Impact on Collection Usage
Initial numbers from Metropolitan State after Summon One
Search implementation:
• Project Muse
• 3,414 FT article requests
• 1,594 in Q4 = 46.7% of total
• ScienceDirect
• 4,642 FT article requests
• 2,840 in Q4 = 61.2% of total
• 1,456 just in November
• 31.4% of the annual total in the first month after Summon
Planning and
Implementation
Dahl and MacDonald (2012) suggest that discovery
tools are a disruptive technology:
• Expect some resistance from staff
• May receive resistance from users
• Catalogs and indexes were designed for librarians
and scholars; discovery tools are designed for library
users
Planning and
Implementation
•
Strategies that can positively impact staff buy-in:
• Build trust through transparency and shared information
(Boyer & Besaw, 2012; Dahl & MacDonald, 2012)
• Clarify how tool fits the mission and vision of the library
(Mandernach & Fagan, 2012)
• Involve staff in all areas of the library in the initial planning
and implementation process (Dahl & MacDonald, 2012)
• Develop a strategy for implementation (Boyer & Besaw, 2012;
Dahl and MacDonald, 2012)
• Training in initial stages of implementation (Boyer & Besaw,
2012; Dahl & MacDonald, 2012)
Planning and
Implementation
Reasons for resistance by librarians:
•
Carryover from disappointment in federated search tools (Boyer & Besaw,
2012)
•
Dissatisfaction/lack of confidence in comprehensiveness and quality of
search results (Boyer & Besaw, 2012; Breitbach, 2012)
•
Not sure what content is being searched (Dahl & MacDonald, 2012)
•
Devalues subject specific metadata (Breitbach, 2012)
•
Perceived compromise in authority and consistency (Boyer & Besaw, 2012;
Breitbach, 2012)
•
Think large results sets will overwhelm users
•
Frustration with “perpetual beta state” (Dahl & MacDonald, 2012)
Planning and
Implementation
Reasons for resistance by librarians, continued:
•
Correlation between years of experience and preference for
traditional library tools (Dahl & MacDonald, 2012)
•
Reference staff feel “forced” to teach discovery tool due to
placement on website or default search setting on homepage
•
Sense that web-scale discovery does not help distinguish libraries
from Google (Breitbach, 2012)
•
Anxiety about job (cataloger or reference) becoming less necessary
(Dahl & MacDonald, 2012)
Assuring Successful
Implementation
Mandernach and Fagan (2012) suggest three critical
considerations that should inform approach:
1. Consider and plan for impact on key library
departments
2. Develop training for staff as well as end users
3. Monitor and assess tool’s performance and
integration
Questions?
Break
Activity:
Comparing Search Results
www.metrostate.edu/library
Advantages for Users and
Implications for Info. Lit.
•
Discovery is cross disciplinary/reduces silos
•
Searches across content types, locations, and publishers
•
Better access to full text, more intuitive, saves time (4th Law)
•
Serendipity/“gateway to creative exploration” (Race, 2012)
•
“Zone of curiosity,” juxtaposition, play, meaning (Borowske, 2005)
•
End users only need to learn one interface
•
Better transition to life after school
•
Good enough/satisficing. Users know value of library but still choose
Google for ease of use (Cmor et al., 2010)
•
Less need for mediation. Empowering
Advantages for Librarians
• Less teaching to the tool... less “click here, do that” (Cmor,
2012)
• Less time on Boolean and specialized database “tricks”
• Ability to showcase valuable “hidden” content and collections
• More time to focus on “higher level” skills:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research as an iterative process
Search refinement
Content and source selection, scholarly vs. popular
Source evaluation
Choosing keywords, broadening and narrowing
Synthesis
How Does Discovery Foster
Serendipity?
• Serendipity means a "happy accident" or "pleasant
surprise"; specifically, the accident of finding something
good or useful while not specifically searching for it.
(Wikipedia)
• Old: Browsing books
• Stimulates creativity, helps create novel connections and
frameworks. Messy, unpredictable, personal (Race 2012). User
brings themselves to the search
• Discovery Tools and Serendipity
• “Large result sets stimulate accidental information discovery”
(Race, 2012). Challenge your assumptions!
• Facets aid exploration, recursive searching (Race, 2012)
• Serendipity more likely to occur in informal environments than
in highly controlled systems (McBirnie, 2008)
Strategies: BIs
• Stop teaching the catalog(?) Teach discovery first
• Think about needs of class – what level in school/subject
of study? Type of assignment? Are specialized databases
necessary? Can you scaffold?
• Use broad keyword searches, teach refining with facets,
“pearling” or “following the tracings”
• Emphasize critical thinking and evaluation
• Use subject guides in conjunction for advanced users(?)
• The hope is that you don’t need to just add it on to
everything else you do… use your imagination!
Beyond the Basics (CreditBearing Courses)
• Use facets as a way to teach information cycle and
different formats (Fawley & Krysak, 2012)
• Use option to “search beyond collection” to teach
Interlibrary Loan
• Stop teaching mechanics of citations (?)
• Talk about the important ways Summon is different
than Google
• Use hands on, comparative exercises. When you see
failure, don’t fix the lesson, fix the tool
Reference Desk
•
Document for yourself – what works well? For which subjects? Keep a record at the
desk. Watch the student. Test your assumptions re: their level of expertise
•
Try discovery first: you might be surprised at the databases you find results in. Try
known item searching, it works better than you might expect, and is perhaps an
improvement to what you taught before
•
What message do you send when you show complex search “tricks”? Can your users
repeat them?
•
Reference interview – what has the user tried already? Did they use disovery?
•
e-reference books often near the top of results, giving them more exposure
•
Break the bad library assignment (but facets can help when you get them anyway)
•
Reduce anxiety = foster creativity
Final Thoughts
• Focus on the end user, not the discovery tool
“innards”. How did your old way work? Did students
know where they were before? What is your end goal?
• Be careful what you wish for:
your “fixes” could break the tool
• Have an open, flexible mind
• Be curious
• Have fun!
CC by JamesJen
References
Borowske, K. (2005). Curiosity and motivation-to-learn. Paper presented at the ACRL Twelfth
National Conference. Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from
http://three.umfglobal.org/resources/1976/curiosity_article.pdf
Brennan, D. P. (2012). Details, details, details: Issues in planning for, implementing, and using
resource discovery tools. In M. P. Popp & D. Dallis (Eds.). Planning and implementing resource
discovery tools in academic libraries (pp. 44-56). Hershey PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-46661821-3.ch003
Buck, S. & Mellinger, M. (2011): The impact of Serial Solutions’ Summon on information
literacy instruction: Librarian perceptions. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 16(4), 159-181.
doi:10.1080/10875301.2011.621864
Cmor, D., & Li, X. (2012). Beyond Boolean, towards thinking: Discovery systems and
information literacy. Library Management, 33(8) 450-457. doi:10.1108/01435121211279812
Cmor, D., Chan, A., & Kong, T. (2010). Course-integrated learning outcomes for library
database searching: Three assessment points on the path of evidence. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 5(1), 64-68.
References
Dahl, D., & MacDonald, P. (2012). Implementation and acceptance of a discovery tool:
Lessons learned. In M. P. Popp & D. Dallis (Eds.). Planning and implementing resource discovery
tools in academic libraries (pp. 366-387). Hershey PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-18213.ch021
DeFelice, B., et al. (2009). An evaluation of Serials Solutions Summon as a discovery tool for the
Dartmouth College Library. Retrieved from
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/admin/docs/Summon_Report.pdf
Fagan, J. C., Mandernach, M., Nelson, C. S., Paulo, J. R., & Saunders, G. (2012). Usability test
results for a discovery tool in an academic library. Information Technology and Libraries, 31(1), 83112. doi:10.6017/ital.v31i1.1855
Fawley, N., & Krysak, N. (2012). Information literacy opportunities within the discovery tool
environment. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 19(2-4), 207-214.
doi:10.1080/10691316.2012.693439
Ford, L. (2010). Better than Google Scholar? Presented at Internet Librarian 2010. Retrieved from
http://conferences.infotoday.com/documents/111/a105_ford.pdf
References
Gross, J., & Sheridan, L. (2011). Web scale discovery: The user experience. New Library World,
112(5/6), 236-247. doi:10.1108/03074801111136275
Holman, L., et al. (2012). How users approach discovery tools. In M. P. Popp & D. Dallis
(Eds.). Planning and implementing resource discovery tools in academic libraries (pp. 252-265).
Hershey PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1821-3.ch014
Howard, D., & Wiebrands, C. (2011). Culture shock: Librarians’ response to web scale search.
Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7208?context=ecuworks
Kemp, J. (2012). Does web scale discovery make a difference? Changes in collections use after
implementing Summon. In M. P. Popp & D. Dallis (Eds.). Planning and implementing resource
discovery tools in academic libraries (pp. 456-468). Hershey PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-14666-1821-3.ch026
Mandernach, M. & Fagan, J. C. (2012). Creating organizational buy-in: Overcoming
challenges to a library-wide discovery tool implementation. In M. P. Popp & D. Dallis (Eds.).
Planning and implementing resource discovery tools in academic libraries (pp. 419-437). Hershey PA:
IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1821-3.ch024
McBirnie, A. (2008). Seeking serendipity: The paradox of control. Aslib Proceedings: New
Information Perspectives, 60(6), 600-618. doi:10.1108/0001253081/0924294
References
North Carolina State University. (2010). Summon usability testing. Retrieved from
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/userstudies/studies/2010_summon/
Race, T. (2012). Resource discovery tools: Supporting serendipity. In M. P. Popp & D. Dallis
(Eds.). Planning and implementing resource discovery tools in academic libraries (pp. 139-152).
Hershey PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1821-3.ch009
Sharman, A., & Hiller, E. (2011). Implementation of Summon at the University of
Huddersfield. SCONUL Focus, 51, 50-52.
Thomsett-Scott B., & Reese, P. (2012). Academic libraries and discovery tools: A survey of the
literature. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 19, 123-143. doi:10.1080/10691316.2012.697009
Way, D. (2010). The impact of web-scale discovery on the use of a library collection. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/library_sp/9
Welch, A. J. (2012). Implementing library discovery: A balancing act. In M. P. Popp & D.
Dallis (Eds.). Planning and implementing resource discovery tools in academic libraries (pp. 322-337).
Hershey PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1821-3.ch018
Thank You!
• Questions or comments? Please write us!
• Jennifer DeJonghe
<[email protected]>
• Michelle Filkins <[email protected]>
• Alec Sonsteby <[email protected]>